Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 2

Archives to December 4 2003
By putting the parenthetical comment "consequently monogamous ones only" after the listing of countries that allow same-sex marriage, this implies a value judgement that somehow same-sex couples might be more likely to be less monogamous than opposite-sex couples. This is not NPOV at all. I went ahead and removed the comment. Hope it sticks. Jiminnyc


 * That is just your interpretation. It was a neutral remark that naturally arises when systematically considering which kinds of marriages there are (two special kinds, do they exclude each other?). - Patrick 07:29 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I felt that way too, but apparently some think it was a necessary addition, see the discussion further down. -- Kimiko 06:02 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-- TraxPlayer

Denmark was the first country in the world to have "Same-Sex" marriage The law is from 7. june 1989 and can be read in full from http://www.retsinfo.dk/_GETDOC_/ACCN/A19890037230-reglTARGET=%22_blank%22

It is called "Registered Partnership" and gives 100% the same rights

So the article should be changed and Belgium is then not the second country to give those right but the third country.


 * I removed the listing of Denmark. As you state, Denmark has got a marriage-like civil union system (as do other Scandinavian countries, Quebec, etc...) but that these same-sex unions are not legal marriages in that they are not called marriages and are not part of the marriage law. What the Ontario court did was to rule that marriages shall be between two people instead of a man and a woman, rather than setting up a parallel system for same-sex couples. - Montr&eacute;alais

Slrubenstein


 * Wouldn't the marriage statutes in the first 13 states go back closer to two centuries? Would it be more accurate to say either "traditional Christian understanding" or maybe even "traditional Judeo-Christian understand"?


 * I was not refering solely to marriage as between a man and a woman -- remember, in the 19th century many marriages were common-law, or arranged for economc purposes. I cannot speak to a "traditional" Christian understanding of marriage; as for a traiditional Jewish understanding, for most of Jewish history that would have included polygyny. Slrubenstein

Hey, it isn't my argument (that's for damn sure). That's just what they call it. Someone else called it that and I kept it, though rewriting the sentence. I certainly think it's a spurious concept, but that's what they call it. (An article describing anti-Semitism might say, "Some believe, blah blah blah, Jewish comspiracy" even though "Jewish conspiracy" is a spurious concept too.) - user:Montrealais

What is the objection to the word "traditional" in traditional understanding of marriage? Is it that calling something traditional is tantamount to endorsing it? That is, are we trying to avoid an NPOV violation here?


 * I thought I explained my objection above Slrubenstein

Or is anyone aware of a change in the understanding of marriage that took place in the late 1890s or early 1900s? That is, when and where has the idea of "one man, one woman" been popular? (I kinda thought it was the norm nearly at all times and in all places, with rather rare exceptions. I wish someone would write an article showing the scope of one man, one woman if it's prevalence is significantly less than I (and perhaps many other readers) have thought.


 * Well, you could try your friendly local encyclopedia. Polygamy says Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones.


 * also, just read the article on marriage Slrubenstein


 * I think the term "traditional marriage" is not neutral, because it implies that marriage hasn't changed much, that the kind of marriage described as "traditional" is similar to marriage over the past centuries and millenia. I think that assertion is historically false. Among the changes in marriage over the last century or two in the U.S.:

And so on. Yes, I should write this down in marriage. In any case, since the historical validity of the concept "traditional marriage" is disputed, it is not a neutral term. I could agree with a phrase like "the late 20th century concept of 'traditional' marriage". -- JDLH
 * 1967, mixed-race marriages made legal nationwide
 * 1960s-1970s, divorce becomes more common
 * Early 1900s, contraception legalised
 * Late 1800s, women permitted to own property in a marriage
 * Early 1800s, social presumption that father is primary parent raising the child changes; mother becomes presumed primary parent.

The article reads: "However after a court case brought about by a gay couple it was concluded that restricting marriage to partners of mixed sex was in violation of the constitution, which forbids discrimination against homosexuals. Hence the marriage law was changed."

This description may confuse US-Americans, as their constitution seems to be 'the final word' on something, and laws have to conform to the constitution. In the Netherlands, the constitution has little legal standing, AFAIK; it is more like a list of intentions. Of course, it would be silly to have a list of intentions and then having law go against those intentions, but it is not impossible or illegal. A judge finding a law or situation unconstitutional is no more than a legal expert voicing his opinion. IANAL.--user:Branko

Problems Facing Same- Sex Married Couples
In addition to facing the difficulties related to finding cultural acceptance, legal rights and prejudice, perhaps the most challenging obstacle to same- sex marriages is the absolute dearth of bakeries willing to break- up a set and sell two little plastic "grooms" to sit atop the wedding cake.dave


 * oh haha. I expect the same problem befalls heterosexual couples where the woman doesn't want to dress up like a meringue. Besides, (1) they could double up with a gay couple of the opposite sex (since that happens sometimes for having children, why not for cake decorations), and (2) I expect the manufacturers of such tasteless tack will jump on any bandwagon, and won't wait long before producing a variety of naff figurines "for all lifestyle choices" ;-) -- Tarquin


 * You probably don't believe me, and I don't blame you, but they HAVE two-little-grooms figures for gay wedding cakes. I've seen them. Then again, this is the same community where you can buy rainbow candlesticks and flowerpots, so don't be too surprised. :P user:Montrealais


 * See? I was right! ;-) -- Tarquin


 * You are certainly right. See http://www.twobrides.com/browse.asp?cat=10 and http://www.twogrooms.com/browse.asp?cat=10 for an assortment of same-sex couples to top your cakes.  -- JDLH

-

I believe the more appropriate title for this entry would be Same-sex marriage. Comments???


 * At first I agreed with you. I assumed "gay" to be a colloquialism or slang, but the American Heritage Dictionary makes no such distinction, so I say leave it alone. David de Paoli


 * We might want to change the name. user:Montrealais

I agree, the name should changed to same-sex marriage since in many circles "gay" = homosexual male and is therefore more ambiguous and less inclusive compared with "same-sex". If there is general agreement on this issue say so on my talk page and I will perform the move (since this will require deleting the redirect same-sex marriage to make room for the move). --mav


 * Anon, jumped the gun. Page moved with its history now. --mav

---

Okay, things are looking good now (I think) :-)

Page should need some light editing after change.

-


 * Maybe it's because I have several friends in West Hollywood, but "gay" is used equally to refer to homosexual males as well as females. However, the activist group "GLAD" (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) does set the precedent that indeed "gay" does imply male homosexuals as differentiated from female ones. So, I hereby change my vote to support changing the title.David de Paoli

Is the "between two" necessarily true. Many cultures allow heterosexual polygamy, do any allow homosexual polygamy?


 * I believe polygamy and polyamory are separate, but related, topics. Yes, while one variant of the early-21st centry US understanding of "marriage" includes same-sex couples, another variant includes marriages with more than two people. Note that for any group of more than two people, if each person can be one of two sexes (ie none are intersexed), then at least two of the people must be the same sex. So any poly grouping will have some same-sex component.  This is why I agree we should include links. But I think we should not try to cover the polygamy and polyamory topics here. --JDLH 1. October 2002

I've changed a couple of words and sentences in the opening section of the article. Some words were needlessly POV. I personally would agree with them but Wiki isn't about expressing our own opinions but given a NPOV perspective. I qualified the mention of traditional marriage with the mention of the judeo-christian ethic, which is the underlying principle that has shaped marriage in all western societies, while pointing out that the judeo-christian ethic is no longer a shared cultural ethic in the manner it was in earlier periods. I also drew attention to the fact that the article was dealing with the issue of civil marriage, a crucial qualification, for 'marriage' is for many both a civil and a religious contract. JTD 03:12 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Is it necessary to state "monogamous only" after mentioning Dutch and Belgian same-sex marriages? Monogamous marriages are the only ones legally possible, wether same-sex or opposite-sex. I think polygamy is a completely different subject best left on its own page. -- Kimiko


 * The idea is to say that there is no overlap between the countries with polygamy and with same-sex marriage. I clarified this - Patrick 01:30 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Also, where can I find info on the Finnish plans for same-sex marriages on the net? Finland has had 'domestic partnerships' since 2001, but I hadn't heard anything about marriage there yet. -- Kimiko 21:45 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

How about this link? http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc-cont.html IMHO, it gives a good overview of the problems involved with partnerships, etc. and the introduction of same-sex marriage in the U.S. It also gives a not completely up-to-date overview of the status of same-sex relationships in many countries. It may not be NPOV enough for inclusion as an external link though. -- Kimiko 08:54 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article (from an anonymous contributor): "The vote that took place to recommend the Justice Minister not to bring this to the Supreme Court of Canada is dubious. Part way through the day two Liberal members left the committee and were replaced with two other Liberals would who vote in favour. Needless to say, the two who were replaced would not have supported the motion and it would have been defeated.

There is something else that the ruling brings to light in Ontario that the original author failed to mentioned, but was mention repeatedly during the committee just before the vote. And that is when was the judical system given the right to create new laws? The judges are not elected in Ontario they are appointed. The provincal MPs are elected to the Provincal Paraliament to create laws and create them update. This is not the responsible or within the powers granted to the Courts. This case goes beyond gay wanting to marry, but who creates the laws the Provincal Government? Or Provincal Courts? Last week, it worked in favour of the gays. Next week, next year, next decade it not, people will loss their rights, as power corrupts absolutely. Judges are not accountable to the voters and do not have to follow what the majority of Ontarians or Canadains believe, as we just saw." -- Notheruser 21:58 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

em. . . actually most courts worldwide automatically have that power. They interpret rights and require that those rights be given legislative form. It is sort of. . . well. . .standard. It is what courts do in most of the countries of the world. Whether they are appointed or elected is irrelevant. It is the job people are appointed to do. BTW governments don't make laws. Laws are passed by legislatures. Governments have to get laws they want passed by parliaments. Judges enforce rights; in some jurisdictions they can tear up laws that breach fundamental rights. Frankly the argument that the courts don'y have the right to create new laws is absurd.


 * Yep, it's called the Common Law last time I checked. The argument that courts do not make the law was at one stage commonly held in England, but in recent history this has been repeatedly rejected. Through the setting of binding precedent (which must be followed by all lower courts in their decisions), courts effectively shape the law. But this doesn't mean that the courts use this power to change the law, they use the power to creatively find solutions to legal problems that would otherwise have produced a result lacking in justice. This was demonstrated in Australia in the famous Mabo case, wherein the court gave the right to displaced Australian Aboriginal people to claim their traditional tribal land back under Native Title. While courts are not directly accountable to voters, they are by their very nature non-political. Thus they generally do not demonstrate the self-serving interests of some politicians. -- Mark Ryan 06:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

Shouldn't the comment about the judeo-christian qualms with same-sex marriages be moved to either religion and homosexuality (already linked at the top of the article), or to christian views of homosexuality (it is a quote from the KJV after all)? I don't think we need to restate those views on every page dealing with anything connected to homosexuality. -- Kimiko 06:44 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I wanted to say something similar, but didn't. There are plenty of reasons why some Christians oppose same-sex marriages, not just that one quote.  For example, some say that sex and marriage should only be used for procreation and same-sex marriages can't fulfill this role.  Others use different Biblical quotes or other rationales.  Tuf-Kat

Even then, those opinions are based on a religious background and therefore belong on their respective pages, not on this one. The link at the top is there for precisely that reason. -- Kimiko 06:57 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's a good idea to move the "Same sex marriage in ???" bits to their own pages? I can't think of a way to nest them correctly in the current page, and we could very well end up with an entry on this page for every country and jurisdiction in the world!

If nobody objects I'll move the bits to their own pages, add them to a see also: bit at the end of this page, and maybe make a table on this page showing what countries do (and don't?) recognize same-sex marriages and unions, and to what extent. -- stewacide 04:27 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * It sounds good. Be sure to refer back to this page for a generic explanation of same-sex marriages and the problems/controversy surrounding them, so as to avoid duplication. -- Kimiko 07:11 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the United States at present, it appears that the separation between Religion and State, is very thin. Citizens of the US, should be concerned about any law or constitutional amendment that dictates laws regarding religious rites or ceremonies. If a religion wishes to restrict same-gender religious agreements and rituals, they should be allowed to do so. This would pave the way toward legalization of contractual agreements between citizens regardless of gender. Most states "de-sexed" child custody laws in the 1970's, giving fathers equal rights to parent as mothers. This was done because of the prejudice against fathers as primary care-givers. Similar legislation to "de-gender" domestic contracts would achieve equality for all Americans. However, because of the strong religious control of your government in the US, this does not seem likely. - 68.0.139.141


 * Eh, what is your point? You seem to A) blame the US' troubles recognizing same-sex relationships on religion, and B) advocate getting rid of the term "marriage" to solve those troubles. Correct or incorrect, both seem rather POV to me, so what are you trying to say here? -- Kimiko 07:49 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this person is saying that religious control is good or bad. He or she seems to think that same-sex marriage laws force the hand of religous groups, which they do not. -- Mark Ryan 06:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the Scandinavian countries and Finland, with Denmark in the front, being the first country in the world to legalize same-sex-marriages.

It is also interesting to read Johns Boswells book "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, 1994

orfeus@gyxi.dk


 * The Scandinavian countries are still stuck in the domestic partnership/civil union age. Those are mentioned and linked under other forms of same-sex partnership. -- Kimiko 23:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"in countries with monogamous marriages only, some opponents also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will re-open the door to the legalization of polyamorous marriage, or other forms they find even more objectionable"

Really? Has anyone actually come across campaign groups arguing this in their own countries? Sounds fabricated to me. M-Henry 14:41, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This argument has been made by SSM opponents in Canada, claiming that the law would allow incestuous and polygamous marriages. Complete horsefeathers, but still. Also, if you're going to explain an edit in Talk, please write "see Talk" in the summary line. Thanks! - Montr&eacute;alais

- The marriages in Poland give the couple several privileges, of which I consider three the most important:

a) Economical advantages (lower taxes, sicne you can pay tax as "virtual" one person etc) b) Right to inherit after death of your partner c) Recognition of special ties with your partner in case of his sickness (so you are allowed to go to hospital, while boyfriend is not in some cases, you are allowed not to testify against etc)

While b) c) is purely recognition of special relationship between two people, a) is privilege given by state. The question is, why? The answer IMHO is because state wants to reward special status of the marriage as _family_, that is, the basic social cell able to raise new children, stabilising society etc. Same-sex can't have children. They could adopt children, but this is another controversial issue (at least in Poland, as many here doubt whether child can be raised without having both "father" and "mother" models).

The opposition in Poland (the reasonable one) against same-sex marriages is not against b) and c), but against a), that is, against giving special privileges to couples, which are seen reserved as means of encouraging social behaviour beneficial for the society as a whole.

You can attack this arguments basing on notion that marriages are not resembling family, don't have to have children, and same-sex marriages if they could adopt children they could make the same functions as normal. But this is just my 0.3 zlp to referring opinions which should make you remember, that opposition is not only from religious fanatics and homophobs (well, not from _fanatical_ homophobs, sicne i guess refusing the right to adopt children to homosexuals can be described as homophobia is some milder form). szopen

Same sex marriage

A legal denial of rights or benefits directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection under the law.
 * I don't think that this is a serious argument. If I would live in the US, by the same argument I could request right to be married to my wristwatch in order to get over 1,049 federal rights and benefits. Or by the same argument it should be allowed for children to marry as those rights cannot be denied to them, etc. Nikola 20:55, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a very serious argument and was at the heart of the Lawrence v. Texas rulling. Sorry, but you cannot compare a wristwatch to a human being in a relationship. I'm putting the sentence back, but with a qualification. --mav 21:36, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Hey, I love my wristwatch :) But, by the same measure, what about children? Polyamorous marriages? Nikola 07:38, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah the slippery slope logical fallacy rears its ugly head.


 * It's not slippery slope, just logical thinking. If it is logical that a homosexual couple should have the same rights granted to a heterosexual couple, why isn't it logical that an animal couple or a car couple or a buildings couple should have the same righte? Nikola


 * Are you suggesting that heterosexual people are human beings, but homosexual people are inanimate objects like cars??? - Mark Ryan 07:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No, of course, just that homosexual people are not heterosexual people. If you would find this example more acceptable, if it is logical that homosexual couples should have the same rights granted to heterosexual couples, why isn't it logical that a police general or a scout general should have the same rights granted to an army general, or that a president of a local schoolboard should have the same rights granted to the president of the United States? Nikola 07:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Homosexual and heterosexual people are both different of course, but they are both people.


 * Well, presidents are also people, at least most of them ;)
 * If you like, heterosexual people and homosexual people have the responsibility of marriage - homosexual marriage isn't different from heterosexual marriage other than the sexes or genders of the people in the marriage.
 * It is. Homosexual marriage cannost produce new children, which is the primary function of a marriage.
 * This thread is getting out of hand! My browser window isn't that large :) Anyway, heterosexual sex (not marriage) is different from homosexual sex, as homosexual sex cannot produce new children, but that has nothing to do with marriage: unmarried people can have sex and produce new children, so the purpose of marriage is not solely to produce new children. To me, marriage is primarily a commitment between two people - and a commitment between two people is the same regardless of their sexes. Dysprosia 20:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * By the way, shoulnd't the paragraph we are talking about be moved to the "United States-specific developments" section? Nikola 20:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I think that's Kimiko's concern, below Dysprosia
 * However, a police general has the responsibility of a community, while the scout leader has the responsibility of a group of children, and an army general has the responsibility of an army of people, and a president of a schoolboard has the responsibility of a number of schools, while the president has the responsibility of a nation. Their responsibilities are wildly different, and thus they are not granted the same rights. Dysprosia 06:40, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that marriage between human beings carries with it some rights. Marriage is a human concept, and carries with it certain needs and statuses. Dysprosia 07:24, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Do heterosexuals have the right to marry children?


 * I meant among two childs. Nikola


 * The youngest age I'm aware of allowable marriage in modern times in the West is 13. But that requires parental permission. Kids cannot form consent to marriage and other things such as sex in the first place so the state has a valid right to prevent children from marrying. I don't have an opinion on multiple partner marriages - other than I find the concept odd and that it is allowed in many societies with no more ill effect that marriages in the west cause. --mav


 * Oh, no. It's very hard for poorer people to find themselves a wife in that countries. Nikola 07:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Well divorce in the US tends to make people very poor as well. ;) --mav


 * Things always find their way to balance up somehow ;) Nikola 07:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

IMO, the two paragraphs about the US constitution and the rights it gives to married couples under Proponents.. should be moved to Same-sex marriage in the United States as they are specific to that country. Could someone who is familiar with the US situation merge them into that article? -- Kimiko 10:06, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reversion?
Reverted line 31 to read "same-sex couples" rather than "homosexual couples." In the very article we're editing it states that the term "same-sex marriage" is becoming more frequently used than "gay-" or "homosexual marriage" for a variety of reasons. Also, the term "homosexual couples" ignores the fact that not all people in same-sex relationships are necessarily homosexual. Exploding Boy 22:29, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Reverted line 31? hmmm ...
 * "same-sex couples" rather than "homosexual couples"? It's less accurate to use the euphemism of "same-sex" rather than it's implies meaning of "homosexual" ....
 * "very article we're editing it states that the term "same-sex marriage" is becoming more frequently used than "gay-" or "homosexual marriage" for a variety of reasons"? it doesn't mention "homosexual" ... it does gay ... nothing wrong, IMO, with any of them (and all can be used) ... the gay is being "phased" out "mainly" due to political activism ...
 * term "homosexual couples" ignores the fact that not all people in same-sex relationships are necessarily homosexual? what ... as I just recently responded to a person that is doublespeak ... as to "a person's bisexuality" and "in a 'same sex' marriage" ... a person is, in reality, in a "homosexual marriage" (though that person's "orientation" (ie., self-identity) is bisexual, that person is in a homosexual relationship (the use the buzzword of "same-sex" is applicable though))
 * Sincerely, JDR

Reversion of homosexual marriage to same-sex marriage
Not only is same-sex the term that is used most frequently on the Wikipedia, a Google search reveals: "homosexual marriage" = 68,300 hits; "same-sex marriage" = 276,000 hits.

Regardless of whether or not an individual user prefers the term homosexual, in order for an encyclopedia to be user-friendly, it must use the preferred terms. -- Paige 23:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "homosexual marriage" is used (ie., 68,300 hits) AND should be noted
 * "individual user"? 68,300+ other potential readers need "user-friendly" status also.
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * NOT ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ARE HOMOSEXUAL! Please do not POV the article.  The words same-sex and homosexual are not interchangable.  If it says in the very first line that it's also known as, should all of those terms be repeated throughout the entire body of the SAME-SEX mariage article?  Paige 01:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Please do the same (re: POV]
 * "same sex marriage" is equivalent to "homosexual marriage" ... sorry to info you ...
 * "it's also known as" that ... and "can be" used ... the use of multiple terms is not a "bad thing" [especially when accuracy is needed]
 * The article should use the term "Homosexual marriages" when it is applicable ...
 * "should all of those terms be repeated"? No ... though, the various terms should be interspersed (as needed) ...
 * JDR


 * I'm not sure what you're "sorry to info me" of, but the terms same-sex and homosexual are most certainly NOT equivalent. I tried earlier to point out to you several circumstances in which non-homosexuals would join same-sex partners, including bisexuals and the transgendered.  I was not the first person to suggest this to you, and yet you seem to be the only person defending these changes.  You may personally believe that a same-sex marriage automatically defines those individuals as homosexual, but that is not the preferred term, nor the most-frequently used term and, in cases where non-homosexuals are involved, it makes the article LESS acurate.


 * As it stands the term homosexual is found twice in the first paragraph, and there is also a repetative link to Religion and Homosexuality within the body as well. Why does the term need to be used further when it is not the most accurate or the most popular?  This does not seem like good practice for an encylcopedia.  And under any circumstance, why should one less frequently used term REPLACE the more popular term becuase one Wikipedian prefers it?


 * Perhaps we could both devise plans for compromise and post them here? I would appreciate it.  Paige 02:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * the terms "same-sex" and "homosexual" are most certainly equivilant.
 * As to the "several circumstances" in which non-homosexuals would join same-sex partners, including bisexuals and the transgendered ... the practical reality (and the corresponding physical sexual classification) is the important factor. Someone may, in some conception, be portrayed as a male (but are female; or the converse [or even be transgendered ]) ... BUT if that persons is in the legally binding relationship of the like sex classification ... it is a "homosexual marriage".
 * "not the first person"? and probaly not the last ...
 * "only person defending these changes"? your direction of the discussion toward me, does implies the facts are not there ... please let's discuss the topic and not what you or I believe ...
 * "You may personally believe" ... please let not "attack the person"
 * same-sex marriage does NOT further an individual's orientation ... but "Same-sex" relationships are homosexual
 * "preferred term"? hmmm ... who's preference? an NPOV position would allow both (not a wieght on one side or the other)
 * "most-frequently used term"? Both should be interspered ...
 * "Same-sex" relationships are homosexual ... calling it anything else is making the article LESS acurate.
 * [snip no. of times it's used]
 * "Why does the term need to be used further when it is not the most accurate or the most popular"? it is the most accurate when describing "same-sex" "relationships" ...
 * "good practice for an encylcopedia"? YMMV on that ....
 * "And under any circumstance, why should one less frequently used term REPLACE the more popular term"? for NPOV ....
 * "becuase one Wikipedian prefers it"? no ... because it helps provide a balance and accurate view to the overall topic ...
 * "devise plans for compromise"? I would also appreciate that. A combination of the points would be good for the article.
 * "and post them here"? or in a subdir? mabey not? ...
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * Anyone considering the use of "homosexual" in this (or any other) article, please see User:Hyacinth/Style guide. An example, from Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language by Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern, American Psychological Association:
 * "Lesbian and gay male are preferred to the word 'homosexual' when used as an adjective referring to specific persons or groups, and lesbians and gay men are preferred terms over 'homosexuals' used as a noun when referring to specific persons or groups. The word 'homosexual' has several problems of designation. First, it may perpetuate negative stereotypes because of its historical associations with pathology and criminal behavior. Second, it is ambiguous in reference because it is often assumed to refer exclusively to men and thus renders lesbians invisible. Third, it is often unclear."
 * These terms are not at all "equivalent" and this is not just a matter of accuracy. -Hyacinth 02:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The POV of the "Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern" should not imbalance the article [nor wikipedia] (it is a panel to address specific viewpoint. ie., pro-homosexuality) ...
 * The terms are "equivalent" and this is a matter of accuracy.
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * It is respectful to refer to people by the terms they wish or prefer. While I'm concerned about accuracy, its respectful to call people who are predominately or exclusively romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same gender gay, just as it is respectful to call females women and Native Americans (in Montana) Indian. Of course this doesn't apply to all people a term supposedly covers (or is supposed to cover by the people who use it). Those people will let you know how they would like this article to be written, but I am asking that we at most mention that same sex marriage is called homosexual marriage by some, but not use it repeatedly throughout the article.
 * from The Guardian style guide edited by David Marsh and Nikki Marshall:
 * "gay: synonymous with homosexual, and on the whole preferable"
 * -http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/0,5817,184913,00.html
 * from the Newswatch Diversity Style Guide:
 * "gay: Preferable in all references as a synonym for male homosexual. Lesbian is preferred term for women. To include both, use 'gay men and lesbians. Best to use 'gay' as an adjective, not a noun, such as 'gay man,' 'gay woman,' 'gay people.' In headlines where space is an issue, gay(s) is acceptable to describe both."
 * -http://newswatch.sfsu.edu/guide/g.html
 * -Hyacinth 07:09, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, 'same-sex' is both more common and more inclusive. So we should use that. As already noted same-sex couples other than homosexual couples would like to get married as well (such as two transgendered people who, technically are both male). --mav


 * The technically part is the important point there ... but (as it is now) the article does mention it in the intro, so the accuracy is improved (though it should be usable in the body of the article, also) JDR 12:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I honestly don't care either way (I think the terms are 100% interchangable), but if the respectable groups hyacinth refers to above think that using gay instead of homosexual is a good idea, I'll agree with him. &rarr;Raul654 07:17, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think Paige has a point before, which I had originally missed. Dysprosia 07:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Everything Hyacinth said, plus I'd add that while a marriage between two bisexual men would be "homosexual", it would only be so in the sense of "same-sex" and would therefore be inaccurately described.


 * One further reason: most proponents of same-sex marriage prefer to avoid qualifications at all, which is to say, it's MARRIAGE we're talking about, not "gay marriage," so the use of "homosexual" even in its sense of "same-sex loving" would be best avoided. Exploding Boy 07:49, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Avoid qualifications" = euphemism
 * "marriage"? YMMV on that ...
 * JDR

Neutrality? NPOV?
Why is the neutrality of the article suddenly disputed? And how is it not NPOV?


 * I've read this article several times and I can't see how its accuracy can be disputed. It's a fairly dispassionate listing of the facts as far as I can see.  As for being NPOV, it lists the cases both for and against; what more do you want? Exploding Boy 09:27, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

JDR added both of those while the issues were under discussion. (See talk above.) I think this was a useful idea, since the neutrality of the language was in fact being worked out here. Since it would appear that the Wikipedians have now spoken on this matter, I have reverted similar changes to Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health and Full Faith and Credit clause from "homosexual" to "same-sex" and removed the NPOV message from those two articles, since I was the one who added those originally. I would like to wait for JDR (User:Reddi) to remove these two, since I beleive it is policy that the side of a dispute that adds the message should remove it once the dispute is resolved. (If I am mistaken about this, though, please take whatever action is appropriate.) Thanks, Paige 23:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "the neutrality of the language"? Using euphemisms is not NPOV. JDR


 * There is no policy on that that I know of. If the consensus on the talk page is that the message should be removed, then remove it. --mav 01:35, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Mav, based on the fact that JDR just added the NPOV dispute messages (with no comments as to why) to both Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health and Full Faith and Credit clause, I'm guessing that he does not concur with the apparent consensus here. Paige 03:57, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * So what's the procedure? I mean, given that there was no discussion of why the article is supposedly factually inaccurate and non-NPOV, what recourse is there?


 * Exploding Boy 03:58, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you got me there, my exploding chum. This is precisely why I avoid unpleasantness and disputes with fellow wikis like the plague.  I really regret having bothered with this mess now.  :o(  Any suggestions?  Paige 04:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * well we could list on Peer Review, but I'm not sure that would help. I don't know. Maybe I'll do that.  Exploding Boy 04:11, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

JDR wrote: "the neutrality of the language"? Using euphemisms is not NPOV."

Exactly what are the "euphemisms" you're referring to? If you mean the use of 'same-sex' vs 'homosexual,' I'm afraid you've got it wrong, and I suggest you look at the relavent pages for more information as to why. Exploding Boy 14:42, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * "got it wrong"? YMMV on that ... "When a phrase becomes a euphemism, its literal meaning is often pushed aside" [read literal meaning as "accuracy"] ... "Euphemisms are also used to hide unpleasant ideas, even when the term for them is not necessarily offensive" ... JDR 15:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, it's kind of confusing when you put your remarks part way up the page. Can we continue the discussion here at the bottom? Also, what does YMMV mean? Could you be a little clearer in your posts please? Exploding Boy 14:48, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * "confusing"? sorry for your confusion (that is not my intent) ... but I'll place my comments @ the place that it addresses ... others may do as they like though ... Sincerely, JDR

I'm quite aware of the definition of euphemism, thanks. What exactly are you referring to when you speak of euphemisms in the context of Same-sex marriage? And what does YMMV mean? Exploding Boy 15:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Exploding Boy, YMMV is an abbreviation for "Your Mileage May Vary." This is the primary reason I cannot believe JDR is the kind of linguistic purist he claims to be in rejecting what he sees as a euphemism.  The euphemism in question, he's argued, is calling "homosexual marriage" "same-sex," and thus leaving out the negative historical image related by the word homosexual.  However, his unilateral effort to change the terminology is actually a dysphemism, an offensive substitute for neutral word.  As discussed on Talk:Full Faith and Credit clause, the preference for the outdated, less accurate, less common term is associated with opposition to same-sex marriage.  Its use is intended skew the discussion toward condemnation of specific lifestyles.  So, he's trying to twist the previously neutral language, erroneously claiming that the two terms are "equivalent," though he simultaneously argues that same-sex is merely a "euphemism" to be avoided.  He calls logically cogent arguments counter to his POV "doublespeak."  In response to this very reply, I predict that he's going to say I'm trying to shift the discussion to him and away from the topic at hand.  However, it is clearly about him since he is the sole user claiming objection to the current terminology and I've come to the conclusion that it's POV nonsense.  His actions corresponded to the timing of the Goodridge opinion, and were more than likely a reactionary response to that.  I'm hoping it will pass.  In the meantime, I believe a clear majority decision has been reached (six against the change, only one for it), a compromise was put in place and I'm content with the current status of all three articles.  I will be watching them to look for future POV edits from either side of the discussion though. The point, as I see it, is that these articles should avoid ALL POV, not strive to incorporate all POVs and call that neutral.  To do so would be a euphemism, wouldn't you agree?  -- Paige 17:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * 1st ... seems like some behind the scenes editing was done to the article ... as the "and, less frequently," part in the intro was not in there earlier (IIRC) ... must be the "cabal's magic" (eg., admin inserting the line and rm the edit from the history) ...
 * now ... I'm not a "linguistic purist" ... I have said that "same-sex" and "homosexual" should BOTH be used, I believe ... I think you are missing that (or just mischaracterizing what I've said) ...
 * The reference is currently used (not just by the "religious" as you alluded to in the wlnk talk page), accurate (see the technical comment above), and common (slightly less than "same-sex")...
 * And, about the "association"s, the term "same-sex" is associated with proponents to homosexual marriages ....
 * As your "prediction", yes ... you are right ... but I don't need to say it now ...
 * "sole user"? mabey ... and how is that applicable to the facts?
 * I do agree with you that the articles should avoid ALL POV ... not acknowledging various points (even the ones you don't agree with) is not NPOV ...
 * Sincerely, JDR

1. There was no "behind the scenes editing" done to the article. If you check the page history you'll see that I was the one who added and, less frequently to the introduction. This is true; the term "homosexual marriage" is used less frequently than gay- or same-sex marriage. 2. Most of us have preferred to use "same-sex marriage" in the article for reasons stated above; to name a few, 3. "Homosexual marriage" is, in fact, a term most frequently used by those who are opposed to the concept; most of those who are neutral or in favour use same-sex marriage or simply marriage 4. If it is necessary to be specific, same-sex marriage is the most neutral, most inclusive term 5. As for your being the sole user who disputes the article, absent other dissention at some point the clear majority must rule 6. Your posts are often very difficult to decipher. I am not trying to be rude, just suggesting that full sentences and clear language make it easier to get your point accross without misunderstanding. Exploding Boy 00:36, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Same-sex and homosexual are not always synomymous
 * Not all same-sex couples are homosexual
 * The word "homosexual" has negative implications for many people


 * 1. Hmm ... the history look different than the other day ... but, thanks Exploding Boy, mabey I was in error (I have no problem with sayin that) .... 
 * 2. as to and, less frequently? By who? the proponents of "homosexual marriage"? probably ... this is not true always (being used slightly more in other groups) ... 
 * 3. As to the "preferred" ... that preference is from the POV of proponents ...


 * Same-sex and homosexual are usually synomymous
 * Same-sex couples are homosexual [as cited above repeatedly] (some see it as technically; other see it explicitly )
 * "homosexual" has negative implications? Many people see "negative implications" from many thing in wikipedia (ex. take a look around @ the Isreali-Palestinian topics) ... that is not a reason to use other language when the more accurate term is applicable ...
 * 4. "Homosexual marriage" is a term most frequently used by those who are opposed to the concept? Ok ... that doesn't mean it's inaccurate; nor does it mean that it is used frequently by others (eg., neutral observers); most individuals in favour of "Homosexual marriage" use "same-sex marriage" or "marriage".
 * 5. As to being specific, same-sex marriage is not the most neutral; nor most inclusive term [see bullets above]
 * 6. majority must rule? "rule by the mob" is not always fair nor neutral (see the federalist papers and why they didn't implement that scheme) ... mabey this topic can never be NPOV because of "majority rule"
 * 7. My comments are difficult to decipher? Sorry, that is not my intent ... as to your comment on "spelling and grammar", let not try to redirect away from the issues by attacking spelling / grammar. JDR 16:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 Exploding Boy 22:16, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Less frequently": by anybody. On the news, in the papers, in discussions in parliament, the term most often used is same-sex marriage.
 * "preferred"''' ... that preference is from the POV of proponents"
 * and those who are neutral. You'll notice that the title of the article is not "Queer marriage," "Homosexual marriage," "Same-gender marriage," or "Gay marriage."  It's Same-sex marriage.  That alone makes it the most appropriate term to use in the article.
 * "Same-sex and homosexual are usually synomymous"
 * That is not true as has been demonstrated amply. Besides that, even if it were "usually" synonymous, that still wouldn't make it appropriate for use in the article.
 * "Same-sex couples are homosexual [as cited above repeatedly]"
 * Only in the sense of being the "same sex," as also cited repeatedly. Why do you insist on using a potentially inaccurate term?
 * "homosexual" has negative implications? Many people see "negative implications" from many thing in wikipedia (ex. take a look around @ the Isreali-Palestinian topics) ... that is not a reason to use other language when the more accurate term is applicable ...
 * First, "homosexual" is NOT the most accurate term as has been repeated ad nauseam
 * Second, there are a variety of reasons why "homosexual" has negative implications. Obviously you've not followed the links I provided earlier to find out why.  Here are a few reasons from the article homosexual:
 * " Many people regard the term homosexual as derogatory or clinical because of its cold, antiseptic connotation, particularly when applied to a person, and because 'homosexual' was used as a description of a pathologial state, before same-sex attraction was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders. Most western people who regard themselves as having a homosexual orientation prefer the term gay, lesbian, or, less frequently, queer (sometimes capitalized as Queer) or 'same-gender loving'."
 * The term homosexuality was coined in 1869 by Karl Maria Kertbeny in an anonymous pamphlet advocating the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws. It was listed in 1886 in Richard von Krafft-Ebing's detailed study on deviant sexual practices, Psychopathia Sexualis."
 * "The use of homosexuality to describe sexual behavior between people of the same sex sometimes causes confusion and controversy. "
 * "<U>Some people find the use of the word homosexual to describe individuals to be offensive or at least inaccurate</U>. For instance the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for school employees advises: "Gay: Preferred synonym for homosexual." "Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest." The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, and the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language all agree that gay is the preferred synonym."
 * "Homosexual marriage" is a term most frequently used by those who are opposed to the concept? Ok ... that doesn't mean it's inaccurate;
 * No, that in itself doesn't mean its inaccurate, but we avoid words that have negative implications because they're inherently non-NPOV. Nigger is a term used by some black Americans amongst themselves; it is also used by those who are biased against them.  You'll notice that the article nigger is not about people, it's about the word.  It would be highly inappropriate to use the word nigger as the title of an article about black people.
 * By that rational, we could also call it "fag marriage" or "faggot marriage," because some people use that word in a positive way even though many do not.
 * "As to being specific, same-sex marriage is not the most neutral; nor most inclusive term [see bullets above]"
 * Sorry, but your "bullets" say nothing about why same-sex marriage is not the most neutral; nor most inclusive term. It is the most neutral and inclusive term, as has been demonstrated both here and in the article repeatedly.
 * majority must rule? "rule by the mob" is not always fair nor neutral
 * While that's absolutely true, so far you're the only user to object. I'm going to list this article on Peer Review and see if anyone shares your views.
 * "mabey this topic can never be NPOV because of "majority rule""
 * This article is NPOV. Nowhere does it say "same-sex marriage is good, its opponents are evil."  There is a section on opposition.
 * "as to your comment on "spelling and grammar"
 * I never made any comments on spelling and grammar.
 * I have a very hard time understanding why you are so insistent upon using the word "homosexual" when there are very good reasons (enumerated several times by a couple of different posters) why we should use a different term. Your main argument seems to be that "homosexual" is not always inaccurate when used in the context of marriage.  That in itself makes it a poor choice.  You also claim that "same-sex marriage" is not the most inclusive term, yet have failed to offer any alternatives except "homosexual marriage," a term which at very least (besides the reasons pointed out earlier) fails to include bisexuals and transsexuals.