Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 17

Discussion on wording
Title refactored due to violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; I have no such 'inability'.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to Daedalus969's inability to accept statement by multiple reliable sources I had to revert to what sources actually say: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=397932070&oldid=397894527

"It is beyond scientific dispute that the factors that account for the adjustment of children and adolescents are the quality of the youths’ relationships with their parents, the quality of the relationship between the parents or significant adults in the youths’ lives, and the availability of economic and socio-emotional resources. These factors affect adjustment in both traditional and nontraditional families. The parents’ sex or sexual orientation does not affect the capacity to be good parents or their children’s healthy development. The social science literature overwhelmingly rejects the notion that there is an optimal gender mix of parents or that children and adolescents with same-sex parents suffer any developmental disadvantages compared with those with two opposite-sex parents." http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf

As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption." http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf

"The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology." https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

"Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents." http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf

The following Wikipedia fundamental policies is obviously mandatory here:

Neutral point of view: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

Neutral point of view/FAQ: "Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require an inline qualifier, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the goal of ASF. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none."

Wikipedia editors must not to be so much irrational to label facts supported by the multiple reliable sources about which there is no serious dispute as a POV. --Destinero (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I've refactored the title, as it was uncivil and attacked me directly, stating that I had an inability to read sources. BRD, as you so cite in your edit summary, does not mean slander the other party and insult them, it means take matters to the talk page, and do it in a civil manner.
 * Thanks for assuming bad faith, edit warring, and choosing to attack me in your 'opening statement', but let me clarify a few things for you first: I read the sources, don't insinuate otherwise; consensus is a term referring to general agreement that several parties hold over a matter, while conclusion refers to the end result of an experiment, study, or debate by one party. Thus, in this case, consensus is the correct term, as it reflects a broader view, instead of a narrow, singular conclusion.  You may have forgotten another relevant policy in your reversion.. or it may be a guideline.. but it isn't the point what it is, what the point is is that we do not copy word-for-word of sources; we paraphrase, and especially since there are several different sources here, using the wording of one doesn't exactly fly.
 * Oh, and don't quote policy at me; I know it quite well enough.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. It is not up to you to change a fact sourced by multiple reliable expert bodies, since it becomes your original research: WP:ORIGINAL Why do you think just you are better suited to state the consensus is better term when it is clear there cannot exists any other conclusion, since no research support that and all the research support presented conclusion conclusively? "Well, I think those articles are representative of a much larger body of research focused on this question documenting very conclusively that children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. That's a conclusion that has been documented in studies using, as I said, a variety of methods, a variety of ways of obtaining samples, asking different sorts of questions about various aspects of adjustment involving children and adolescents of different ages. And the conclusiveness of that evidence is, in my mind, further supported by the fact that the results obtained in the studies that involve gay and lesbian parents are completely consistent with our broader understanding of the factors that affect children's adjustment, as I explained at the beginning of my testimony."http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010-01-15-Perry-Trial-Day-05-Lamb-Zia-mini.pdf
 * 2. It is not up to you to define the word conclusion, but up to the educated, experienced and recognized lexicographers with use of text corpus to carefully examine how is the word being used: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion?show=0&t=1290357257 http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0170240#m_en_gb0170240
 * 3. If you are unable to come up with the reliable expert sources documenting the diputes over the conclusion of decades of research on parenting, don't change the conclusion to consensus to create the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none, which is prohibited by Neutral point of view/FAQ. In fact you are unable to do so.
 * 4. I've explained broadly why it is strongly needed to refresh the fundamental Wikipedia policies to you, since you are obviously ignoring them. Thus, please, don't revert things you obviously do not understand enough. --Destinero (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are already topic banned from making specific changes on this article, and yet you persist in incivilities and personal attacks. Shall I take your behavior to ANI?  You don't really know shit about what I 'do not understand', so you are not allowed to say 'I obviously don't understand the relevant policies' or that I am 'obviously ignoring them'.  As previously stated, such is a personal attack. I'll give you 24 hours to redact the unwarranted personal attacks, or I'll take you to ANI to have your topic ban altered, as you are 'obviously unable to discuss matters in a civil manner'.  I ask you to redact attacks, and instead you just make more, trying to justify them with flawed reasoning; nothing justifies attacking another editor in what should be a civil discussion.  You chose to begin and continue with incivilities, while I have done nothing of the kind.
 * Secondly, only one of the sources you use uses that word... and OR does not really apply here. There is no OR being done, it is a change of one word, to broadly and accurately reflect the views of several sources..  And indeed, a single dictionary is not the only source for everything English, plenty others exist with different definitions of the same word.
 * Let's get some things straight; 'consensus' does not mean 'doubt or disagreement exists', it means general agreement between all parties.. But, to say that there was no disagreement, as you do above, would be wrong, as there exists plenty of disagreement in the religious side of things.
 * Now, I am going to outline this in bold, so there is no chance you miss it; retract your personal attacks, or I'll take you to ANI to alter your current topic ban. Your opinions on my understanding policy has no place in a civil discussion, and you have no right to act as if they are fact.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your threats and phrases like "You don't really know shit..." has no place in a civil discussion, your continuous inability to came up with the single source (dictionary) to support your flawed thoughts about the meaning of the word conclusion is obvious to everybody. Who do you think you are to just come here and state something about meaning the word and insist you don't need evidence to support your flawed logic? Moreover, even if you would be an esteemed lexicographer you would need a reliable source to back up your claims about the meaning of the words. Unsupported nonsenses are not enough! You don't even understand the fundamental Wikipedia policies asking for asserting facts where is no serious dispute. For these reason it is possible to state in the article Evolution: "Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories which explain its causes." even though there are plenty of religious zealots and almost half of American public uneducated in the issue. It does not matter here. Documented fact owerhelmingly accepted by rational people remain the fact. In fact, you are not competent to counter the fact presented in unanimous ruling Florida Appeals Court "the issue so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise". Thus it is obvious you are irrational person unable to accept facts and mandatory Wikipedia policies. --Destinero (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you persist in insulting myself and continuing with incivilities, I'll be taking you to ANI now. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't help matters for you when you quote me out of context.  Yes, you don't know shit about me, so don't act like you do.  You don't know of my understanding of policy and you don't know whether I am ignoring sources or not.  Since you are unable to discuss this in a civil manner, and feel like yelling and insulting to 'win', you can treat this as your ANI notice.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue can be solved by the following proposal:

The scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Hope it will be accepted since I can not imagine the reason to reject it except for some POV editors violating NPOV. --Destinero (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As I said in LGBT parenting, a consensus may be an a priori assumption. What we are dealing with here, however, is results of empirical data. Phoenix  of9  14:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Community editing restriction of
is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting. Community discussion on AN/I. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC) (originally posted by Nicholas Turnbull; cross-posted here by Ckatz)--Ckatz chat spy  23:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for feedback, or is this just an informational post? <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">T <font color="#ffff00">J <font color="#009900">F <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3 chat 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment relates to an editor in the preceding section in relation to the topic being discussed there. I've thus made this a subsection of that. DMacks (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes more sense...but are the above editors really arguing over one word?! <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">T <font color="#ffff00">J <font color="#009900">F <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3 chat 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Informational; this soft ban was put in place yesterday. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have partially reverted some of Phoenix of9's changes; this is not a comment either way on the suitability of the material. However, a cursory check suggested that two of the three edits were properly referenced, so the material was restored pending discussion here. (I have asked Phoenix 0f9 to discuss proposed changes.) Thanks. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And the NYT article refers to language of a ballot measure, not to a religious position. Again, if you are going to re-add the material, please do the work. <font color="Red">Phoenix <font color="Black"> of9  21:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"between two homosexuals"
Trying to state that same-sex marriage is "between two homosexuals" doesn't work. Marriage does not depend on the sexual tastes of the partners. Two homosexuals can be married in a non-same-sex marriage if one is a male homosexual and one is a female; two members of the same sex getting married would be a same-sex marriage even if neither were a homosexual. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says two persons, what exactly you mean? <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#0F0F0F">Ta <font color="#DAA520">lk C. 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that NG is referring to this, which is a dispute being pushed across (last I checked) at least four articles. --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 20:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I largely want to establish consensus in talk so that should this silliness reappear, there's no problem in summarily dismissing it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I strong support the current "between to persons". You not need to be homosexual for have a same-sex marriage, as well you not need to be heterosexual for have a "normal" wedding. <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#0F0F0F">Ta <font color="#DAA520">lk C. 22:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Marriage is between people, not sexual orientations, otherwise the definition of opposite-sex marriages would be "two heterosexuals" as opposed to "a man and a woman" - Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed to keep "two persons". Here's some examples of sources which discuss same-sex relationships that are not between two "homosexuals", [ http://www.amazon.com/Bisexuality-Same-Sex-Marriage-Paz-Galupo/dp/1560237767 ],  Robyn Ochs, etc.  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 01:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This can be resolved with basic logic, not sources. Bisexuals can be involved in either opposite-sex or same-sex marriages, so it would be inaccurate to characterize either sort of marriage as necessarily involving homosexuals or heterosexuals. This is in addition to the ability of people to marry those who they have absolutely no sexual attraction to (insert obvious jokes here).
 * Let's move on. <font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan <font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty  02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Predictive text
"Legitimate of same sex marriage In December2010, United State homosexual organization propose to legalize same-sex marriage. In 18th December, the organization has organized a protest in New York to show their support and seek for their freedom they should have. In March 2011, legislative council discuss the matter deeply and finally approved the proposal from the organization and it will be released formally in July 2011."

This is not only predicting the future, but also poor writing. I would delete it, but the page is protected. Looks like the page had been vandalized the past few days, so this might be a remnant of that, or of something else, as this was noted on Dec 13, 2010 by Dylan Flaherty. Jared743 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I don't know why it's still there, but I removed it again. <font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan <font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty  03:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancient History
Taking a look at the Ancient History section for a moment, I was reading the paragraph that began with "The first historical mention..." and ended with "...or those so married". Perhaps it's just me but I think there's some facts sprinkled atop of a POV. I've already removed the quoting around the word 'marriages' (which was my first indication) but other instances were sentences like "Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding" and the addition of the word matrimonium made me scratch my head....also the quoting around same-sex unions (why are there so many quotes around these words anyways?). I didn't want to play with it (there's many historically relevant facts), wait to see what others think, personally there's some room for improvement. - Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ancient History paragraphs appears to be flawed. We have documentation that Emperor Nero married his slave in 40AD, yet there is a claim that marriage between two men was not valid. This doesn't makes any sense. If TWO Emperors of Rome could, and each did marry a man - it's clear that other Roman men could also marry men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffGagnon (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Without claiming to know the accuracy, I will note that emperors tend to be above, rather than subject to, the law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Norway
Norway should not be listed under Gay Marriage, but, rather under, civil unions and registered partnerships. There has even been an ongoing discussion in the country about this subject matter, that Norway should accept Gay Marriage. If Norway accepted Gay Marriage, that would mean equal rights. But, there are not equal rights in the country. For instance, Gay couples cannot adopt children, they cannot get IVF (Gay Women go to Denmark and Gay Men tend to get surrogate mothers, especially in the USA). The leader of FrP, Siv Jensen, was recently asked, when attending a partnership ceremony of a gay friend, why she did not support the idea of Gay Marriage in Norway. Norway did "seem" positive to Gay Marriage, but when Proposition 8 passed in California, they put the idea on the back shelf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trytobetrue (talk • contribs) 11:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage is legal in Norway since 2009. Same-sex couples have full adoption rights. See Same-sex marriage in Norway Ron 1987 12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls (2010) on same-sex marriages in America
Apoyo al matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo en América Latina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Topic area is written wrong.
Sorry I dont know how to add or edit in wikipedia but the statement is-

Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriages with strident opposition from the Catholic Church [91] and the two largest political parties

and needs to be changed to

Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriages DUE TO strident opposition from the Catholic Church [91] and the two largest political parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cje0 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That would have to be sourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cje0 is correct. The sentence was poorly constructed, and could have been interpreted as saying that the Catholic Church and the two largest political parties OPPOSED the ban, rather than SUPPORTED it. I split the sentence so that it is more clear. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Neutral
I would contend that the same-sex marriage article as a whole should be rejected on the basis of NOT being within Wikipedia's standard of being a "neutral article". The author went to extremely great lengths to document the argument in favor of same-sex marriage, but did very little to present a balanced argument against. Davehanson13 (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Dave Hanson, January 2011


 * If you believe that an article should be deleted, you can review WP:Deletion process to see the various ways in which you can request deletion. Having said that, I suspect that your request would not get far. First off, articles are not expected to deliver a balanced argument against their topic (though that would make pages like gravity an interesting read, I suspect) or even to present all sides of a controversy equally - see WP:VALID for more on that. Second, even if you were to show that the article is improper in its current state, such is rarely seen as a reason to delete an article and is more likely to be seen as a reason to edit said article. (And as a note, there is no one "author" of this article; literally more than 500 editors have been credited as contributing to this article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Nat Gertler. For all of his listed reasons, and for a few others. An encyclopedia article doesn't present an argument in favor of something, it presents the facts about something. Unless otherwise stated in the section, an article should present facts to educate the reader. Now another, more personal opinion, reason would be that there should never be an article against equality posted on wikipedia. However I do recognize that you are entitled to your own opinions on the matter, and if you disagree with the article maybe you should post something in this talk page about adding a section that presents arguments against the legalization of equal freedoms, sorry I mean equal marriages. --SaiferPhoenix (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"An encyclopedia article doesn't present an argument in favor of something"- like same-sex marriage for instance? Sorry but that statement just didn't seem as if you were being neutral. Though, I can't help but notice the glaring POV's this article makes, the only real arguments this article makes are the most watered down religious ones i.e. "It goes against my religion" (that's pretty much the most compelling argument against in the whole article) then it essentially says the only other conceivable reason someone would be against it is because their homophobic. However it never touches on other reasons to be against it like is marriage an actual right? If no one would be allowed to marry would it be the same as no longer being free from slavery or the right to vote? Furthermore if marriage is a right who has the right to say said right only belongs to heterosexual and homosexual people? Who has the authority to exclude necrophiliacs, pedophiles (extend the right to marry and lowering the age of consent to an extremely young age), polygamists, and even people infatuated with inanimate objects? And I even dare say marriage is equal straight people can't marry people of their own sex and gay people can't do the same, they have the same rights just one group chooses not to exercise them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.199.113 (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this talk page is to discuss specific edits to the article. This is not a debating forum on the wider topic of "same-sex marriage" in general. See WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM. Gabbe (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the article has to be neutral within its scope. This article isn't about the same-sex marriage debate. It's just about same-sex marriage. There's probably another article on the debate. If not, feel free to be bold and create one, ensuring to cite reliable sources. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing text in the Introduction
The statement, "The American Anthropological Association avers that social science research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon not recognizing same-sex marriage." is a double negative and is confusing. May I suggest changing the text "not recognizing" to "prohibiting" or "denouncing". Many thanks. 174.29.136.224 (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say "not recognizing" and "prohibit"/"denounce" have different meanings. C T J F 8 3  21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anthroplogy is a science, and science is often concerned with seeking out support for hypotheses, when support for a hypothesis isn't found the only thing that can be factually concluded is that the hypothesis isn't supported, which often leads to double negatives. It might not be the best composition, but it's good science. Sumguysr (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Civil union vs Same Sex marriage/ criticism
Firts point: this article is about same sex marriage, nót a civil union (there's a real difference between them). Putting Denmark ahead in the Modern section of the article is nonsens, for that country doesn't even recognise same sex marriage, nor was it an inspiration for the Netherlands to create it. Denmark is, however, the first country to recognise a civil union between people of the same sex, though the aforementioned should be put in the concerning article. Second point: I couldn't find any criticism in the article (well, at least the section I've read). And although I can't understand criticism concerning this, that's just my personal opinion, and adding criticism does make this article more balanced (for something as big as this dóes create criticism), so I've added that also. Robster1983 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the civil union bit wasn't needed there, but I think the additional detail about the Netherlands overwhelms a summary overview section. The part about the pope is a good one, but there is already a section dealing with religious reaction to SSM, where it would be more appropriate.--Trystan (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thnx for thinking with me, Trystan. I've added the Pope-quote in the correct section of the article. Placed it on top, though, since the Pope is, like, I dunno, the Big Dog, the Alpha Male, the Big Chief (or whatever you wanna call it) of religion. Robster1983 (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada Ignored in main text.
While Wikipedia has an excellent stand-alone article on the same-sex marriage struggle in Canada, it barely gets a mention in the main article. We are listed with the first ten in the right side-bar and once with a link in body.

In the Canada-specific article, under the Ontario Decisions section, you write: "The court also ruled that two couples who had previously had a wedding ceremony in the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto using an ancient common-law procedure called the reading of the banns would be considered legally married.[16]" Those marriages which launched the whole process - legal, political and social - were held in January 2001. This was 3 months before the Netherlands. I think Canada should get some recognition as being first as well.

Even with the fourth place status we will probably have to live, Canada was the first country in North America and the first country in the Western Hemisphere to adopt same-sex marriage.

In fact most of the 10 first lose on your main article. There is not even a North America subheading - but of course, one for the United States. Sidebar note, because most of the very few American states with SSM have residency requirements and Canada does not, more Americans come to Canada to get married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.30.54 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think, but I'm not sure (those who are regulars on this article are welcome to back me up or correct me if I'm wrong), that this is done to keep this article sort of not too big and to the point (everything I'm not, so to speak ;)). The Netherlands started discussing SSM as early as the 80s. Denmark was the first country to legalise a civil union, something that also contributed to SSM. Going further back one might say that legalising homosexuality has contributed in the legalisation of CU & SSM. But If this article were to include every piece of information possible about which country was first in whatever concerning this matter, then this page would grow so big, that it might turn into the biggest thing on the planet (second if you reckon Khadaffi's ego as being bigger ;)). It would also lead to nothing, for no one might understand what this article is really about (really, a drunk Courtney Love would be easier to understand). Exactly that is why some information in certain articles get their own article; to keep it not too big, and to the point. I think that in your case the 'SSM in Canada' article is the place to turn to. Robster1983 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with the anon contributor. It probably does need a bit more in this article on it. Not detailed, just a brief overview. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for discussion, definitely, but, for the sake of argument, what if someone from South Africa wants to see some mentioning that his/her country was the first in Africa? What if a Danish person reckons that they were first, because they were the first country who granted ány form of civil union? And what if someone from the Netherlands reckons his/her country being first, because his/her country started this discussion in the 80s? The only thing that counts, is which country was the first to literally grant, thus being performed, same-sex marriage. A timeline of SSM and the entire history of SSM can be found on their articles, which is referred to, I might add, at the upper top of the subsection and right below the title of the subsection. But that's just my humble opinion. I would still love to hear more from you, so maybe you could elaborate on how you might envision your ideas, Me-1234567-Me? Robster1983 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient cases seem more like a joke
Nero was reported to have done something? So you don't know? In the Fujian province women would bind them selves in contracts with elaborate ceremonies and blah blah blah. And these bound women then fill what role? Was Sex or wait.. Was anything marriage related involved? At the same time other countries would bind themselves in contracts with other countries and hold elaborate ceremonies. Were they then to married? Wait was Roman homosexual child molestation (paederasty) same sex marriage? Nero the emperor of rome in the first decade BC arbitrary will in a case that may very well have not existed is all that kept him from breaking the law. The law written about 300 years later? Or did some semblance of this law exist before it was codified as Theodosian Code. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a slave it says. What is with the quotation marks? Are they scare quotes? This article seems to be more grasping at straws than anything.70.15.191.119 (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Ancient section could be summarized as "There is no evidence in ancient societies that marriage between same-sex couple was viewed the same as marriage between man and woman. If fact, the opposite was true." Seems to me, some people are trying to find a historical justification from pre-Christian era for same-sex marriage; but failing at it. Angry bee (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The section could do with a bit of clean up but the facts seem pertinent. Marriage itself is a concept that's varried a great deal from culture to culture throughout history, an article about same sex marriage should include historical examples of similar institutions and formally recognized relationships through out history. With all issues regarding ancient history it is difficult to judge the veracity of particular theories, it is reasonable to state that historians disagree about the nature of a particular relationship or legality. Sumguysr (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with Sumguysr. Suggesting it is definitely one viewpoint or another is OR at best, and POV pushing at worst. The tone of the opening comment is fairly POV-laden. Let's keep this as neutral as we can, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Biological sex irrelevant; legal sex is what matters
The introduction is wrong when it describes same-sex marriage as being between two persons of the same biological sex. I suspect the person who wrote it does not understand what the term "biological sex" actually means. In any case, the important factor is that the parties be of the same legal sex, whatever their biological, phenotypical or psychological sexes may be.

The term biological sex refers to genotype. The most common genotypes are XX and XY. Other biological sexes include X, XXX, XXY, XYY, XXYY, and so on. Most people with XX biological sex are phenotypical female - but this is not always the case. Likewise, most but not all people with XY biological sex are male.

The vast majority of jurisdictions classify sex as an immutable status established at birth according to phenotype. Basically, if you have permanently swollen breasts and intrusive genitalia, you are "female"; while if you have normally flat breasts (naturally incapable of producing milk) and protrusive genitalia, you are "male". Increasingly, jurisdictions are following the rule first enunciated by New Jersey in 1976, under which legal sex is classified as male or female according to phenotype but is a mutable status instead of an immutable one. Thus, in New Jersey, California, Michigan, etc., people who change their phenotypical sex also change their legal sex. Their biological sex is irrelevant to the question.

The other basis of classification is psychological sex - which is probably what the author of the introduction means when s/he uses the ridiculous term "social gender". (I say this term is ridiculous because it has absolutely no basis in law, medicine or academia.) One of the sub-categories of psychological sex is Gender Identity; and a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder is prerequisite to preparation for sex reassignment surgery.

In the State of Texas, where legal change of sex is not recognised, two women were allowed to marry - despite same-sex marriage being illegal in that state - because one of them, as a male-to-female transsexual, was legally male. In California, Michigan, Virginia, New Jersey, and many other US states, however, she was legally female the moment her phenotypical sex was changed (and would not have been allowed to marry her girlfriend in any of those states).

But the classic story remains Mrs. Brown from England, who was born phenotypically female but her biological sex is male (XY). In England, Mrs. Brown is legally a woman, legally married to Mr. Brown, with whom she adopted two children. But in her native Scotland, which classifies legal sex according to biological sex (England uses phenotype), Mrs. Brown is legally a man, illegally married to another man, with whom she illegally adopted two children. Thus, too, in England, Mr. and Mrs. Brown are a legally married heterosexual couple, while in Scotland they are an illegally married homosexual couple.

You see the point, do you? Biological sex and "social gender" (whatever that may mean) have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, same-sex or otherwise. Rather, it is the ''legal sex of the parties that matters; and that is almost always determined by phenotypical sex, not biological sex.

69.181.59.31 (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If our only concern were for legal determinations, then only legal sex would be relevant (though the bases of it would still be relevant, particularly as they vary). But SSM isn't strictly a legal topic, it is a social topic as well.  So even if the marriage between a trans woman and a bio woman is regarded as an opposite sex marriage by a given jurisdiction's law, it still reasonably falls within the scope of the article as a same-sex marriage (i.e. same-gender marriage redirects here).
 * I think the usage of and distinction between biological sex and social gender is fairly established, with the former term including both phenotypical and genotypical sex. The Gender article has a quote by John Money setting out this usage, though he does criticize it as drawing a false distinction between behaviour and biology.  Perhaps we could simplify the wording to "sex or gender", and add a section which discusses this aspect in more detail?--Trystan (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Education Controversy
It seems to me that the "education controversy" section is leaving out some the responses of many same-sex marriage proponents (the sentence about "making children more open-minded" seems pretty weak, in my opinion). For example, it has been argued that schools should teach about same-sex relationships and that this is important to reduce bullying of and likelihood of suicide among gay youth (see also here). --Robertbayer (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So be bold, and add the items ensuring to cite reliable sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have editing privileges. --Robertbayer (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Religion
I believe that it is obvious and uncontroversial that Unitarian Universalism favors same sex marriage and that a citation is unnecessary for this statement. I am a Unitarian Universalist, and I should know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry hedden (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Under the Religion section, the article currently has a citation for "supports marriage equality for same-sex couples". The "citation needed" applies to the following sentence "It has taken an active role advocating for LGBT rights and same-sex marriages are often performed in UU congregations". The existing citation for "support" does not say that that UU takes an active role or performs such marriages. Unfortunately your personal knowledge is not sufficient, we require verifiable sources. Is there a page on UU's website that lists explicit actions that UU takes, including performing same-sex marriages, that we can use as a reference? Mitch Ames (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mitch is correct that it needs a source. These are going to be primary sources, but take a look at the page for the Standing on the Side of Love and Welcoming Congregation programs. For a specific action regarding California Proposition 8, see "Marriage Equality: Unitarian Universalists Stand on the Side of Love". It includes a relevant quote from Forrest Church about LGBT ordained clergy and sanctioning of same-sex unions. Lady  of  Shalott  00:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I've found the source of that quote: "The Meanings of Marriage", by Forrest Church. Lady  of  Shalott  00:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be a section of the LGBT OPPOSITION to same-sex marriage
There is a (minority?) group of ideas on LBGT life like the Queer movement, who denounces ALL marriages by example as a 'bourgeois heteronormism', perhaps this should be added and expended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.80.65 (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources to prove this? C T J F 8 3  04:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if reliably sourced, it seems like that topic would only be tangentially related to SSM. Opposition to marriage as a whole, regardless of the source, would be more appropriate for Marriage, with perhaps a brief mention here.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

AS far I know, the Queer movement's wikipedia article speak of this very subject, or links out of it - the 'queers' are against marriage as an heterosexist thing, by example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.80.65 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am aware of queer theorists that oppose marriage in general, usually tying into feminist critiques of the institution, though I can't see any coverage of the issue in Queer, Queer theory, or Queer studies. Though it's hardly a universal view, and, as I said above, more relevant to Marriage than to SSM.--Trystan (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for biblical prohibition against marriage
The text states" There also is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples", which had a "citation needed" added after it. This is imposible. You cannot cite a source for what it does not contain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebum2002 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One cannot cite the Bible for saying that it doesn't have it, but one could cite a reliable source saying that the Bible contains no such thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberal objection to non-traditional marriage
An editor has been repeatedly adding a section on "Liberal objection to non-traditional marriage", which is solely about the view of Richard Lutz, director of the Human Rights Coalition in Australia. This is an obscure organization (no Gnews hits for "Human Rights Coalition" Australia); Lutz is its founder and director and the meetings are held in his house, so his statement is essentially self-published. There is no sign that this speaks for any larger body of liberals; it's one guy's opinion, and thus doesn't rise to a level of significance. (If this posting looks familiar - the same editor's been posting the same stuff in Marriage, so I copied my response. Same objection holds.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nat here, looks like a primary source of no notability. Anyone got any other sources that show significance? Dayewalker (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you NatGertler and Dayewalker for pointing out problem with the source (I’m a little embarrassed). Have rectified problem with the second paragraph that provides two examples of mainstream liberal organizations that oppose same-sex, incestuous and polygamous marriages (whose combined membership is around 72 million), and a couple of liberal commentators critical of non-traditional marriages. What I like most about the original Australian source is that Mr Lutz makes the point that adults in same-sex, incestuous and polygamous relationships all assert the right to get married because they believe marriage is a private matter that is no longer linked to procreation. Fyrdbird (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your agreeing with Mr. Lutz does not make his opinion significant, and the other folks you cite you don't have support for the range of claims you're making for them; you show two individuals commenting on same-sex marriage and none for the other things you're claiming as "non-traditional" marriage (oddly including polygamy, which has a long and broad tradition), much less showing that the reason for opposition matches Lutz. It also creates a very odd focus in the article, as there is very little on "conservative" versus "liberal" views (most of the invocations of the words "conservative" and "liberal" in the article are reflecting religious rather than political status), and to suddenly focus on supposed "liberal objections" in a realm where support appears more likely to come from liberals with conservatives largely objecting seems like spin. I'm removing this section, as it has been removed repeatedly by several editors making it clear that you don't have consensus; please achieve consensus in Talk before reinserting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked, and I don't see anything that makes Lutz or his organization notable enough for mention in this article. I'm willing to listen if someone else produces some secondary sources, but it certainly doesn't seem notable. Dayewalker (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with the others; for an organization that is 14 years old, Lutz's has generated practically no press coverage. There is absolutely no evidence that he is a spokesman for any group of liberals in any way, shape or form. For all I can tell, he is a one man show working out of his basement. Fyrdbird has failed to show that there is any notable widespread and organized opposition to SSM among liberals. All I see are just isolated individuals with little in common with regards to their views on SSM. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback, much appreciated. Fyrdbird (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian Supreme Court recognizes equality between same sex-union and straight couples.
http://noticias.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2011/05/05/por-unanimidade-supremo-reconhece-uniao-estavel-de-homossexuais.jhtm

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/05/brazil-approves-civil-unions-for-same-sex-couples.html

Great news for the Brazilian gays. One more country to be updated on this article. For good. Someone to help improving my very simple section about Brazil on the text? I can help providing with more sources and with the translation, if necessary. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead section a bit unbalanced
The lead section of this article is a bit unbalanced. The second paragraph, which deals with reasons given to support SSM, is much longer and more detailed than the third, which deals with reasons given in opposition to SSM. Either the second paragraph needs to be pared down or the third paragraph needs to be fleshed out more. (Note: This isn't coming from someone against SSM looking for more support of their cause, I'm actually pro-SSM....) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect rationale. Hope this info helps:
 * Weight is given in the lede based on the content in the article
 * The article isn't about "Opposition to SSM" - it's about SSM and includes an opposition/criticism section, thus more weight should be given in the article and lede to SSM, and not the opposition portion
 * To have an article where the lede is balanced in favor of opposition, would require an article on opposition, while to have an article where the lede is balanced equally on pro/against would require having an article about pro/against. This article is neither of those.
 * Hope that helps, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 20:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this lede does not really reflect the article after all. The lede is mostly about arguments either for or against same-sex marriage whereas that seems to be addressed mostly in the "Controversy" section of the article. So instead of arguing whether we should put more weight in the for or against positions we should be giving more weight to material that is not a position! 152.23.38.168 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead section isn't for pro or against arguments. It's meant to introduce the reader to the topic in a general, neutral way. Neutral means neutral tone, not necessarily by having opposition arguments in it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments are a significant part of the article, and as per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." (Italics mine.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead section isn't for pro or against arguments, I agree. Therefore, we should devote less space to these arguments since presently they take up the entire lead after the first paragraph. 152.23.38.168 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the lede focuses disproportionately on the SSM debate rather than SSM itself; in particular, the SSM debate in the US. As it stands, it would be more suitable as the lede for Same-sex marriage in the United States. A summary-style lede for SSM world-wide probably shouldn't mention specifics like the American Anthropological Association or Al Sharpton; especially when it doesn't mention the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, or Canada.
 * To some degree this is a deficiency of the article; it pretty much skips over the countries where SSM is a legal reality. I suggest expanding the "Country-wide recognition" section so that each country has a subsection, just like those listed under the "Subject debated". I think that would result in a more balanced article, and the lede could then be revisited to make it more closely follow the article's structure.--Trystan (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea to have a bigger word view in this article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in with several other editor, it definitely feels like the lead is overly focussed on the "controversy" rather than on the topic itself. Obviously, we need a section on the political/ethical/religious arguments around the issue, and the fact the laws and practice is widely controversial should be mentioned in the lead. But the lead should be more factual, e.g. "SSM is an legal framework allowed some places but not others ..." with the political arguments about what laws are best treated in detail only outside of the lead. Memories of lost time (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent same-sex marriage in France
Found this recent case of a same-sex marriage in France (France currently bans same-sex marriages) that took place due to a technicality. I think it's worth mentioning, but not sure if it should go in this article, or a related one. Basically, a lesbian couple was married but only because one partner who used to be a man (but had male-to-female geneder reassignment surgery) hasn't filed the paperwork yet to have his gender officially declared female (so legally speaking it's considered a hetero marriage, even though the couple consider themselves same-sex).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h3M1RGq6vDGb8hB59Pj0D7RCQZQw?docId=CNG.162e7b890089266afc5acc6d6e217e11.2e1

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/06/05/a-nancy-un-homme-ne-femme-a-pu-epouser-sa-compagne_1532175_3224.html Chartered Wombat (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems more appropriate to the Same-sex marriage in France article. It's a bit too technical-detail-that-only-pertains-to-one-couple and what-is-the-legal-status-of-gender-in-France for this overview article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OED paywall cite
In the lead, an OED definition of "gay marriage" is given as citation for the use of the term. However, this URL lives behind a paywall that will exclude many readers (including me). The term is definitely widely used, but I wonder if we can't find a freely-accessible citation instead of the one used now. Memories of lost time (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the New York vote of June 24, 2011
I'm not sure how to request a semi-protect for an article, but I think we need it.

PLEASE NOTE All that has happened is that a bill has passed. There is no law: even if the governor were to sign it tonight, there is still a 30 day waiting period before the law goes in to effect. This period, the same for all laws passed by the New York Legislature, is so that groups can attempt to mount a referendum or other campaign to prevent it from going into effect. The National Organization for Marriage has already issued a statement vowing $2 million to do just that, so things are still very much up in the air.

I know that the people who keep re-adding New York to the list of states that allow same-sex marriage mean well, but the simple fact is that there is no same-sex marriage in New York until and unless the law goes into effect. The policy of the Wikipedia has always been to stick with current facts, not facts as they might be sometime in the future. So please, do not keep adding it back until there actually is same-sex marriage in New York. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 03:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to update, the governor did sign it that night, so there is a law, but it's not yet in effect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you know this, Nat, but for other editors who may be new to the Wikipedia: In the past, the policy has been that the article is not updated to say "is" until the law actually goes into effect. Until same-sex couples actually can get married in New York -- can walk in and get a marriage license -- there is no same-sex marriage in New York. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 05:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Understandable, however, it is correct to say that a law allowing same sex marriage has been passed.204.65.34.246 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual bias
This article is inherently POV, in that it refers to same-sex marriages being banned or illegal in certain countries, and legal in others. This is wrong. Marriage is inherently between male and female. This not the same as banning male-male or female-female marriage - such things just don't exist under the law. The entire article should instead adopt the approach that laws have been introduced in some countries to recognise a form of marriage involving same sex couples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds a bit forumish.Anyway,wouldn't that be POV too? Sam 03:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that too, but someone revered my removal of this section. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure sounds to me like a legitimate question of phrasing. He seems to be questioning whether something can be "banned" simply by not being offered. I don't agree with the poster, but I don't think that asking the question is illegitimate or inappropriate. The talk page is not merely for people whom I agree with. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but the talk page is to discuss the article, not the topic in general. There's a fine line. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and anything addressing the question of whether the article has a problematic POV is going to have a POV - but the editor is addressing specifically the presentation within the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IP 124.197.15.138: You say that same-sex marriage doesn't exist under the law, but it does—in five (soon to be six) states in the U.S. and nationwide in various countries (including one bordering the U.S.). For that reason alone, it would be impossible for the article to state that marriage is "inherently between male and female"; such a statement would violate not only Wikipedia's neutrality policy but also its verifiability policy since it's demonstrably false. Btw, the laws you refer to don't recognize a "form of marriage"; they recognize marriage. I wonder how you'd suggest your reasoning be applied to certain other articles. Rivertorch (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He seems to be saying that same sex marriage doesn't exist in the law in the certain countries where we're saying it's banned or illegal. That's a different situation than interracial marriage laws, which (in the relatively few portion of the world where they were put in place) were specifically intended to stop interracial marriage. Same sex marriage wasn't so much banned as not thought to be a thing that could exist; cats cannot become president of the United States, but one could see how it might be awkward to claim them as "banned" from candidacy, as lawmakers never considered "what if a cat wants to run for president. We better put in a law to stop that!" --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replacing "banned" with "not recognized" would be more accurate. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except in some places banned is the correct word. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Is "banned or illegal" redundant? "Illegal or unrecognized" or perhaps "banned or unrecognized" would apply generally, perhaps. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In some place "banned" is very much the right word. In some places, people have been arrested for attempting to get married, and in other places, it's very specific in the law. In other places, it is simply unrecognized; the law doesn't have the concept, but nothing will happen if you hold a wedding ceremony. I don't have a tally on how many places it is actually addressed in the law in some way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic is complicated somewhat by the fact of "marriage" having two meanings: a civil status and a ceremonial (often religious) status. In plenty of places, holding a wedding ceremony doesn't make a couple married, regardless of the gender(s). As for "illegal or unrecognized"—yeah, maybe, but it's hard to construct a phrase that applies across the board. There's also some question of what constitutes illegality: does something have to be explicitly prohibited by statute in order to be "illegal" or can the implicit prohibition of non-inclusive language (e.g., "man and woman", "bride and groom") suffice? Certainly, same-sex marriage is de facto prohibited in lots of places. Rivertorch (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on the content of the article, it would definitely be correct to say SSM is banned in Nigeria, but I don't know if makes as much sense to say it is banned in Australia, as opposed to not being recognized.--Trystan (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're talking civil status, it's banned. Rivertorch (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only unrecognized in areas where there is no definition saying it must be a man and a woman. Otherwise it's banned. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Banned" suggests a prohibition; i.e. there is a punishment for doing a thing. As opposed to doing a thing which has no legal effect. In Canada prior to 2001, there was an opposite-sex-only definition of marriage at common law, but it would be needlessly confusing to say that SSM was banned.--Trystan (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Trystan. Banned, by its very definition, indicates there is a directly targeted prohibition, not a de facto lack of recognition.204.65.34.246 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage equality
I am happy with Trystan's compromise lead sentence that mentions 'marriage equality' in context of political support for SSM. However, Dominus Vobisdu's edit comment in removing the synonym version is not quite right. There is certainly a political advocacy organization called "marriage equality" (several loosely affiliated ones, actually, with USA or NY, or some others, appended to the name), and to some extent the term is used more general in context of advocacy. However, in press coverage, the term 'marriage equality' is now often used in a nominative sense as a synonym for SSM (and that WP page is a redirect here). Usually when used nominatively, the articles using it mention positions of pro-SSM advocates, as in the citation that says, "Celebrities X, Y, Z are advocates of marriage equality", but the term itself is usually disquotational and hence the non-marked description, following publisher's editorial policy. Memories of lost time (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the second sentence is problematic: "The term marriage equality describes support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage." The term is used to describe the legal recognition itself, as well as the support for same. Also, the citation leads to what is essentially a compilation of primary sources using the phrase; it doesn't define the described usage at all. Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't actually like what I wrote; one would "support marriage equality," so it can't itself be the support for something. My preference is actually to list it as Memories did, just as an alternative term. That it isn't an exact synonym isn't critical from my point of view. At the very least, we should take the "support for" and just describe marriage equality as legal recognition of SSM.--Trystan (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Brazil in the list of countries where SSM is legal????
I think Brazil should be removed from the list, the fact that civil unions in Brazil are convertible to marriage doesn't mean that Brazil has legalized same-sex marriage. Even a date for the implementation of the court's ruling legalizing civil unions has yet to be set. The case in Brazil is similar to that of Mexico where SSM is performable nationwide de-facto without being legal, in Brazil due to the Constitution which allows the conversion of civil unions into marriage, while in Mexico due to the supreme court's ruling which obliged all the 31 Mexican states to recognize SSM-s performed in the Federal District with equal rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Netherlands to "certain jurisdictions"
As the performance of same-sex-marriages is at the time not being performed in the Dutch BES-islands, who form an integral part of the country of the Netherlands, shouldn't the Netherlands be moved to the "certain jurisdictions"-category? - 83.128.68.162 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it should. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Length of US-centric Coverage
Regarding this edit, I think that the section providing a high-level overview of SSM in the US is much too long for an article written in summary style. If we provided that amount of detail on every country, the article would be positively unreadable. Even aside from concerns for overall length and balance, I think the current version provides an overwhelming amount of detail, with its fairly convoluted list of legal precedents, rather than a more concise view of the current state of affairs.--Trystan (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (Note that we are already over 100k, suggested that the article should almost certainly be divided, and some nations don't even have a subsection yet.--Trystan (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC))


 * Uh, no. We're here to write an encyclopædia, not to unwrite one. Apposite, supported material does not get removed from articles simply because a single editor thinks the article is too long and/or contains "too much" coverage of one particular aspect of the topic. Instead, we increase the coverage of other aspects of the topic and as the overall article grows we split it off as and when appropriate into subtopic-specific articles. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but I didn't see anything in the summary section that wasn't covered in the attached main article Same-sex marriage in the United States and its many child articles. The issue is not removing supported content from Wikipedia, it's paring down the abstract of a full series of articles.--Trystan (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted your deletion for the reasons given by Scheinwerfermann, and because you failed to gain consensus for the deletion. Any idiot can delete material from the article just because he feels the article is unbalanced or too long. If you're truly interested in balancing the article, build up the sections on other countries. I disagree with you also that the present article is merely a coatrack article. The debate about SSM is particularly heated in the US, and the situation is far more complex and nuanced that that in other countries with simpler forms of government. US states are very much like independent countries in this matter, at least for the time being, and the battle is currently being waged on a state by state basis. The nature of the debate and the strategies of baoth sides also differ from state to state. It's only natural that this article reflect the intensity, diversity and complexity of the situation in the US. This is not US centrism, and the material you removed does indeed belong in an article of this scope. Like I said, feel free to beef up other sections of the article. Or at least build consensus before you eliminate the work of other editors. The fact that the material is also in the more detailed article doesn't mean that it cannot or should not appear here, as long as there is no POV fork. Quite frankly, most of the people reading this article are from the US, or particularly interested in the situation in the US. The situation in other countries is either settled, or not as complex as that in the US with it's fifty states, each with it's own constitution, laws, legislature and judiciary, in addition to the federal government. More detailed coverage is therefore justified. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)]


 * I concur with Trystan's edits; he did not remove information from Wikpedia, just properly maintained distribution of information between main and child articles. While the US situation does require a bit more verbiage to summarize than most nations (due to the extant conflict of federal and state law), it is WP:UNDUE to give it a greater depth of detail and unneeded when that information is properly carried in the child article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that, as a federal state, SSM in the US is somewhat more complex than in some other countries (even the trimmed version was significantly longer than other countries'). However, the length of the existing US section doesn't primarily result from its many jurisdictions, it results from the detailed case law and legislative history, and the personal stance of the head of state. I have been building up coverage on other countries over the past couple of weeks, but not to the point where each country gets 5-6 paragraphs with that level of detail - and the detail is there for the adding; other countries have very nuanced SSM histories. To take Canada as an example, the summary section for it could delve into the substantial case law, process of legalization within each province, detailed legislative history of the Civil Marriage Act, and position of the current government, but I just don't see that as being appropriate for this article if it is going to remain a readable length.
 * I strongly disagree that the article should be geared toward a US audience, as opposed to an international one. There is already a very comprehensive, well-written full article explicitly for that purpose. As for the issue being settled in other countries, I think we need to take a historical view; a settled controversy doesn't deserve any less coverage than a current one.
 * Also, Dominus, please don't call me an idiot, editorial discussions are much more productive if everyone remains civil. There is nothing wrong with being bold in removing content from an article, particularly when that content is found elsewhere.--Trystan (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious section needs trimming
The Religious subsection of the Controversy section has gotten rather long, primarily on the various Christian sects. Given that there is a child article on specifically the religious arguments, we should verify that the content here is already reflected in the child article, then trim it way back. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's long, but considering that religious sects are verifiably at the core of opposition to marriage equality, it seems to be due weight. Rivertorch (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SUMMARY indicates that the summary of a child article should be about the same as the intro of that child article. In this case, we're dealing with a summary which is clearly too long for an intro... which we cannot pin to the indicated intro, which is far too short. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support trimming it down to better fit summary style. At the very least, I think it could use some reorganizing under subheadings.--Trystan (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it should stay the length that it is. Religion is the key opposition to SSM, and therefore it deserves such a long section in my opinion. However, I agree that it could use some more subheadings. BonnieNoel (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Suquamish Tribe approves same-sex marriage
The Suquamish Tribe in Washington (United States) has approved same-sex marriage. The sidebar should be updated and the tribe should be listed alongside the Coquille Tribe wherever it may be mentioned. Source: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/aug/01/suquamish-tribe-approves-same-sex-marriage/ 96.233.134.228 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then be bold and update the article and/or template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The template (which is semi-protected, so that a non-autoconfirmed user could not edit it) has been updated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

11th century Spanish gay marriage ?
The article claims that "A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova."

I think this should be removed.

The text of the document can be read here: http://www.msemanal.com/node/4974

That is just a contract of common life and work. The word "marriage" does not appear. There is no mention of a religious celebration by a priest in a chapel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.30.139.183 (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Same-sex marriage and Marriage, a religious celebration is not required. AV3000 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But certainly to be "married by a priest at a small chapel" implies a religious celebration, doesn't it? So that at least should be removed from the article. In any case, the document is not about a marriage, the word is not used there. You would find this kind of common life contracts in many other parts of Europe in the Middle Ages, and I have no doubt that in some cases they may have served as a cover for homosexual relationships. But it was not a marriage, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.30.139.183 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the source texts denotes marriage. It opens on that it's a formal agreement relating to property. Personally I'd like some one to look at the administration of how such a buissness contract would legally be laid out in such time in the Galician municipality. someone can correct me if I'm wrong but in 1032 Ferdinand I would have been the controlling monarch at the time til his death approximately 3 years later. This was a chaotic time completely. I think (and again correct me if I'm wrong) this also took place during the time of Reconquista. It was a very chaotic period my friends. I'm unsure of how uncommon it would be at that time period. then at the Same time another fact is this paper concerns a church and the ownership of it and the housing own it. Honestly look there is alot of things to look at. I personally suggest one of two scenarios. The first of which is to remove it. The second of which is not to so bluntly attribute it to fact and instead attribute them to the individual or individuals (historians and ect) who suggest that this was a marriage.

On another note I do not feel that the source provided for the article is a very good source on it's own at least so I do suggest taking on the above source the OP provided. They reference Professor John Boswell. As far as sources go you really can't beat Boswell when it comes to this topic. Or you could directly reference Boswells work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 1980. Though still I recommend tacking on the above source none the less if only to be more informative.24.115.19.178 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

quintana roo
we need to add Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the discussion over at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Alagoas: First Brazilian state has just legalized full Gay-Marriage
The state of Alagoas is the first one of the 27 Brazilian states which performs not only Gay civil partnerships, but instead, Gay marriage. All the other states are still performing gay civil unions.

I should add this information on the main article, and ask for better editors to correct my changes to the article if needed. Thanks 00:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs)

For discussion, see Template talk:Same-sex unions. Hekerui (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead Links
Just throwing it out there, but there seems to be a great deal of dead links on this page (10 to be exact). Can they be removed or what is the policy on this due to the nature of the article. Any input would be awesome!

Jackson413 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:DEADLINK for an explanation of the various ways to handle this situation. DMacks (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done.  Teammm  Let's Talk about it! :) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
This section contains a lot of information that may belong on other pages and causes the article to stray off topic, going into depth about things that maybe should not be on this page. What do you think?
 * Face-smile.svg Teammm  Let's Talk! :) 01:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that, too. Plus it's loaded with an unbalanced view on the subject. If I had time I'd make an attempt at cleaning up the text and all the dead links.Cirrus Editor (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too! But I haven't had time to do it either. Hopefully, someone will. -Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 19:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When some one cleans this up, would it please be possible for a simple chart showing the differences between same-sex marriage and civil partnership. For the life of me I can't see a difference!  From what the article says, a civil partnership in the UK has all the advantages of a marriage - so what's the difference?  Kiltpin (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoo-boy! The problem is that every jurisdiction has a different idea of what a civil union/civil partnership/domestic partnership means. The UK is one where it is specifically given all the rights and benefits of a marriage, but it isn't necessarily so in other places. Anyway, such a table or chart would probably be better-suited for the civil union article. - htonl (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Washington State
Washington State must be added in the table "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships"
 * You should comment about it at the template itself. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2012
Please delete "gay butt sex" from the top of the section on terminology

67.180.161.141 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done: the vandalistic edit that added those words was reverted almost immediately; they do not appear in the current version of the article. - htonl (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I really need an answer for this ..
In the Philippines, Same Sex Marriage is not legal. What if I will get married in Canada(which is Same Sex Marriage is legal) Will my gay marriage contract valid in the Philippines ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhodka (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussing improvements to the article. You might ask at the reference desk, but no one here is going to offer you legal advice. If I were you, I'd consult an attorney licensed to practice in the Philippines. Rivertorch (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have answered your own question - NO. Kiltpin (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What you're asking about is countries which recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Israel. The Philippines are not one of them. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New color scheme & cats in map
There is a discussion at Template talk:World homosexuality laws map about a new map from Commons. The differences are: I put in the new map after discussion at Commons, but was reversed by an editor who say it was "disgusting and unacceptable"—by which they meant they didn't like the color! Comments welcome. — kwami (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) A new color scheme, evidently addressing some concerns with color blindness
 * 2) A distinction between in-all-but-name civil unions and civil unions with markedly inferior rights, as identified in a report from the ILGA.

Edit request on 10 May 2012
What is the definition of marriage without a concept of consummation? Penis vaginal intercourse is the traditional definition of marriage consummation (often verified in the wedding party participants in pre 18th century royal marriage ceremonies). Same sex marriage requires radical redefinition of marriage consummation far outside tradition of human experience.

There is no restriction on how individual satisfy sexual needs and desires. Satisfying sexual desire is not a definition of marriage consummation; masturbation could then be defined as consummation and an individual could marry itself. Also, since penis vaginal intercourse is possible amongst more than one other person (though not simultaneously) polygamist marriage is closer to traditional marriage than same sex marriage.

Defining marriage consummation traditionally, same sex marriage is not possible.

These issues are central to same sex marriage yet are not addressed by the same sex marriage discussion here at Wikipedia.

Wabarr52 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the instructions. "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it."  Thank you.  --joe deckertalk to me 02:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Garriage?
I read somewhere somebody calling gay marriage "garriage." I think the person who wrote it was a bit of a moron, so I discounted it, but has anybody else seen this term? Meanwhile, today is May 9, and President Obama has just stated his support for gay marriage. Viva the president! Viva! Good on him for supporting this basic civil right for all people. 173.213.240.117 (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While "garriage" does return some Google hits, I don't think it's a noteworthy enough term to merit mention in the article. A short passage summarizing Mr. Obama's support has already been added to the article. Please note: While your response to his announcement is understandable, keep in mind that Wikipedia talk pages are intended exclusively for discussing articles, not the subjects of articles (see the talk page guidelines for more info). Imagine the mess we'd have if everyone got to post his or her opinion here. Rivertorch (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your article does not mention that same sex marriage is legal in Denmark
Though another page says Denmark was the first country to legalize same sex marriage. One would expect more thorough coverage to maintain the site's overall credibility. Please review all facts in this article, as frankly an error like this puts in doubt all other "facts" included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Denmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.69.76 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That article states "Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex unions, in 1989."' and then goes on to discuss the fact that a marriage bill has recently been introduced. This article's Denmark section could be updated to reflect the most recent developments, but both appear to be correct.--Trystan (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Reorganizing SSM-related articles
It seems to me that between the four articles Same-sex marriage, Status of same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage legislation around the world and Timeline of same-sex marriage we have a lot of duplication, and at least one too many articles. I'm not sure exactly how we should optimally arrange things, though, so I'd like to hear if anyone has suggestions.

As a small first step, though, I think we should remove the various country-specific sections from the "Current status" section of Same-sex marriage - that's what Status of same-sex marriage is for - and shorten that section to a list simply indicating which countries have SSM, which have civil unions, and so on. Thoughts? - htonl (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Valid point, I agree with the observation about redundancy and that status of same-sex marriage should be for an individual treatment. Same-sex marriage legislation around the world is a collection of all attempts at giving all kinds of relationship recognition to same-sex couples and this content belong in the individual state articles or in the civil union/same-sex union articles, not in an article about same-sex marriage legislation. I suggest we merge it into status of same-sex marriage and others I mentioned, too. Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My concern is that reducing the country-specific sections to a list of where it is valid would lose the specifics of when and how SSM has been legalized, which should receive considerable emphasis in the article. If the country-specific headings are removed, I think a significantly more detailed summary section than a list is required to cover "Legalization and current status", comparable to the "Effects" or "Controversy and opposition" sections.--Trystan (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed - clearly this article must cover the "where, when and how". But I think it would be better to cover it with a summary section describing the developments across the world in a coherent way, rather than a bunch of short sections on a per-country basis. - htonl (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with idea regarding the "Current status" section of Same-sex marriage. I think Same-sex marriage legislation around the world should stay and be re-named to Same-sex relationship legislation around the world. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Judaism
The line in the article which discusses Orthodox Jewish views falls prey to WP:UNDUE. While it is true that Rabbi Steven Greenberg supports Same-Sex Marriage (at least as a secular institution), the article creates implies that the two views are given equal weight within the orthodox world. It is not true, or at least misleading, to say that some Orthodox Rabbis oppose Same-Sex Marriage, while others support it, as virtually every Orthodox Rabbi except for Rabbi Greenberg opposes Same-Sex Marriage, so the numbers are not nearly as similar as one would be lead to think from this article. The article should be modified to reflect the relative pervasiveness of the two views within the Orthodox world g.j.g (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're right. Offhand do you have a good reliable source to cite for a rewrite? I've poked around a bit and found interesting article leading to other interesting article and so on, and it has been an education . . . but I've found nothing so far that will really work as a source for rewriting this. Rivertorch (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A good starting place is the article on Same-sex_marriage_and_Judaism. Additionally, The following links contain statements by nearly all major groups of American Orthodox Rabbis (the one significant exception being the International Rabbinic Fellowship,which is not much of an issue as 18 out of 22 of the members of its leadership (as found at http://www.internationalrabbinicfellowship.org/leadership) are signatories to the Statement of Principles), as well as numerous American Orthodox Rabbis, enough to, IMO, establish a majority consensus. As Same-Sex marriage is really only a battleground issue right now on the political scene in America, Rabbis from other countries are less likely to have impetus to comment on this issue. Many of these organizations have numerous other press releases discussing the issue, if these alone aren't enough.


 * http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105665
 * http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105635
 * http://www.torahdec.org/Default.aspx
 * http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/


 * While they disagree in their stridency, and in their views on other issues related to the treatment of LGBTs, all of these statements are opposed to Same-Sex marriage.

g.j.g (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Those appear to be primary sources. I'd like to see some secondary ones. Rivertorch (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Allagoas?
I know the spirit of self-editing of wikipedia and collaborative work, but sometimes there are some flaws due to "not-verified" on-line information, sometimes media called marriage what actually is a civil union. I've read the Ilga's 2012 State Sponsored homophobia inform, I consider is a diligent and well verified source, in that document is said Brazil has a equal or almost equal recognition due to the Supreme Court rulling in 2011 related to "stable Unions", what I think it happened it was a notification to the allagoas registers to accept "Stable unions" without judge rulling and some media erroneously called it "marriage". Despite a few links in Portuguese of media that are little known it is really hard to find more information. This is the link of the Ilga's report. http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2012.pdf I think it is time to correct erroneous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.27.207 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The ILGA doesn't mention Algoas, so I removed it from the map, along with over a dozen other states we apparently got wrong. (Note however that they also don't mention Maine.) — kwami (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have no good sources on the extend of legality in Alagoas and this is an up-to-date report by an international group, looks comprehensive and omits it, so I removed it from the page for now. Hekerui (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwami, could you indicate which other states you removed, so we can have a reevaluation? This looks like a very decent report, but I'd like to compare it to the with the other sources we have, as also this source could be wrong/have flaws... L.tak (talk)
 * You can see the changes at File:World homosexuality laws.svg. Hekerui (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, I didn't remove a dozen others, I changed their status, and added one (S. Sumatra). Two of the "minor" penalty states, Liberia and Lebanon, actually give a year in prison, which hardly seems minor to me. (Bhutan defines it as a "petty" misdemeanor, so I left that one yellow.) Afghanistan does not in general assess the death penalty, though village courts operating under sharia may, and the report did not list it among the death-penalty states. It's not clear if it's actually legal in India and Iraq, so I partially colored them. Other changes are as listed.
 * Oh, for all the states I changed from grey to orange, I didn't try to verify the degree of severity of the penalty. Perhaps some of them should be yellow or red. — kwami (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the editor is trying to be helpful here, producing a map where none existed. But it is evident that the research that must necessarily accompany such an effort is WP:OR. We really must get maps from a copyright-free outside source IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Denmark - wrong date
Same-sex marriage was passed in the Danish Parliament on June 7, 2012, not on June 6 as is currently stated in the article. Please correct it. - Sebastian Gay (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Colour of Israel
I understand that Israel cannot allow full gay marriage. However, the Knesset has made it so that almost every single right afforded to straight couples is available to gays. Israel's colour right now just states that it recognises foreign gay marriages, which I know it does, however shouldn't the darker blue colour trump that, if they also have highly inclusive partnership rights?


 * I agree and have changed the map to reflect that. - htonl (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't. Recognition of marriage trumps not allowing marriage at all. In Israel it is possible to be married. In other countries with this shade, it is not. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did explain further at commons:File talk:World homosexuality laws.svg - perhaps we could continue the discussion there. - htonl (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * okay — kwami (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, for Denmark, is marriage possible in the kingdom, or only in the country? — kwami (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Greenland and the Faroes have home rule so the marriage law does not automatically apply there. Greenland did adopt the registered partnerships law. - htonl (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tradition of same gender marriage in Igboland (By Leo Igwe) IS NOT A TRUE INFORMATION.
To say that Igbo's allows a widow to marry a woman is a misleading information. The truth is that some families are been tricked to allow their daughter to marry a man they have not seen. In some cases; a widow might claims that her son is living in oversea and she want to marry for her son so that she can travel to where her son is residing (oversea) after her marriage which a man (not the widow) is arranged to represent the one in the oversea. It always happen that the girl will be delayed in her husband's house and different men from the family of the widow will be visiting to get the girl impregnated for the family of the widow. Most times this plans may not work if the family of the girl discover on time that there is no husband in oversea for their daughter. And above all, this marriage will never result that the widow will ever mention that she is the husband of the bride and can not have any marriage relationship apart from providing the bride's and her children's needs. This is done in a top secret, the whole world might accept same sex marriage but Igbo's can never accept it because our cultures, believes and sexual orientation can never welcome such practice.

By Oluchukwu F. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oluchukwufc (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to break the news but there have been many same-sex marriages, rituals, and relationships in your culture far before you or your closest ancestors even existed. It's a fact of history. The tradition of oppression or taboo of gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgenders in your culture is recent compared to the existence of equality among all. – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 23:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede
Sorry, just changed the lede and noticed the tag above it about the talk page consensus while waiting for it to save. Just wanted to say that i've seen it called "Gay marriage" and "equal marriage" in equal measures. Thanks  J e <font color="#FF0">n <font color="#0F0">o  v <font color="#F0F">a  20 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the lede reads better the way it was so i will revert myself. Feel free to ignore me, i'm rambling and want to go home!! Thanks  J e <font color="#FF0">n <font color="#0F0">o  v <font color="#F0F">a  20 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Marriage equality"
A debate whether "marriage equality" is an alternative title for "same-sex marriage", therefore if it should be bold or not. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I can actually see Crumpled Fire's point, though he's treading perilously close to WP:3RR in the way he's editing. "Marriage equality" is not a synonym for "same-sex marriage"; it is a term for the legal recognition of SSM or the campaign for such recognition. On the other hand, since we don't have a "campaign for same-sex marriage" or "marriage equality movement" article, it's appropriate for "marriage equality" to redirect here. Whatever one might think of polygamous or incestuous marriages, it is not currently used to refer to campaigns for their legalisation. All that being said, I think a reading of MOS:BOLDTITLE would lead us to bold the words as a "significant alternative title". - htonl (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have raised no objections to including the term in the lead paragraph, but I completely disagree that it is in any way an alternative title for marriage between same-sex persons. A very simple way to tell if "Marriage equality" truly fits the criteria of an alternative title is to see if the opening sentence makes sense with it: "Marriage equality is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity". It doesn't, so it doesn't fit the criteria. Crumpled Fire (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Alternative title" does not mean the same thing as "synonym". This article could reasonably be titled "Marriage equality" (though it would not be as good a choice of title as the current one). - htonl (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Really? You honestly think this article could be titled that? Please, explain how the opening sentence of an article about marriage between persons of the same-sex would be phrased using that title.Crumpled Fire (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously you would have to rewrite the lead. I suppose it would be something like "Marriage equality refers to the extension of marriage to include couples of the same sex...". Of course it's more awkward, which is why I am certainly not advocating for it. - htonl (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that "marriage equality" amounts to a POV, while "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" simply neutrally describe the phenomenon, which is what Wikipedia is for. Fifty years from now or fifty years ago, the title "same-sex marriage" would still be appropriate, but "marriage equality" would not (just like if the campaign for interracial marriage had been called "marriage equality"). That said, it is neutral to explain that same-sex marriage proponents currently refer to the campaign to legalize it as "marriage equality", which is why the redirect lands you at this article. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that "marriage equality" is a somewhat POV term, which is another reason why it isn't the title of the article. That doesn't mean it necessarily shouldn't be bolded. For a comparable example, the lead in the article Opposition to the legalization of abortion also bolds "pro-life movement" and "anti-abortion movement". - htonl (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think both of you make a good case, and the MOS neither recommends nor deprecates bolding a non-synonymous alternative title. (In fact, it doesn't appear to discuss the possibility.) Let me ask you, Hton: what bothers you about the current version (with the phrase in italics)? Rivertorch (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't particularly bother me, actually, but I think it is of benefit to those who reach this article through the marriage equality redirect to have the term easily visible in the lead. In any case, having the phrase in bold was the status quo for almost a year (since this edit, to be precise) so maybe you should ask CF what bothers him about that version. - htonl (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think out of WP:CONSISTENCY, as htonl showed regarding the way other articles have done this, and being that it has been bold for nearly a year without issue, the discontent shouldn't be rested on the one maintaining consistency, it should rest on Crumpled Fire. And frankly, the manner in which (s)he is editing lacks a civil tone and WP:3RR recognition. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 18:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I had thought I might ask you both, one at a time. (Sometimes that help to focus a discussion.) For those who reach the article from Marriage equality, there is a hatnote prominently placed just above the lede that shows the redirect. That, combined with the phrase's appearing in italics in the first paragraph of the lede, would seem to satisfy the need for easy visibility. That it was bolded for almost a year is a point in favor of its not being changed without a clear explanation, but I think Crumpled Fire has tried to provide one. Let me ask you, Crumpled: if bolding of non-synonymous terms is permissible by policy and precedent, what is it about this particular context that leads you to make an issue of it here? Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the institution of same-sex marriage. If it was an article for the proposal of same-sex marriage, it could be bold. 'Marriage equality' is therefore not an alternative name for this article. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you made sense. This is all trivial and unimportant. – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How does it not make sense? Bolding is used for alternative names of the article. As this is for the institution of same-sex marriage, "marriage equality" is not an alternative name. It could be debated as the alternative name for other articles such as the proposal for same-sex marriage, though it may be biased in order to do so. Can I de-bold it now? Crzyclarks (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We bold the topic of an article. ME is arguably a primary topic. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

According to, it is the alternative name of the article. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So can I de-bold it now? Crzyclarks (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, unless there is a clear consensus for your change, you should not move to make it. --Scientiom (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a valid argument to keep it bold. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you and the one other person I saw make your same point haven't a valid argument. It's been bold for a whole year, marriage equality is used to refer to same-sex marriage on a universal basis, and it redirects here. Don't you have something else to edit perhaps? – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 21:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Marriage equality would be a result of same-sex marriage, however it is not an alternative name for the institution of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately my time is being taken up with nonsense. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Marriage equality isn’t necessarily the result of, or equal to, same sex marriage. Marriage equality means equal treatment of the marriage under law. Currently in the United States same sex marriages are treated differently from opposite sex marriages under federal law (different tax and immigration rules for example). All same sex marriages in the US are currently unequal (under federal law) to opposite sex marriages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyjkent (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Marriage equality" Sounds more synonymous with peer marriage than ssm. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Children and the family errata
The article claims that;

"Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary."

I believe that this statement lacks neutrality. Data samples are too small to come to any conclusive assumptions. Elvesier's Social Science Research published two articles stating:

1) "The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way." Marks, L 2012 Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting, Social Science Research 41, 735-751

2) "The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go." Regnerus, M 2012 How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Social Science Research 41, 752-770

3) "The New Family Structures Study also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succees well as adults... when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day." Regnerus, M 2012 How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Social Science Research 41, 752-770

I believe that the article should be modified to represent these and other findings.

Regards, FGC2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgc2012 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the Marks paper, but Regnerus' study has no bearing on committed or married same-sex parents (and hence no bearing on this article) as what his study described as "gay fathers" and "lesbian mothers" was anyone who had ever had a same-sex relationship. Hence he was comparing opposite-sex married couples with all sorts of cases of divorced parents, single parents, etc. etc. He was emphatically not comparing opposite-sex married parents with same-sex married parents. See for example and . - htonl (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Slate article, Regnerus says "I’m not claiming that all the previous research on this subject is bunk" . He admits his limitations, especially in dealing with a database of over 15,000 entries. I recommend reading his article rather than a commentary on it.


 * Doctors 4 the Family also present an argument claiming that raising children in a same-sex environment may be harmful to them.


 * I personally believe that we will not get any conclusive data on the issue for another 10-20 years when we will begin to research countries that have legalised same-sex marriage in the past decade (Canada and most of Europe) and see the impacts of parenting without the stigma generally associated with same-sex couples and parents. Until that time there will continue to be debate over the issue.


 * All this brings me back to my original point, the article cannot state that "there is no evidence to the contrary" when there are papers out there which refute this point. I would replace the "no evidence" with "little evidence" or "evidence to the contrary lacks appropriate peer review."


 * Regards,
 * Fgc2012


 * A cottage industry trying to discredit parenting by same-sex couples. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fgc2012, I must respectfully disagree with your claim that the statement isn't neutral. The statement is actually a fact and is neutral. We discussed the study on the LGBT parenting talk page and have excluded it from the article. Specifically because:
 * 1) Mark Regnerus' study only evaluates children who come from broken heterosexual marriages/relationships, where one parent has been or is now in a same-sex relationship. (in other words, a gay parent was in the closet living as a heterosexual)
 * 2) The study doesn't evaluate children raised by gay couples.
 * Researchers criticize new study questioning same-sex parenting (archived)
 * First Look at Mark Regnerus’s Study on Children of Parents In Same-Sex Relationships (archived)
 * Dad and dad vs. mom and dad (archived)
 * Study of Gay Parenting Draws Criticism - ABC News (archived)
 * Social Science Malpractice: Slandering Same Sex Couples as Parents (archived)
 * Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus (archived)
 * Overview: Three Responses to Mark Regnerus’s Study of Children of Parents In Same-Sex Relationships (archived)
 * Gay Parents Study: Dollarship Disguised as Scholarship
 * National Organization for Marriage Hiding Ties to 'Objective' Anti-Gay Parenting Study
 * Do Children of Same-Sex Parents Really Fare Worse?
 * Back in the Gay: Does a new study indict gay parenthood or make a case for gay marriage?
 * A Faulty “Gay Parenting” Study
 * Are Gay Parents Really Worse For Children? How a New Study Gets Everything Wrong
 * Sign Petition: Help Launch Investigation into Anti-Gay Junk Science Study – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 23:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Teamm,

For the record, I only paid attention to ScienceDirect article Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus as I avoid blog article because they are more opinionated than factual. There is scientific literature reviews that contradict the position stated in my opening argument. Regardless of the critiques Marks (2012) and Regnerus (2012), it is still considered scientific literature.

Also, isn't Sarantakos (1996) considered sciencific literature? (Sotirios Sarantakos, 1996 Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development, Children of Australia, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 23-31)

I would much rather follow the advise of Amato and rephrase the line as "Studies overwhelmingly show that children of lesbian and gay parents are not disadvantaged..."

Regards, Fgc2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgc2012 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was, the study doesn't evaluate gay couples' ability to raise children compared to opposite-sex couples. In fact, it was the opposite-sex couple that raised the child within the study (one where there was a closeted gay parent). The only conclusion that you can make from this is that where a closeted gay parent comes out to their "heterosexual family", it is likely to have a negative impact on them, which is obvious and has nothing to do with gay couples raising children. So, what are you trying to say about this study in this article? By the way, while some of those articles may be opinion, it nevertheless is factual how they interpreted the actual study. – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 10:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that we are working with tiny samples here. There may be a million "studies" all concluding the same thing. But there are very few homosexual couples that have raised children from a very young age (birth?) to an age when we can say that they are relatively free from "problems." Age 30? :) So reliable studies should be on parents who were raising children from (say) 1982+ which might have been (what?) 10,000 couples in the world? And then obtaining a sample of them? Assuming that "divorce" rates do not exceed those of heterosexual couples (which doesn't seem to be the case), say 50%. Having dozens of "authorities" state unequivocally that same sex parents have no worse affect that opposite sex parents seems not only premature, but almost deliberately political and pov. Student7 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to studies/research, there are over 2 million or so same-sex couples raising children in the United States alone. The number worldwide would therefore be in the *dozens of millions*. --112.134.183.115 (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Student7, you're very mistaken. There have been decades (meaning more than one) of study of children who were raised by gay couples from birth and and from very young ages where the children would not have known their original parents. In the United States alone, there are approximately 2 million children being raised right now by gay couples, which doesn't include the children in those past decades, which have been the source of study and the conclusion that children raised by gay couples are just as happy and well-adjusted as their peers. It's literally not premature and not POV. What you're doing, by guessing a number of gay couples there were in the world, is unreliable. You do know that 10,000 couples = 20,000 people? There are at least 100,000+ adults right now in the U.S. alone who were raised by gay couples who were born in the decade 1980-90. The consensus on the outcome of children raised by gay couples is very sound and reliable. And frankly, it's also common sense. Why would the gender of the two parents matter if those two parents do what they're supposed to for the child? There are many types of families, and always will be. I find some people's rationale and questions a bit ignorant. They're not thinking much. (not directed at you) – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Teammm, have you looked at the Sarantakos (1996) article yet? I mentioned it previously, but you didn't address it the article.

On a side note, most of the literature I've found state that children raised by biological parents suffer less depression, anxiety and infanticide. Since both members of a same-sex couple cannot be the biological parent (with certain exceptions), would it be correct in assuming that the children would have the same issues as those in traditional step-families?

Cheers, Fgc2012 —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be synthesis, which is not allowed per WP:NOR. Scientifically, there would be no basis for that conclusion, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My recent edit
I described the reasons for the edit in the edit summary, so what are the reasons for opposing? Crzyclarks (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both the mention of gender identity and the bolding of marriage equality was done after discussion - there should be a consensus here to undo that. Also, when it comes to gender-identity it means that when two people of the same gender-identity marry it is considered to be a same-sex marriage. --Scientiom (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about gender identity, but the bolding of marriage equality was hardly a consensus. According to laws and the actual institution of same-sex marriage, it is only between the same biological sex. I'd like a refutation on my argument that 'marriage equality' is not an alternative name for this article. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It can be considered as such in that the legalization of same-sex marriage is considered to be marriage equality. --Scientiom (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is on the institution of same-sex marriage, not the legalization or proposal. As such, it is alternative name for those two things, but not this article. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In reference to "gender identity" etc.: "biological sex" is not a well-defined concept. Does it refer to sex as determined by the chromosomes, the gonads, or the genitals? All of those can differ or not fall clearly on one side of the binary. The legal situation for marriage for transgender and intersex people differs massively from one jurisdiction to another. Significantly, for example, the United Kingdom allows a change of legal gender without requiring sex reassignment surgery, and that new gender is recognised for marriage purposes. - htonl (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the key point here is that it is sometimes considered to be a same-sex marriage when people of the same gender-identity marry. --Scientiom (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You could go into detail on that, specifically separating the position of the law and what some people think. That should be done in the lead in order to keep the "gender identity" there. Bolding 'marriage equality' is still not correct, unless you change the title of the article. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "...refer to such recognition as marriage equality." <- See bolded - it clearly mentions that it's reffering to the recognition of SSM, not SSM itself. --Scientiom (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that shows anything. People referring to the recognition of same-sex marriage as recognising "marriage equality" does not support your position. This article isn't on the recognition of same-sex marriage (though we're just getting into semantics), it's on the institution of same-sex marriage. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But what the leads says is factually correct as written - the recognition or legalization (the latter should also be mentioned perhaps) of SSM is known as marriage equality. --Scientiom (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be there, but not in bold, as it is not an alternative name for the article. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you fucking kidding? You edit-war, get blocked twice, and are facing yet another block over something as trivial as whether a word is in bold or not? And continue to wage a dead-horse argument over it? Get a grip and do something actually useful for the project. At this point, this is merely tendentious editing, and it has to stop. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocks and current block discussion has nothing to do with this article. I don't see what is wrong with my argument, as it's clearly not an alternative name for this article and unless I'm wrong about the rules of 'bolding' names, then 'marriage equality' cannot be in bold. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For cry's ache. Read WP:DEADHORSE already and give it a rest. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it does, because it's still in bold. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are bigger fish to fry. Like this one:

Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The best refute that I've ever seen. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! She's a beaut, ain't she! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Marriage equality" by itself is confusing. It may be what practitioners call the law or something, but the it is hardly synonymous with "same sex marriage." Student7 (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern
A statement reads "Historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages date back to the Roman Empire and the Ming Dynasty(ref1)(ref2)." Actually we cannot access ref 1 or ref 2. Both seem to state that their contents mainly deal with Europe. The Roman Empire one seem merely nonsense from Nero, having really nothing to do with truly legal matters, though no one would argue with him, doubtless. Seems to me that the statement about "historical" should be removed and, in a similar fashion, the term "modern" can then be dropped as well, since nothing legal preceded it. Student7 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't access them, how do you know what they seem to state? ... and they both say what is claimed. – Teammm  (talk · email) Face-smile.svg 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can access both references with a phone and with a computer from the 90s so there's no problem there...  J e <font color="#FF0">n <font color="#0F0">o  v <font color="#F0F">a  20 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Composition of the lede
The last paragraph in the lede doesn't belong there, per WP:LEAD and several other Wikipedia policies that address such things. Here is what I'm talking about:"Studies conducted in several countries indicate that more-educated people are more likely to support same-sex marriage than the less-educated, and younger people are more likely to support same-sex marriage than older generations. Additionally, polls show that people who personally know a gay person are more likely to support it than people who do not know any gay people."These two sentences aren't about same-sex marriage; they are about they aren't even about peoples' opinions on same-sex marriage. The reason that material is there is because some editors want to say, essentially, "You are stupid if you don't agree with us." Reasonable people can disagree about whether those statements belong anywhere in the article (and there is a case to be made either way), but there can be little doubt that they don't belong in the article summary, which by all relevant policies should be restricted to material about the article's subject. Belchfire (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that can't be remotely construed as hate speech. Secondly, it's at the very last paragraph of the lede, where it fits in nicely, and complements the previous sections. Thirdly, it's extremely well-cited. Fourthly, it is germane to the subject - A l is o n  ❤ 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How well it is cited is immaterial, and I'm not trying to make a case for removing it altogether. The point is that it isn't lede-worthy, and in fact it fits much better and more logically lower down in the article.  If you can't see why it smacks of hate-speech, you just might be partisan. Belchfire (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I offer no opinion as to whether it belongs in the lead. I do believe that it belongs somewhere in the article.  I don't see how it can be characterized as hate speech.  (The only thing I see here of hate is that I hate spelling lead l-e-d-e.)  Sterrettc (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alison, it is well cited. Furthermore, one of the most common talking points regarding same-sex marriage revolves around public opinions, therefore this deserves inclusion in the lede. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alison summed it up nicely. This cannot be construed as hate speach, and is very relevant to the topic. It therefore belongs in the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, having read their comments, I would wager that neither Dominus or Alison have read WP:LEAD. Belchfire (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, it doesn't belong in the lead. One is: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The polling information is not covered in the rest of the article and simply copying the exact same information and adding it further down the article isn't the correct remedy. Another point is: "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs". Another point is: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". This is the only rule that is debatable, however I don't think that the large paragraph in the lead complies with that rule either. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it is covered if you enter the redirecting links. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  20:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? The only thing I can see is "Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it. Various polls show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage." Those two polls are not mentioned in the paragraph in the lead, nor is the paragraph in the lead a summary of those two polls. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Which is why I moved that content down and placed it alongside other material about polls and whatnot - that's obviously where it belongs.  Belchfire (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the first link in the controversy section for example. Furthermore, most links to a country have links on public opinions. For example see the United States link. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see the link you're referring to, maybe you should just quote it. When same-sex marriage is specific to a country, polls belong there. However, for an overview, no. I gave other reasons that haven't been addressed. If you want it to stay, you're going to have to open a discussion at WP:LEAD and change the guidelines. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a controversial "nuts and bolts" thing that does not belong in the lead, per se. It might be summarized to say that "studies have been done" but don't see how this would wind up sounding npov. The material certainly isn't. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, it is encompasses ad hominum fallacy: "People who are smart believe this, therefore it must be a good idea." (Remember that the Enron folks were "the smartest people in the room?"). Actually this reflects a number of fallacies which you might want (or want to avoid! :) checking out. There is no "truth" to this political opinion. It is just an opinion. You cannot "prove" that "Abraham Lincoln" was a better president than "Stephen Douglas" would have been. It is an opinion only.
 * It is a fact that Abraham Lincoln was president and Stephen Douglas wasn't. Authorities can be cited in droves for that assertion because it is not an opinion. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously not seeing the ad hominem here, and have reverted your removal. The section directly relates to the subject matter and indicates the balance of social support/opposition across a number of disparate nations. I'm not seeing how these well-cited studies could be remotely construed as a personal attack (upon whom?) - A l is o n  ❤ 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Student7 makes a very valid point. Setting aside the POV issues for the moment, if the information doesn't appear in the body of the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. Belchfire (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is correct (WP:LEAD), though it can easily be remedied by incorporating the cited material into the body of the article, then summarising it in the lead. William Avery (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't solve the extra paragraph problem. Also, I don't see how these one-line specific polls can be summarised; as they are so different to each other. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they're different. They show exactly what the paragraph says. The demographics of the voters matter and should be mentioned. There's no bias towards anything, only reporting the results. It's important information for readers to know and completely relevant. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 00:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't belong in the lead. 2.102.184.183 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Because you don't like what it says? That's not a legitimate reason. It has historical importance and doesn't imply anything about those who don't support equal rights for gay people. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 03:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the lead by separating the recognition of same-sex marriage in countries and the religious denominations that perform it. As they are separate topics and cannot be in the same paragraph. Also changed it to conform to WP:LEAD by moving the polls to the overview section. Reasons are given above, but in summary, the lead shouldn't have more than four paragraphs and the polls aren't summarised in the main body. An option to move the polls to the lead is to remove the mention of the religions that support SSM and replace it with the polls. However, you still have your work cut out for you by trying to make a summary of the polls. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this revision. Thanks.  Belchfire (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also support. The lede is now in accordance with the relevant policy.– Lionel (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was in compliance - for about an hour. The needed change was reverted by a POV warrior - who used BRD as a precept, then ironically didn't bother to discuss anything.  I sense a RfC is going to be needed to figure this out. Belchfire (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple solution to the problem: More detailed text about the polls in the body - which I'll be working on adding soon. Also, see WP:AGF. --Scientiom (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Define "soon", and what would be wrong with conforming the lead to policy pending your article expansion?  Sorry to momentarily forget AGF, but you have to admit it wasn't unreasonable to conclude this was a drive-by when you let 90 minutes go by without saying anything. Belchfire (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the more amicable response - 'soon' means I hope to finish a detailed summary of the studies and polling within a few hours. --Scientiom (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've started the section - if needed it can obviously be expanded with even more detailed analysis, and the addition of more studies and polls. -Scientiom (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We still have the extra paragraph problem. Also, three specific polling results isn't a summary of the studies and polling section. So far we haven't seen any arguments in favour of the polling paragraph in the lead that references WP:LEAD; only arguments against it. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should take a closer look at the references used in the lead - one of them contains multiple references grouped together - it is indeed a summary of the studies and polling section. --Scientiom (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the body of the article now supports mentioning polls in the lead, the lead is still too long, still makes assertions not supported further down, and the polls are given undue weight. Needs a re-write.  Belchfire (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps an expansion? It seems fairly short compared to the leads of many articles of a similar size. What do you think? --Scientiom (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the references, the main body would need to have something about the polls in each specific country the references are from. At the moment, the polling in the lead isn't a summary of the main body, it's a summary of the references. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What goes on in other articles is immaterial here - the lead for this article exceeds policy for length and fails the Relative Emphasis portion of WP:MOSINTRO. Belchfire (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anywho... Scientiom, if you're considering an expansion, that's great, but if your expansion isn't forthcoming within a reasonable time frame, somebody is going to need to tackle the existing issues while we wait for your new content. Belchfire (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The general guideline for length specifically indicates that it is not an absolute rule, and as we have one one-sentence paragraph and three two-sentence paragraphs, I don't think a five paragraph lead falls too far outside the spirit of WP:MOSLEAD. By their nature, leads must briefly cover a variety of points, so the option is to have a few paragraphs that cover a lot of ground, or several very brief paragraphs. I offer no opinion on whether the stats should be included or not, but I don't see length as a problem here.--Trystan (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of second and third paragraphs of lead
Without offering an opinion on whether the stats should be included, I do think the lead could be improved upon; it has grown to include minor issues and asides at the expense of laying out the larger fundamental issues. Specifically, I would propose moving the second and third paragraphs ("Historical mention..." and "As of 2012...") to the Overview section and replacing them with the first paragraph of the Overview section, plus one additional sentence:
 * ''Since 2001, eleven countries and some subnational jurisdictions have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry. The introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, resulting from legislative changes to marriage laws, court challenges based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or a combination of the two. The recognition of same-sex marriages is a political, social, ethical and religious issue in many nations. Debates arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union), or not have any such rights.

I think this paragraph serves as a much better summary of both the topic and the article than what we currently have.--Trystan (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support the change and move proposed, with the following minor additions:
 * ''Since 2001, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden) and some sub-national jurisdictions (Mexico City, Quintana Roo, parts of United States) have begun to allow same-sex couples to marry. Introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, resulting from either legislative changes to marriage laws, court challenges based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or a combination of the two. The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political, social, ethical and religious issue in many nations and debates arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed marriage, be required to hold a different status (such as a civil union), or be excluded from such rights.

I think it would be a good summary. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 20:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Though I prefer "or not have any such rights." "Excluded" sounds a bit POV. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the revisions; I was reluctant to get rid of the list of countries, and like the way you've worked it in.--Trystan (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The "modern" and "smart" text still do not conform to WP:SYNTH. If red-headed people supported/oppposed it, would that be reportable? The issue is political. The people adding this information are attempting to make it a matter of stupidity and "modernism." Thinking less of red-headed people, is not helpful to the overall discussion of a political (statutory) issue. It essentially attacks people who don't believe in your cause for reasons other than political, like weight, how about "good looks?" how about "immigrants from the Near East?" Material should be clearly related to the WP:TOPIC or removed. If they are not removed, what would be wrong with (then) pointing out that "smart" people have been proven not to have all the answers, and (as nearly everyone has observed) young people seldom do. Look at the druggies of the sixties. Are we "better off" with drugs? Student7 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Take your own advice and stay on topic. Are you in the wrong section? Don't know what you're talking about. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe 'parts of Mexico and the US'. Also, worth commenting that bills are pending in a number of other countries. (We don't want CRYSTALBALL, but in some cases this is court-mandated, not just a campaign promise.) — kwami (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We still have an undue weight issue in the lead with the ad hominem bit about education levels. Now that there is some support in the body, there is a case to be made for mentioning the polls in the lead, but not for cherry-picking that particular finding.  Belchfire (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. That paragraph is still not a summary of the polling and studies section. A history of same-sex marriage paragraph should be there instead. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)