Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 22

Maps
Why the maps of Ukraine without Crimea and Russia with Crimea are used? It is not recognised in any country, so why does Wikipedia use it? Can we change it somehow? Who changed the map recently? Polenebo (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like the map takes into account areas de-facto administered not by the nation-state in question. There are thin lines around Abkhazia, Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. I think that's what's behind it and it makes a certain amount of sense and does not amount to 'recognition' of the legal status of those areas in international law but simply serves to illustrate the situation on the ground. Say for example Ukraine had gay marriage - de-facto you would not be able to get married on the Crimea at the moment because the local Russian admin would refuse to marry you. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Greenland
Greenland approved yesterday the freedom to marry for same-sex couples [+there is a need to change the color in the map]

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/greenland-approves-the-freedom-to-marry-for-same-sex-couples

http://www.edgeboston.com/news/news/177826/marriage_equality_comes_to_greenland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboat (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Tamaulipas
In the timeline table, it lists the Mexican state as having full marriage equality from June of 2015, is there any sources to back this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase1493 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom [nb 4]
Could we please stop adding the UK to the list of countries that have legalized SSM? England/Wales and Scotland have legalized gay marriage, not the United Kingdom. Someone asked why New Zealand, Netherlands and Denmark are listed, even though they have a similar arrangement with other "countries." Sorry, but they don't. Functionally, New Zealand, Netherlands and Denmark are sovereign nations, whereas England, Wales and Scotland are not...and I can't imagine that the note next to UK on the list saying, essentially, "Northern Ireland doesn't count" is very flattering to Northern Irishman, either. --SchutteGod (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, metropolitan Denmark and metropolitan Netherlands don't have a separate legislatures, other than the parliament of the Kingdom of Denmark and the parliament of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, respectively. The law applicable to England and Wales was passed by the UK parliament and is enforced by the UK government, not the regional ones (England don't have its own, separate parliament and government at all). So no, I don't see a difference between UK and the other mentioned countries. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When we list the United Kingdom in the template and the pages, it's made abundantly clear that the laws only apply to England, Wales, and Scotland. I don't see what is so unflattering about the Northern Irish being left out. It's simply the reality of their laws. They are listed, along with Jersey, Isle of Man, and Gibraltar as having civil partnerships. Nobody is trying to claim that they are sovereign in their own right. In Denmark, for example, when Greenland votes tomorrow on (and more than likely legalizes)same-sex marriage; we will transfer it from the civil union column to the marriage column, directly under metropolitan Denmark. Chase1493 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom has legalised same-sex marriage: the British Parliament passed a law which legalises same-sex marriage, however, the law provided opt-outs to Scotland and Northern Ireland due to the complex situation of devolution in the United Kingdom. No real comparison can be drawn between the UK and a federal state, such as the United States or Mexico, since the national parliament legalised SSM. -- HazhkTalk 23:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem we're dealing with here: the United Kingdom did, technically, enact same-sex marriage legislation, but only for England and Wales. (Scotland's law passed through regional assembly.) It passed on the national level, sure, but it is, essentially, regional law. The United Kingdom as a whole does not recognize same-sex marriage, so it should not be listed among the sovereign countries that do. --SchutteGod (not logged in, sorry) 70.181.181.78 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but just like the U.S. states and other countries with overseas territories, we list the jurisdictions that allow it. Once again, Denmark. In addition, The Netherlands, and New Zealand are also shown this way. Chase1493 (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, we should remove the UK, NZ, Neth. and Den. from the list, and add them to the list w the US and Mex. Either that, or move the US and Mex to the list of countries that have legalized it.  But I think we're clear enough that it doesn't matter too much.  It would be more encyclopedic to do it that way, but there are so many other things that require attention in this article that I wouldn't spend time arguing for it.
 * I support adding UK, NZ, the Neth. and Den. to the list with USA and Mex. It would be consistent to reserve that list for countries that haven't legalized same-sex marriage nationwide! Prcc27 (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Iona Institute
I have reverted the edit that relies on sources by the Iona Institute, which according to its own wiki has been criticised for reliance on invalid interpretations of data to back its claims. - this does not seem to pass Reliable Sources in any shape or form. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, they do appear to be biased. However, there are many sources for the edit I made, so I reverted it back with a more carefully selected source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle1009 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't see how this Carrasco guy is any better to be honest. He has a degree in sociology but that doesn't make him a reliable source in itself. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reason to question his reliability other than that you disagree with him? He is a professor employed by and in good standing with one of Mexico's more prestigious universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle1009 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would not call that a mainstream opinion.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It does not need to be a majority opinion, just an opinion held by respected members of the social science community. Otherwise, only one side of any issue would ever be presented, based on whatever the most popular opinion is. No evidence has been given that the source I gave is not a legitimate opinion of a legitimate analyst, and that is all I present it as. Unless you can contradict any of that, the edit should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle1009 (talk • contribs)

In a word no. Wikipedia is not a holding space for every crackpot theory under the sun. We get this a lot on articles (where I'm more at home) on the Basque language which people (some of which holding very senior qualifications) have tried to link to anything from Martian to Etruscan using pseudo-science. The upshot always is that the onus is on the non-mainstream theory to provide robust evidence that it is anything but fringe theorising. Just being a prof does not count. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you asserting that it is a fringe theory, comparable to alien based theories, that gay adoption could be detrimental to children? You have to see that this is an absurd comparison. The general public is not even clearly decided one way or the other on this matter, and most supportive studies are done by open supporters of gay adoption, so you cannot assert that there is an overwhelmingly accepted understanding on the matter. I am not going to push this further because the people most represented on this page are clearly biased by their own positions on the issue, and it is very sad that they would be dishonest and manipulative enough to use an encyclopedia to de legitimize opposing positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle1009 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rogue counties
Hey, I'm not sure if we should have rogue counties on the timeline so I'm going to remove them. Also, should Australian Capital Territory be kept on the timeline even though same-sex marriage was invalidated..?

Also, can we remove the US Native American communities from the timeline? The tribe community names consist of long sentences and they hinder the visibility of main states and countries. We can have a separate timeline for the Native American tribes but they do not belong in the main timeline. The goal of the timeline should be to give an outline indicating the various states and countries and with the addition of many states in the future, the list can get very crowded. The tribe community timeline can be placed in the separate article for the tribal communities.  Gurumoorthy Poochandhai  02:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wholly against such removal. They are legit nations.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Mexico's inclusion with SSM nations
I think it's a bit premature and misleading to include Mexico with other nations that have same-sex marriage and language claiming as much should be removed for the time being.

The difference between Mexico's situation and other nations is that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation directed how district court's should rule if couples choose to seek injunctions. Their ruling does not nullify or suspend any state law regarding same-sex marriage, thus not legalizing it nationwide. A threshold must be reached in each state through injunctions before the Supreme Court can direct each state's legislature to reform their respective marriage laws

While the court's decision lends itself to the inevitability of same-sex marriage in Mexico, it does not have that legal effect at this point in time. PeaceUT (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC) .

Faith groups listed in the lead
A number of editors have increased the number of Christian denominations listed as "allowing same-sex couples to marry or conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies", in the fifth paragraph. I think if we list every single religious group then we will end up with a very long paragraph. At the very least we should consider moving this list to the main body of the article and maybe only include some very notable groups (e.g. the Metropolitan Community Church) in the lead. What criteria should we use to decide which groups we list? -- HazhkTalk 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the lead probably just the major branches and then move the individual ones further down. Something like "more than 20 Protestant denominations, Wiccans, some Native American ... etc etc". My view anyway. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Akerbeltz's proposal. Prcc27 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitcairn Island
Pitcairn Island has legalised gay marriage. I'd update the article myself but I'm on my iPhone. IJA (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ireland is now legal
i noticed the ireland is already legal as now (dark blue) but however on map - ireland shows not yet legal so someone needs update map to reflect this

Rsdworker (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeline
Can I ask why in the Timeline there's no explanation of why some updates are in bold and some aren't? They don't match the emboldening rules on the main article at all. I don't understand why for example, England and Wales are bold, while Scotland isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.0.220 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be fairly obvious - legislation covering a country in its entirety warrants bold, whereas the un-bolded items are sub-parts of a country. So Florida is not bold because it does not cover the whole of the US, Scotland/England/Wales are not bold because the whole of the UK is not covered (NI is not playing ball, pardon the pun). Akerbeltz (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * England and Wales is a special case because it was legislated by the UK parliament even though it only applied to part of the UK. I realise this is disputable and I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other; just explaining why it is bolded. - htonl (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Table
Are we going to make a table for all the countries that have legalized same sex marriage like the one we have for the US and Mexico where it represents each state with its population and how much it represents. Instead of states we put the countries and the population it represents.??--Allan120102 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a really good idea! Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of a discussion below, I made such a table at User:Htonl/SSM stats. Please feel free to use it for the article if you want to. - htonl (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Africa & Asia
"However, with the exception of South Africa, no country in Africa or Asia recognizes same-sex marriage"

Doesn't Israel recognize, albeit doesn't perform SSM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.75.82 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But Israel is in the Middle East though how exactly one carves up these regions can be a bit tricky. I know that technically it also falls under "Western Asia" but I'm fairly certain few people entertain the concept of Western Asia as such these days, much less so than Africa vs Middle East vs East Asia. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm... Israel counts as Asia IMO so... Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The terms has meant so many things over time. Originally it referred to Anatolia to the Greeks and Romans but today Turkey is seen mostly as European and the core meaning of "Asia" has shifted half-way round the globe. No surprise it's really messy to define. But as regards the UN, Israel comes under "Western Europe and Others" not Asia . Cyprus, incidentally, is similarly tricky. Depending on your definition of Asia, it's either Asian or European. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The term may have changed over time. However, in contemporary usage Asia includes the Middle East, of which Israel/Palestine is a part. There are many sources to be found which describe Israel as an Asian country, or at least a Middle Eastern country (which we know is considered a region of Asia). See also the Israel article: the first sentence states "Israel is a country in Western Asia." Israel has been listed in this article, alongside South Africa, as one of the few countries in Asia and Africa which recognizes same-sex marriage for over a year without any challenge until now. And I understand that the objection concerned Israel recognizing but not performing same-sex marriages (this is because Israel does not perform secular, civil marriages), rather than the geography. -- HazhkTalk 23:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Asia article says too though that The boundaries of Asia are culturally determined, as there is no clear geographical separation between it and Europe, - but fair enough, I must come from a cultural background where Asia starts east of Syria, no reason to argue :) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

US Map / What's the matter with Kansas?
I've removed the map showing the status of SSM in the United States by state. As the map is now solid blue with the sole holdout of Kansas (and the outlying territories being somewhat in a state of confusion) it is no longer conveying information in a useful way that is not better handled by simple textual information in the body of the text. Shereth 18:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The map is a good visual guide; it isn't realistic to expect every reader to read every single word in this article. Readers get the general gist of the situation just by seeing the map without having to read that much. Also, not all of the territories are in a state of confusion. In fact, I would say that American Samoa is the only territory in a state of confusion. Prcc27 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't see one word about the situation in those jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I am really confused as to how whatever is going on in Kansas isn't overruled because of the Supreme Court decision which affected the U.S. as a whole. The article does an extremely poor job of explaining how Kansas is a holdout, so I came to this talk page hoping to find answers or a discussion, and found no useful information on this at all. Unless some justification is given as to why the map excludes Kansas from jurisdictions where this is legal, I think Kansas needs to be filled in immediately. There really appears to be no valid reason for this, and it's quite confusing. I think perhaps a particularly strange preexisting configuration in Kansas (county-by-county legality) has someone confused as to how Supreme Court rulings go down on the land as a whole. If we were reverting back to whatever laws were in place in lower jurisdictions before, so many states such as Nebraska would be out of the picture entirely. Please fix the SVG map. --104.200.154.48 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to see a real lively (and somewhat asinine) discussion that is somewhat related to your query, click here or here. Chase1493 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The state government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages so that's why Kansas doesn't qualify as dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Didn't the SCOTUS rule that states *must* recognize SSM? How can Kansas legally not recognize the SSM licenses they are granting?Juneau Mike (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * SCOTUS' mandate hasn't been issued. And even when it is issued, it only directly affects the Sixth Circuit. For the rest of the nation it's a binding precedent. Prcc27 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But in this case is it correct to say that same sex marriage is legal in all of the USA? Especially considering that Mexico is not counted amongst the nations having legalised it. It would seem to me that both the USA and Mexico are currently at the same stage: Their supreme courts declared any bans of same sex marriage unconstitutional but the ruling is not yet fully implemented everywhere.130.60.201.200 (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion
Will the editor who is recently engaging in mass deletion of material please explain the edit here and gain consensus before repeating it? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

One billion milestone
I think it is worth noting that, calculating from the populations of the countries listed in the Info Box, over 1 billion people live in countries with legal same-sex marriage. That is roughly 1/7th of the worlds population.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, it is certainly something that deserves to be noted in the page. Chase1493 (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The only relevant statistic would be the number of people in same-sex marriages. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree more weakly - I think it would be worth noting if other sources are noting that, but I haven't seen that. I disagree with the above user that the only relevant statistic would be the number of people in same-sex marriages; indeed, the statistic of what portion of the world has the freedom to so marry and the portion with that freedom who have chosen to do so would working together much better suggest the fuller picture. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should make a table with all the countries with same-sex marriage similar to the one on the Same-sex marriage in the United States. This was suggested in another section. Prcc27 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree – this sounds too much like a synthesis and it is tenuous. Not every part of all those countries has same-sex marriage (e.g. Northern Ireland in the UK, most Mexican states). Some countries recognise it but don't perform it (such as Israel) – do the populations of those countries count? Why is the total population of those countries even relevant in the first place? Including impressive-sounding but borderline-meaningless stats like this does not help Wikipedia. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, specifically to @Archon 2488. I wouldn't go so far to say that is a meaningless stat. If you look at the template, there are twenty or so countries that perform marriages; what is worth noting is that these countries constitute around one seventh of the world's population. I think it is useful in so much as it adds scale to the discussion. Hypothetically (and in no way soon to be a reality) were Russia to legalize marriage, the map would look dominated by blue; but there would only be around 200,000,000 more people having the freedom to marry. Numbers do matter, especially in a world where geographical representation tends to undercut the sum of the human impact these laws have. Not everyone will be getting married to someone of the same gender, but it is a right that some enjoy and others do not. Chase1493 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My own angle is that I was involved in a dispute recently about an article which listed languages by the number of countries and territories which spoke them. Ultimately this article was deleted because the topic was judged to be unencyclopedic, and it was fraught with problems in principle: how many speakers of a language need to live in a certain country before the country "speaks" that language, and so on. The criterion "lives in a country where French is an official language" is fairly meaningless in reality: all Canadians live in a country where French is official, but few can actually speak it fluently, so you can see that it's easy to process raw data to produce all kinds of statistics which don't actually mean very much. Likewise, I would argue, for "lives in a country where same-sex marriage is legal". Does it need to be legal throughout all the country? (the UK doesn't count because of Northern Ireland). Can it be legal in just part of the country? (Mexico would count because it's legal in some states, with dubious legality in others). Does it count if the country recognises SSM but doesn't perform them (Israel)? If the country has legalised it in principle but it's not implemented in practice yet (Finland, Ireland)? I'm sure you see the problems and potential objections. Moreover, in documenting any current socio-political change, WP needs to be extremely careful not to present information in a tendentious manner.
 * That being said, I note that similar information about share of global population is given in the article on the death penalty. I'm frankly in two minds about this; I agree it's somewhat interesting information about how widely marriage laws have been changed, but I am aware of the risks of presenting misleading information (e.g. including the population of Mexico in the total). Archon 2488 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry to hear that your hard work was deleted. What I would say though is that unlike something like language, these laws cover everyone within the political boundaries that it was passed in. We also have census records to go off of and give an estimate. I'm not sure if I mentioned it earlier, but I support only including countries (or the sub-national jurisdictions) that currently perform marriages. Recognition and later implementation would be left out. Chase1493 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would add the Mexican states that perform same-sex marriages instead of the entire country. Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, that goes for any sub-national jurisdiction. Chase1493 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But I don't see the parallel info in the abortion article, so I don't think the capital punishment example is necessarily relevant. StAnselm (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree.' If the one-billion milestone has been reached, it's worth mentioning in the article. Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 01:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak disagree: I don't entirely see how relevant this arbitrary "milestone" is. Consider that out those one billion, only a relatively small number of people will have any desire to marry a partner of the same-sex; all we are stating is that one billion live in jurisdictions that recognise the right of that small number to marry. What I think would be more relevant is an estimate of the number of people who have married their same-sex partners (and if that reached some number that is pleasing to the eye we might then shove it into the article as an 'interesting fact'). I think if we were going to include this "milestone" we would have to cite an external source; as an editor stated earlier, this appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. --HazhkTalk 01:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The question is, at present, hypothetical. I've added up the numbers (using the most recent estimate or census from each jurisdiction's article infobox) and it isn't at 1 billion yet. I've put the details at User:Htonl/SSM stats. Counting only those where SSM is already legal, the total comes to 915 million; if you include those where the legislation is not yet in force, it comes to 928 million. If you count the whole of Mexico, that would push it over 1 billion; but my understanding is that despite the ruling of the Mexican Supreme Court SSM is not yet regarded as legal in all Mexican states. - htonl (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply Same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico. Their "Supreme Court" ruling is a little complicated, but they did rule that wherever challenged, the inferior courts must rule in favor of SSM. So the total is over 1 billion.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One billion is an arbitrary number though. Again, why is it relevant? -- HazhkTalk 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Chile?
According to the article, SSM has been legalized in Chile barring the 6 month waiting period. Should Chile be in the same group of 'legalized but not in force yet' like Ireland and Greenland or is there are reason it's missing? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Chile legalized civil unions, not same-sex marriage. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Duh of course they did, sorry. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"homosexual marriage"
An editor deleted the term homosexual marriage from the intro, requesting that it be shown to be in use on the Talk page before that was restored. A simple Google news search will show plenty of such uses (sometimes with scare quotes, sometimes without.) I am restoring the term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at the selection of news articles you linked to shows that the term is nowhere near as widespread as 'gay marriage' or 'same-sex marriage' (11,700 hits compared to 5,070,000 for same-sex marriage!) When it is rarely used, the term 'homosexual marriage' appears to be used in a pejoratively manner - and features predominately on fringe, oppositional websites. In many of the Google search examples the term gay marriage is used interchangeably with homosexual marriage. It should be noted that same-sex marriage and gay marriage are also widely used outside of popular media. The hidden note at the top of the lead requests that editors "do not edit the introduction without achieving consensus on the talk (discussion) page first." -- Hazhk (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. It appears the term was recently added to the article yesterday by User:Zumoarirodoka. Now I realise you were merely reverting my removal. I think I've explained why the term has not previously appeared in the lead. There are more important areas of the article to focus on. -- Hazhk (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet, it appears far more often than the 405 times that "gender-neutral marriage" appears in the same sort of news search. "Homosexual marriage" may be a term used primarily by one side in the debate, but "marriage equality" is a term generally used by the other side; it does not make it inappropriate to include it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I added the term to the lede because – as NatGertler says – it appears far more frequently than the term gender-neutral marriage, which is also in the lede. It seems unusual to remove a term more frequently used from the lede and keep one that is less frequently used, although I do agree that homosexual marriage is often POV (then again, so is marriage equality).
 * Perhaps a new section could be made for alternative names? However, I do understand how wording can sometimes be a contentious issue in articles of this type, and that some editors believe that there are more pressing issues. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I commented at WP:LGBT that I don't see the need for "homosexual marriage" in the lead as a WP:Alternative title. Also, I don't see why "gender-neutral marriage" should in the lead as a WP:Alternative title. It makes far more sense to include "homosexual marriage" there than "gender-neutral marriage." How is "gender-neutral marriage" at all a significant alternative title for this topic? Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there are a variety of terms, I think this could end up being a very long debate with little benefit in the end since it will be hard to establish a pecking order. Let's just go with the suggestion of using only SSM in the lede and moving the rest into a section on Nomenclature or Terminology or something. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with only using "same-sex marriage" in the lead. This is because "gay marriage" should be there. Like I stated at WP:LGBT, "Per the WP:Alternative name policy, 'gay marriage' should be in the lead, because it is a very significant alternative name for same-sex marriage; when same-sex marriage is not called same-sex marriage, it is usually called gay marriage. Yes, yes, people in the same-sex marriage might not identify as gay (which can be a broad term, by the way), but the WP:Alternative name policy is not about accuracy. Terminology is usually discussed lower in a Wikipedia article, in an Etymology and/or Definitions or Terminology section."


 * The WP:Alternative name policy also states, "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section)." So, yes, if a decent Definitions or Terminology section can be created, we don't need all those significant alternative titles in the lead. But the most significant one -- gay marriage -- should remain there, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable argument. So let's keep SSM and GM in the lede but move the rest? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If others agree or don't mind. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WJBscribe, regarding this edit you made, the difference is that "marriage equality" and "equal marriage" are alternative titles for this subject. While same-sex marriage has been characterized as "redefining marriage" by opponents, that is not actually an alternative title for this topic (not usually anyway). So I don't see the bolding aspect you altered as a WP:Neutral violation. Keep in mind that WP:Due weight is an aspect of that policy. That stated, I also don't mind much that you de-bolded "marriage equality" and "equal marriage." Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can have a wikipedia article saying, in effect:

Supporters call it apples. Opponents refer to it as "oranges".
 * The inference is obvious and unnecessary. If you want to bold the terms, there needs to be consensus to include them as alternative titles at the start of the lead. Otherwise, terminology used by supporters and opponents should be presented the same way. The use of inverted comas for one and not the other is dismissive of the term in inverted comas and shouldn't happen. Equally happy with no inverted comas being used in either sentence, if that is preferred. WJBscribe (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the way the supporters and opponents aspects were presented before your change can come across as non-neutral, Wikipedia has its own rules about what neutrality is; we aren't required to give matters the same weight. In fact, WP:Due weight and its subsections are clear that we should not give matters the same weight unless the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources indicate that they should have the same weight. All of the alternative titles do not have to be in the first sentence, as is clear by the WP:Alternative policy. But like I stated, I don't much mind your change on this matter. If others do, the debate will continue with that. I'm not interested in continuing that debate. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also support limiting the lead to mention of same-sex marriage and gay marriage. MOS:LEADALT suggests creating a separate terminology section if there are more than three alternative names. The existing terminology section in this article could be moved up to be the first subsection so that readers arriving from redirects like marriage equality can see why they have arrived here.--Trystan (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I overlooked the Terminology section that is currently in the article; this is because, due to Template:TOC limit, it currently doesn't show up in the table of contents. I remember that there was a Terminology section in this article, but then I thought that I was remembering incorrectly or that it was removed. I agree that it should be moved up to the beginning of the article. I also feel that it should show up in the table of contents. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel
Same sex marriages in Israel are legally recognized when performed in a country or jurisdiction where it is legal, such as the US, Canada, Argentina, England, Ireland, France, etc. Why doesn't the map reflect this? 130.91.146.243 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)buddmar


 * It does. Click on the map and zoom in, there's a circle over Israel which is explained below the map as "Recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions". Akerbeltz (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So they're not recognized except by court order or some other exception, correct? — kwami (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 23 one external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511190536/http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/gay-marriage.pdf to http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/gay-marriage.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070812175917/http://www2.asanet.org/public/marriage_res.html to http://www2.asanet.org/public/marriage_res.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120707191052/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Practice_Page/Marriage_SameSex_Couples_PositionStatement.pdf to http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Practice_Page/Marriage_SameSex_Couples_PositionStatement.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121202132031/http://www.hrc.co.nz/human-rights-environment/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/commission-endorses-marriage-and-adoption-equality to http://www.hrc.co.nz/human-rights-environment/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/commission-endorses-marriage-and-adoption-equality
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120928202736/http://voices.yahoo.com/my-marriage-wont-gay-marriage-11514384.html?cat=41 to http://voices.yahoo.com/my-marriage-wont-gay-marriage-11514384.html?cat=41
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004193603/http://ruthinstitute.org:80/pages/boardMembers.html to http://www.ruthinstitute.org/pages/boardMembers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061029161345/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/comment/morse200405200926.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200405200926.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120924195125/http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality/ to http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716100828/http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/estonia/gay-life-in-estonia/ to http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/estonia/gay-life-in-estonia/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120910053311/http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647 to http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927065759/http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142 to http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120818162542/http://cphpost.dk:80/news/national/updated-gay-marriage-legalised to http://cphpost.dk/news/national/updated-gay-marriage-legalised
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121228011837/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iCHjEwL13Lmoqv92kvpq7ADOWPlw? to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iCHjEwL13Lmoqv92kvpq7ADOWPlw
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130805055702/http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/ProposedBills/8/f/4/50HOH_MEMBILL074_1-Marriage-Definition-of-Marriage-Amendment-Bill.htm to http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/ProposedBills/8/f/4/50HOH_MEMBILL074_1-Marriage-Definition-of-Marriage-Amendment-Bill.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120913230714/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jko_BIHizUFFqUtmEaUrAEoPXFWw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jko_BIHizUFFqUtmEaUrAEoPXFWw
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518082229/http://www.lahistoriaconmapas.com/war-maps/Same-sex-marriage-Legal-recognition-War-Maps.htm to http://www.lahistoriaconmapas.com/war-maps/Same-sex-marriage-Legal-recognition-War-Maps.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111080159/http://www.thelocal.se/22810/20091022/ to http://www.thelocal.se/22810/20091022/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130903120451/http://bigstory.ap.org:80/article/justice-ginsburg-officiate-same-sex-wedding to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/justice-ginsburg-officiate-same-sex-wedding
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120328010753/http://greens.org.au/content/marriage-inequality-cant-be-ignored-any-longer to http://greens.org.au/content/marriage-inequality-cant-be-ignored-any-longer
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140203064928/http://www.despardes.com:80/lifestyle/feb05/lesbian-marriages.htm to http://www.despardes.com/lifestyle/feb05/lesbian-marriages.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120724035733/http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/guide/country_by_country/turkey/lgbt_initiative_from_prime_minister_erdogan to http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/guide/country_by_country/turkey/lgbt_initiative_from_prime_minister_erdogan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120212183121/http://www.un.org:80/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol21no1/211-gays-lesbians-combat-bias.html to http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol21no1/211-gays-lesbians-combat-bias.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101014072006/http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/beforethecourt.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/beforethecourt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Color difficult to see in map
The blue color of "civil union" in the map is too light, i have trouble seeing it. Would it be posibble to change it to a darker shade? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habarithor (talk • contribs)

Agree. The color is too light Oliviw (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hold on a second...
"The United Kingdom" does not allow same-sex marriage: Northern Ireland is not a tiny overseas territory, it's one of the four constituent parts of the country. What's going on here? Colonial Overlord (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this sentence: " As of 26 June 2015, eighteen countries (Argentina... the United Kingdom,[nb 4] the United States[nb 5] and Uruguay) and certain sub-jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to marry"? We can't say that England and Scotland are "certain sub-jurisdictions", but the list implies the whole of the country (it excludes Mexico, for example). The United States wasn't included in that list until June 26. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it now. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of the United Kingdoms status compared to the Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand.
The Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand are all terms that can cause legal confusion. There is the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands, a constituent country of the whole Kingdom. Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are for the most part self governing. Similarly there is the Danish Realm and Denmark, one of the constituent countries of the kingdom. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are for the most part self governing. Finally there is the Realm of New Zealand and the country of New Zealand. Similarly to the Netherlands and Denmark, the parliament usually does not interfere with Tokelau, Niue, and the Cook Islands. All of these exceptions can be directly compared to the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories, none of which are part of the United Kingdom and are mostly self governing. If these were the only exceptions they would all be considered countries with Same-Sex marriage, however the distinction comes in with Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom proper and only has partial autonomy in making it's own laws. Although the national parliament did pass a Same-Sex marriage bill, it was acting on behalf of only Wales and England, one on which does not even have it's own devolved Parliament. Scotland and Northern Ireland were free to pass their own legislation as their parliaments saw fit. This situation is more akin to the partial legality in federated states such as Mexico or the United States before last June. Weebro55 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Denmark, UK, the Netherlands and New Zealand have laws passed by the national parliaments. They just does not apply to some parts of these countries. Comparing UK to Mexico is ridiculous. UK is not a federation. All four countries (Denmark, UK, the Netherlands and New Zealand) should be treated in the same way, because the situation is similar. Northern Ireland is certainly not a reason to make distinction between them. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: Denmark proper dont't have a separate government and parliament. This area is governed by the government and parliament of the Kingdom of Denmark. No autonomy there. The marriage law was passed by the parliament (Folketing) of the Kingdom.. The same situation is with the Netherlands proper and England. All three countries (UK, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of the Netherlands) have autonomous constituent countries. So situation is similar. I don't see a reason to treat them differently. I think all of them should be left as they are or be treated like Mexico. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the infobox uses the phrases "Denmark proper", etc. - but certainly not "United Kingdom proper". It is easy to see that there is such an entity as "Denmark proper", but no-one would ever call the island of Great Britain, "United Kingdom proper". StAnselm (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The other thing is, the sentence talks about "countries". "The Netherlands proper" is certainly a country, but England-Scotland-Wales is not. StAnselm (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Netherlands proper is governed by the government and parliament of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The same situation as in England.Ron 1987 (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But the statement is not about which parliaments have voted for its legality, but in which countries it is legal. StAnselm (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The change down to "13 countries" is also a bit weird. If we do that, it should say "parts of the Realm of New Zealand, the Kingdom of Denmark," etc.) But since New Zealand means "New Zealand proper", it is correct to say that New Zealand has same sex marriage. StAnselm (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to use full names, as we don't use names like French Republic or Kingdom of Belgium, but I added links (Realm of New Zealand, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of the Netherlands). Ron 1987 (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for trying to find a compromise position. But now that we have a choice of three numbers (13, 17, or 18), it might be a good idea to have an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are people messing with the Same-Sex Marriage page?
Everyone up until a couple of days ago the way the Same-Sex Marriage page was laid out was perfectly fine. You knew which places allowed for Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Unregistered Cohabitation. However someone has decided to change (or vandalize) everything and make it harder for everyone to understand. I am also upset because some fool decided to say "God First" and make a bunch of additional comments that to me are very inappropriate. This is 2015 not 1965. Time for people to grow up and realize that no one should be discriminated in any way, shape or form. thank you tom991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles on contentious social issues are real hotspots -- abortion, gun control, politics in general, GMOs, race, climate change... the list goes on and on and on. GABHello! 18:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

heterosexual same-sex marriage
Do we have an article or section of something along these lines? Like what happens in Chuck and Larry? Found references which might be used as a starting point for talking about it:
 * (Charlie suggests he and Frank get married so that he can be put on Frank's insurance)
 * (Charlie suggests he and Frank get married so that he can be put on Frank's insurance)
 * (Charlie suggests he and Frank get married so that he can be put on Frank's insurance)

I don't know if it's prominent enough to get its own article but compiling enough information for a sub-section about this phenomenon would be interesting. I am not yet aware of any film or IRL examples exploring the concepts of 2 heterosexual women doing a same-sex marriage but would not be surprised. Finding them might help present a balanced approach to such a proposal. Any ideas on what search terms could help isolate such cases for reference-building?

It occurs to me that it might possible be part of a broader issue. The idea of a homosexual opposite-sex marriage is more well known as a Lavender marriage. The problem there is a lack of specificity, either 1 or both partners in a HOSM could be homosexual. I guess that could be the case of a HSSM too though, 1 spouse being homosexual and the other being heterosexual would lead to a lack of compatibility there too.

Perhaps collectively they could be termed hetero-orientation marriage because at least 1 partner is wed to a partner of the opposite gender to which they are primarily attracted? The traditional "2 people are wed who are attracted to each other's gender" ideal some picture would be a homo-orientation marriage by contrast. Course the problem with coming up with terms like this is it only helps for brainstorming, useless unless sources actually begin to use such terms.

Anything a little simpler I'm missing for these concepts' naming or sourcing? Ranze (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you're not finding an existing name for this nor finding general discussions of it rather than treating individual examples as novelties suggests that we probably don't need to cover this at this point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ireland
Same sex marriage is now legal in Ireland. The photo need to be changed and updated. Archway (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't the page called 'marriage equality'?
The disambiguation page refers to many laws that use this exact name. So what's the problem? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term most frequently used in the sort of reliable sources we use. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that this matters, and I'm definitely not trying delegitimize the term "marriage equality", but "same-sex marriage" is a more WP:NPOV term used by those that support marriage equality as well as those that oppose it. Prcc27 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Timeline section
was there any agreement about deleting the majority of the timeline's content ("clear up" as the user worded it)? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it looked quite bit nicer and concise, more organised, references and citations. More detailed breakdown is already provided by Timeline of same-sex marriage anyway.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  12:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Greece
As of today Greece has approved gay civil unions (not marriage and adoption) and equalized age of consent for sex between men.Please change the relevant list for gay civil unions to add Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Same-sex marriage
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Same-sex marriage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hello": From Same-sex marriage in Guerrero:  From Same-sex marriage in Puerto Rico:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160201090457/http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=ODYzMQ== to http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=ODYzMQ==
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120424141558/http://law-library.rutgers.edu:80/SSM.html to http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Italy
Please actualize the map and the article since Italy has recognized civil union in february 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.201.125 (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Guerrero
Imo Guerrero should be stripe in the map as it was in NM and Kansdas. as marriage equality is not legal in all municipalities and each of them have the power to decide if to allow a same sex couple to get married. If denied they can go to another municipality but if they want to get married in that municipality they will need an amparo. The head of the Civil registry even said that she was sad that the power to decide was in each municipality as there is a law in there,and she could not force every municipality to marry ss couples. She even criticize Acapulco decision to not allow same sex marriages. http://suracapulco.mx/8/pueden-casarse-parejas-del-mismo-sexo-en-las-bodas-del-dia-del-amor-informa-el-registro-civil/ --Allan120102 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The article shows how gay marriage was in the past how did it changed. I am glad a lot of state is now legal for them to get married. In the article i saw some pro and cons about same sex legalization. For my opinion I think they should have same rights as opposite sex marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.158.112 (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Colombia
According to the Associated Press, the Guardian and other sources, the Constitutional Court rejected the draft of the ruling to uphold the current definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, prepared by judge Jorge Pretelt. Judge Alberto Rojas Río was assigned to prepare the new draft of the ruling in line with a majority's view (i.e. to declare that prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married is unconstitutional). So, same-sex marriage is not legal yet. It will be legal, when the final ruling is issued. See, , , ,. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Here is Constitutional Court's statement. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Update on Italy
Italy is not updated, finally we have partnership recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.62.4.100 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Gay Marriage is legal in the USA...
Gay Marriage was legalized in the United States...Indian Tribal Nations are considered "Dependent Sovereign Nations" and territories are not technically Incorporated either...shouldn't the United States be listed in the introduction as being a country where Gay Marriage is legal since it is lol 03:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC) User:AnimeMagic2112
 * Same-sex marriage is listed as being legal in the US, with a small number of exceptions, in both second paragraph among other nations and in the template. AusLondonder (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fairly well spotted, but it's wrong. The United States of America is in and of itself an independent country, not a subset of the USA & its territories. Territories aren't even part of the US (which is why they're called "unincorporated"), and besides the only "exception" is American Samoa, which again - not actually part of the United States. The same holds true for Denmark, New Zealand and Netherlands; they may all be part of larger realms ruled over by the same monarch, but they are all independent, self-governing countries, not mere subsets of a larger whole. The intro badly needs to be changed to reflect reality. --SchutteGod (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All territories, unless unclaimed, are part of some sovereign state. So American Samoa, whilst not one of the 50 US states, is in fact part of the United States of America. Just like Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It is non-sovereign part of a larger sovereign state. AusLondonder (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's really not that simple. There are differences between sovereign states like the US and Demark, and mere dependencies like Greenland or American Samoa, and under what circumstances the latter can actually be counted as "part" of the main country. But if the standard is "countries that have legalized SSM," and the US and Denmark are unquestionably sovereign countries, then they should be counted as "countries that have legalized." "Penalizing" sovereign countries just because they have dependencies just seems a bit counter-productive, even disingenuous (particularly where it says "parts of" the US have legalized SSM, even though it's now legal in all 50 states). --SchutteGod (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. I've always found that this template is pedantic and punctilious. IMHO links to legislation in dependent territories should be listed in a separate template or be found in their ruling country's page. I think we should not overload this template and other tables with sub-national jurisdictions or even tribal communities in the case of the US that overlap with the territory of the federal states themselves. These are special cases that certainly need to be dealt with, they are interesting, but information should be presented in the simplest possible way. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in Italy
Please someone update the information about Italy and also update this file (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#/media/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg). Today the parliament of Italy approved CU in the country (see the main article). M.Karelin (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Update maps
Shouldn't Finland be blue in the first map? Also update Sonora (Mexico) and Italy in first and second map, please--Baronedimare (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Update Faroe Islands
The Faroe Islands is the final Nordic country to have passed and legalized same-sex marriage.

The Faroe Islands need approval of the Danish Folketing to be effective. One objection Parliament might have is that the SSM bill passed in the Løgting does not include church marriages as it does in Denmark proper and Greenland.Andrew1444 (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Faroe Islands and the crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man) have legalized same-sex marriage although it is not yet effective. We should add these territories in the chart with an asterisk RoyNickNorse (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Description of the geographical extent of the spread of same-sex marriage
At the moment the second paragraph is somewhat tendentious:


 * The first law providing for marriage of people of the same sex in modern times was enacted in 2001 in the Netherlands. As of 28 April 2016, fifteen countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay) [...] allow same-sex couples to marry. [...] Polls show rising support for legally recognizing same-sex marriage in the Americas, Australia and most of Europe. [...] However, as of 2015 South Africa is the only African country where same-sex marriage is recognized, and although no country in Asia allows same-sex marriage ceremonies, Israel accepts same-sex marriages performed overseas.

Sure, but the thing is that Asia has 61% of the world's population, and the second most populous continent is Africa, with 15%. Same-sex marriage has taken off only in a relatively small part of the world, but the use of a lengthy list of countries and of words such as "first", "rising", "modern times", "as of 28 April 2016" and "however" misleadlingly suggest to the contrary. Basically it has taken off in the first world plus five countries in Latin America. Let us describe its geographical spread accurately and without expressing a point of view.

I suggest something like this:


 * Same-sex marriage on the same legal basis as marriage between a man and a woman was first adopted in 2001 in the Netherlands. By April 2016, it had spread to several other countries in western Europe (Belgium, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and some sub-jurisdictions in Britain and Denmark), elsewhere in the first world (Canada, some subjurisdictions in the United States; South Africa; and New Zealand), and some countries in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and some sub-jurisdictions in Mexico). Except in first-world South Africa, and in first-world Israel where same-sex marriages are recognised if they have been performed elsewhere, it is not allowed in the continents of Asia and Africa where more than three-quarters of the world's population live. Nor is it allowed in any country in eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union.ElephantwoodElephantwood (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I keep track of statistics, and by my count over one billion people--or about 13.8 percent of the population--live in jurisdictions that do or soon will recognize same-sex marriage. Further, I would object to the wording "spread," as well as the usage of such an antiquated phrase as "first world." Further, twenty countries is hardly insignificant as it represents more than a tenth of the number of members of the United Nations.Andrew1444 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your first statistic could be incorporated into the edit, if adjusted to cover only those jurisdictions that do recognise same-sex marriage, not those that in your opinion soon will. (This is Wikipedia policy: WP:CRYSTALBALL). "Spread" seems a neutral term to me. I would object to saying "over one billion people" for the same reason that I would object to saying "less than 14%" or "less than a seventh of the world's population". Let us just state the percentage, ensuring it is for jurisdictions that do recognise same-sex marriage rather than ones that might. The term "first world" is "modern usage" according to the Wikipedia article on the term, so if you think it is antiquated and is not modern usage you should argue your case on | that page's talk page. Since the countries that have introduced same-sex marriage are clearly in two geopolitical groups ("the advanced West", including Australia and South Africa, plus some in Latin America), it will make for a better article if we use some (NPOV) descriptors of those groups rather than simply listing the countries: "better" because it will convey a clearer view of the big picture. You do not suggest an alternative term. "First world" plus "some countries in Latin America" is the best we've got so far. Nobody is saying that the number of countries that allow same-sex marriage is "insignificant". (By the way, do you keep statistics on polygamy too? It would be interesting to compare the proportion of the world's population living where same-sex marriage has been allowed for up to 15 years with the proportion living in jurisdictions that allow polygamy, which currently seems to be about 25%.)Elephantwood (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A section is needed on how many same-sex marriages there have been
How many same-sex marriages have there been? And what proportion of marriages in the jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriages have been between people of the same sex?Elephantwood (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Certain sub-jurisdictions?
As of 28 April 2016, fifteen countries (Argentina, [...] and Uruguay) and certain sub-jurisdictions (parts of Denmark, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) allow same-sex couples to marry. Okay, I don't know about the other countries, but in the case of the Netherlands, this patently ridiculous. Same-sex marriage is legal in all of the Netherlands. Curacao, St. Maarten en Aruba are self-governing countries in free association with the Netherlands, but they're not parts of the Netherlands. You need to change this text. 81.206.240.225 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with changing the United States as well. Same-sex marriage is legal in the USA proper and categorizing it as only "certain sub-jurisdictions" is misleading. The situation is not at all comparable to a country like Mexico, for example. A note could be added to the USA if necessary, but I think it would be better to list it with the other countries which allow full marriage equality. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This was the rather surprising consensus that was worked out a while back, particularly in response to whether to include the UK among the "countries". In regards to the Netherlands, the link is actually to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of which "the Netherlands proper" is only part. StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Netherlands proper is the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The "Kingdom" doesn't have any power; its own WP entry makes that clear. --SchutteGod (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree. The United States of America is definitely not a "sub-jurisdiction" of itself. England may be one of the UK, but even Denmark and Netherlands, most would agree, are sovereign countries with unquestioned authority to effect their own laws, and that counting them as mere subsets of their own respective realms is categorically silly. --SchutteGod (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. There is no "Denmark proper," "Netherlands proper" "New Zealand proper" or, especially, "United States proper." Just because Aruba, Curacao, St. Maarten, the Faroe Islands, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and American Samoa have excluded themselves from the laws of the mother country does not justify considering any of these countries sub-jurisdictions of themselves. All of these discrepancies can be addressed in a footnote.Andrew1444 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you ask the question, "Is same-sex marriage legal in the USA?" or "Is same-sex marriage legal in the Netherlands?" the only sensible answers are "Yes," - or "Yes*" with a footnote. - htonl (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent point. The way it is formatted now the basic info is in the footnote and the footnote is where the basic info should be. It is the exact opposite of what any person would consider helpful.
 * I shudder to think how editors might have handled this if the British Empire still existed when Britain legalized SSM; the note identifying all the British possessions that had not yet followed suit would have been endless. --SchutteGod (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I see the old topic is back again. Perhaps we should just to abandon national vs. subnational stuff and insert something like this: , same-sex marriage is legally allowed (nationwide or in some parts) in the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay or , same-sex marriage is legally allowed (fully or partially) in the following countries.... Notes, of cource, would stay. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This sounds like a sensible suggestion. The lead should be short and sweet. The finer details are captured in the rest of the article and in the notes.  Del <sub style="color:black;">♉ sion 23  (talk)  16:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It has been changed and looks great now. I think it's very clear and avoids awkward wording. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Religious views: Undue weight
The article devotes a paragraph to the views of those Churches and religions who do not support same-sex "marriage", but dedicates a larger paragraph to denominations and religions, many of whom are very small, some not religions at all (as in the satirical religion of pastafarianism) and some barely worthy of mention, who are pro SSM.

This leads me to question whether or not the article is assigning undue weight to the views of pro-SSM denominations and religions; with the implication being that the main religions as a whole are in favour of SSM, or at least a large or significant proportion of adherents to these religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam especially) are in favour of SSM - when the reality is overwhelmingly the opposite.

Perhaps the latter paragraph (listing the religions and denominations in favour of SSM) needs to be shortened; with esoteric, small, and relatively unknown denominations and religions edited out. This would, I believe, provide more balance and more accurately reflect the reality of the views of most churches and religions, which tend to be opposed to varying degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonosbro (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

English variety
Currently this article doesn't seem to consistently follow one variety of English. Doing a quick control F, I'm finding 31 instances of "ization" and nine of "isation". Probably should pick one and stick with it. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

SAME SEX MARRIAGE - LACK OF BALANCE
The Same Sex Marriage (SSM) article in Wikipedia is skewed noticeably in favor of SSM, and is, in places, cryptic.

For example, in paragraph 2, it states that “In the late 20th century, religious rites of marriage without legal recognition became increasingly common.” It is not clear what this means: were unnamed churches marrying unnamed groups of people illegally? The sentence also lacks citation.

The same paragraph goes on to list countries which have legalized SSM, and countries where it is said (based, in Australia’s case) on a 2014 newspaper poll and advice from “Australian Marriage Equality Inc” in 2015 which rehashes even older reports.

The opposition side of the SSM debate is treated somewhat dismissively with “However, as of 2016 South Africa is the only African country where same-sex marriage is recognized, and although no country in Asia allows same-sex marriage ceremonies…”

In the next paragraph the following statements are made:

"Same-sex marriage can provide those in same-sex relationships who pay their taxes with government services and make financial demands on them comparable to those afforded to and required of those in opposite-sex marriages." Apart from being confusing, this sentence is made as a statement of fact. Is it a fact or is it a view held by proponents of SSM?

"Same-sex marriage also gives them legal protections such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights." Again, this is made as a statement of fact, and we are invited to infer that it is not currently case. Is it a general fact or have there been individual instances of hospitals mishandling specific cases?

"Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, undermine a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father or erode the institution of marriage itself." While the preceding statements in the paragraph are stated as if they were fact (supported by LGBT references in some places), the other side of the SSM discussion is attributed to “opponents”. Apart from an obvious imbalance in treatment, this sentence omits some objections raised by opponents, and misstates the objections it has included (eg, it should not refer to “their biological mother and father” but rather to “a mother (female) and father (male) role model”.

In the same vein of flagging imbalance in the article, the treatment of Ancient and Medieval History needs review; it is of, at best, oblique relevance to a case for same-sex marriage.

The "Other legally recognized same-sex unions" is buried near the bottom of the discussion of SSM. It should be brought forward as an important issue in the debate.

Finally, the nation-by-nation assessment of SSM also appears to be skewed. This is evident in the stark imbalance in the treatment of Bermuda (which didn’t count because there were not enough votes) and the distortion of the Irish referendum where, Wikipedia states, “The proposal was overwhelmingly approved and endorsed by the People with 62% of the vote”. In fact, only 25% of the Irish population supported SSM.

This article need complete review if it is to be used as any sort of reference for those looking for more balanced information about the SSM issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveh01 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to want us to either treat facts as opinion or opinion as fact. That legal same-sex marriage grants same-sex married couples the legal rights and responsibilities previously granted to mixed-sex couples is not a belief of one side or the other, it's the basic definition of what legal recognition means. What would be an opinion is whether this is a good thing or not. That same-sex marriage erodes marriage, on the other hand, is not some establish fact (one would even have a hard time finding an agreement on what "erodes marriage" means), but rather an opinion.
 * And there most certainly are SSM opponents making the argument that SSM separates children from their biological parents, even if you're not aware of it. Noted US SSM opponent Family Research Council, for example, makes that #1 on their list of scientific reasons to oppose SSM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll give it to the new user that the religious section is fairly slanted. The large WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of religious organizations seems fairly evidently put there to prove a point. Also the inclusion of Pastafarianism, while it may be tongue in cheek, is probably not entirely appropriate. All or nearly all of that paragraph should probably be either moved to a footnote or to a stand-alone list.
 * Overall, the section does not communicate what I understand to be true: that by-and-large, the official stance of most Abrahamic religions is pretty strongly against LGBT anything. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While the phrasing on Ireland can be changed, to claim that 'In fact, only 25% of the Irish population supported SSM" is to assume that absolutely none of the population who did not vote - and that includes not only those who did not choose to vote but also those who were ineligible due to age or citizenship status - support SSM, which is ridiculous on the face of it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And yes, there is law in various jurisdictions ensuring hospital visitation rights for spouses, and inheritance rights do indeed fall to spouses under the law, generally as the default first inheritor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Religious views
Re: Antinoos69's revert saying "Balance and NPOV require that if faiths on one side are to be named with citations, then so must the faiths on the other side. Equal treatment."

First, this clearly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a more-or-less random list of 44 denominations. It is not an issue of "faiths on one side named with citations". It's an issue one side listing six broad divisions, and the other listing 44, giving the false impression that numbers are more or less on the side of marriage equality.

On the con side you have the following grouped into single entries:


 * Catholic Church - 1.27 billion members
 * Muslims - ~1/4 of the species, with more divisions than I have time to begin to list
 * Eastern Orthodox Church - ~200 million members with 50+ subdivisions
 * "some Protestant churches" - as if there might be one or two, we haven't bothered to look

On the pro side you have
 * Remonstrants - 5,780 members
 * First Baptist Church (Memphis, Tennessee) - Literally a single church
 * First Baptist Church in Greenville - Literally a single church
 * Oasis Church in Waterloo - Literally a single church
 * About a dozen denominations that are apparently so small their articles don't even have statistics on membership
 * and finally Pastafarianism ... which is a fake religion invented to parody how arbitrary religion is

So on the one side you have extremely large groups mentioned in passing. On the other you have an ad nauseum insignificant (or fake) groups broken down into the most gory detail possible. Hundreds of protestant denominations are grouped into "some protestants" but in the second paragraph there are:


 * Three separate Lutheran churches
 * Three separate Catholic churches
 * Two separate Pentecostal churches
 * Three separate "Protestant" (by name) churches

I'm sorry, but besides being an unreadable mess of a single 220 word sentence, there is clearly an effort here (intentional or unintentional) to try to give the impression that there is widespread support for the LGBT community among religions, and that's just not the case. The religions representing the vast and overwhelming majority of the world's population are against. Like it or not, that's Earth right now, and this current section is flatly and openly biased. Timothy Joseph Wood 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. This would be akin to starting a long list of "Catholic Church in Kenya, Catholic Church in Colombia, Baptist Church in Namibia...". I suggest we trim it to "the national churches of some European countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, as well as several Protestant denominations in Europe, Canada and the United States". Or something else along those lines.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   19:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically this. If someone wanted to give "equal treatment" they could list probably more than a thousand individual denominations against, without sinking to the level of listing individual churches or parishes, which would send the number into the tens of thousands, if not hundreds. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to change it now, but I don't want to trigger the wrath of the "powers that be" who may have taken up ownership of the article. Shall we say that consensus has been reached?   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   04:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Just to add my support to this change. Each side should be treated at the same level of detail. Some info may be best moved into Religious views on same-sex marriage.  Del <sub style="color:black;">♉ sion 23  (talk)  10:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I've already tried the bold edit route, so it may be best to try to hash out a draft here and seek input. As I've argued below, I think this section should give broad preference to Roman Catholicism, and Islam, with a best-effort attempt at summarizing Protestantism. This can probably be grouped into pro and con subsections: with short paragraphs on the three above and one for other, and then a prose paragraph summarizing the Abrahamic religions in the current list, and another paragraph for other. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the first post of this section is only demonstrating glaring bias and staggering ignorance. There is nothing "random" about the faiths listed on the pro side; it is an extensive list of mostly Christian and Jewish faiths variously subscribing to marriage equality, though a bit more could be said about other traditions. It has been standard scholarly practice when addressing this subject to list the pro faiths, with the either implicit or explicit understanding that the rest are con. (I hold a degree in biblical studies, so I know a thing or two about these matters.) Nor is there anything even remotely "ad nauseum," "insignificant," or "fake" about the Evangelical Lutheran Church (from anywhere), the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism (in the US), Reconstructionist Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, or the Quakers. The lack of education is truly staggering, and the terms used to characterize these faiths are astonishingly biased. It is clearly wildly inappropriate for editors subscribing to such nonsense to be attempting to give any instruction on these matters. If better informed editors wish to depart from usual scholarly practice, they will have to take a very different approach to the topic. Providing a useless and generic sentence that doesn't so much as mention a single pro faith, let alone provide any citation, when such had been provided for the anti side, is entirely unacceptable, contrary to standard scholarly practice, and very deeply biased. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, claiming this is standard practice doesn't mean much. But providing reliable sources would certainly help your argument. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not implying that Episcopalians or Presbyterians are insignificant or fake. Specifically, I was saying that Pastafarianism was fake, and that listing individual churches was insignificant. Regarding these other middle-level sects (for lack of a better term), what I'm saying is that, although they are significant, they are small compared with the big guys: of course referring to Roman Catholicism and Islam which alone make up about half the world. If you add Protestants, variously grouped, most of which are anti-LGBT-equality (by my understanding), you've covered most of the world's religious, if not most of the world religions.


 * What I'm arguing is that a neutral encyclopedic overview of the topic should probably be weighted toward these most massive groups, and that a detailed list of every possible pro-LGBT religious group, is better suited to the main article or an exhaustive list. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you may have meant and what you actually wrote would be two very different things. What you actually wrote applied the offensive and inaccurate qualifiers to all the pro faiths. If you are unfamiliar with the scholarship on this, then you really shouldn't be making substantive edits here. When the subject is generally alluded to, as here, general scholarly practice is to list the pro faiths, since they are relatively few, while providing some implicit or explicit indication that the rest are anti (we would have to provide a suitable scholarly source for that). It would be appropriate to provide a few examples of the primary anti faiths, as it would to very quickly summarize the primary reasons proffered by each broad side for its position (with suitably scholarly citation, again), but to go beyond that would be to produce material better suited for a separate article rather than for our little section here. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "What I'm arguing is that a neutral encyclopedic overview of the topic should probably be weighted toward these most massive groups" Now you've lost me, Timothy. I thought the whole point of this was to not give one section more weight than the other. That sounded like you wanted to push the bias to the anti-SSM camp, instead of giving each their due weight.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   22:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to shift the bias toward the anti-LGBT camp, I think the bias, in the sense of the world as it stands (not the article), is already against the LGBT camp. This wasn't my original intention, but since we have an engaged discussion, we may as well hash it out.
 * Since Roman Catholicism and Islam, taken in a vacuum, represent half the world, it seems a lot like the WP:DUE weight of the issue falls heavily on their side. (For those who have not seen my user page, I'm a soft/weak atheist/deist, and don't particularly care about religion except for in an academic sense.) So it would appear that an encyclopedic overview of the subject should impart the reader with the understanding that religion, by and large, is in opposition. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point. So the text should be something like, "Most Christian and Islamic denominations are against SSM...However, a few Protestant denominations such as  support SSM"?    MediaKill13   (  talk  )   05:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First drafts
As a starting point for a draft, I would consider this adequate coverage of Roman Catholics. Three sentences, three highpoints: 1. They're the single largest denomination, so they get first billing. 2. The official position is "no". 3. The official position has a * attached that says "don't be mean". Timothy Joseph Wood 12:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

{{talkquote|

Roman Catholicism
The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to same sex marriage. In 2016 Pope Francis wrote "there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family." However, he added:

"We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence."

}}

Adding Islam. Kindof a similar story as far a nuance goes. The official line is not "outright no," but more of a "pretty much no***** (some restrictions apply, may be punishable by death)." Timothy Joseph Wood 13:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

{{talkquote|

Islam
Most interpretation of the hadiths and fiqh decisions "stigmatize homosexuals and criminalize their relationships," and marriage is usually defined legally under Sharia, as a contract between a man and a woman. There is an international network of support for LGBT Muslims, and some "liberal Muslims in the West" have argued in favor of same sex marriage; however, "almost all traditional Muslim scholars ... reject this argument." This included Muslim leaders in the UK, who in 2016 publicly opposed same sex marriage legislation. Similarly, in 2009 Darul Uloom Deoband, the largest Islamic seminary in India, publicly opposed government moves to repeal laws from the British Raj era that banned homosexuality.

}}


 * Um, no. While such material would be fine for an entire article on the subject, it is quite out of place for our little section in this article. You're going about this all wrong. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you can be terribly more concise in summarizing half the world's population than three sentences for Roman Catholics, and four for Islam, except of course for the current version, which everyone besides you has fairly well agreed is biased. And you don't seem to have much in the way of constructive suggestions, other than to say you prefer to keep the biased version. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The point, which you missed, is that we shouldn't be getting into what each faith individually thinks and why in this little section. The only thing that would be construed by an informed reader as biased is the lack of any indication of how most faiths come down on the subject, which could be easily remedied by the addition of a single clause with citation. What you're doing with these drafts is simply ridiculous and out of place here. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My intention was not to provide a subsection for each faith, but only to provide a subsection for these two as they are far and away the largest. Then to have a third subsection for other faiths in opposition, with special mention for mid level groups like Eastern Orthodox and Mormons, and then a fourth subsection for faiths supporting. The important metric here is not how many faiths on either side, although the con side wins there handily, but how religion generally comes down on the issue. At the base of it, all faiths in support and all other faiths in opposition combined, still don't equal Roman Catholics and Muslims. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That depth is questionable. Looking at your RC section, for example, most of your space and wordage is about what you consider line 3, which is not about SSM, however much they might want to use it to make their stance on SSM seem more palatable. This is not a general article on homosexuality. I (certainly agree that WP:DUE means that we should not be giving as much attention to Pastafarianism as we do to RC and Islam, but that should not be achieved by puffing out the RC and Islam sections≤ inappropriately.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Second drafts
Nat Gertler, Antinoos69, What about shorten and combine for this: Timothy Joseph Wood  15:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have to say that they have 3 bn members? Why don't you just leave it at the "two largest religious sects"?   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   20:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with getting a sense of what portion of the world population they cover. However, I will note that Islam is not a "sect". Islam has sects, but it is a religion unto itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, can easily change to something along the lines of "RC and Islam, together comprising..." Timothy Joseph Wood  00:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I am vehemently opposed to and offended by this entire approach. This is an article about civil same-sex marriage. It is not an article on religion. There already are other articles, plural, on the religious aspects. It is inappropriate to replicate those here. Yesterday, in the first part of this "Religious views" section, I indicated what this section should look like: a general statement as to how most faiths come down, with scholarly and not religious citation; a mention of a very few of these anti faiths; and a mention of the pro faiths. If desired, an extraordinarily brief and drive-by summary of the primary reasoning of each of these two camps could be included, all with strictly scholarly citation. That's it. No more. As a gay man, I am sick to death (as many LGBT youth literally are) of every discussion of LGBT matters being hijacked into some detailed religious discussion complete with offensive quotes from religious leaders and organizations. Spare us. Those who desire such can merely click on the provided links to relevant articles providing such. If there can be no agreement on that approach, then we should just delete the "Religious views" section entirely, providing appropriate links in the "See also" section. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "a mention of a very few of these anti faiths; and a mention of the pro faiths" and therein lies the bias. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't understand what you're saying. No one can look at that section and think that it's not even slightly biased in favour of SSM. Unless your point is that Wikipedia should take your side, in which case it shouldn't because one of its core content policies specifically forbids it. Why do you think that the anti faiths should be few and the pro faiths many? Doesn't that bother you even a little bit once you've read WP:NPOV?   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   13:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The anti faiths must be few because they cannot reasonably be listed in their entirety. Standard scholarly convention has been to be rather complete with the pro faiths because they can reasonably be listed in their entirety. Once a general statement, with citation, as to how most faiths come down is added, there can be no issue of bias. Clear? Antinoos69 (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can begin by accurately representing what I advocated. You very conveniently omitted a crucial part from your quotation, the initial part, "a general statement as to how most faiths come down, with scholarly and not religious citation." You will observe that quoting me correctly removes the possibility of "bias." Antinoos69 (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In any case, as there seems to be little agreement on how to proceed with the section, I will reintroduce my alternate option: entirely delete the section, adding appropriate links to the "See also" section.

That being said, and in no way suggesting the section be kept, I will point out a few problems with the various drafts that might not be immediately obvious to novices. First, in an article on civil same-sex marriage, like this one, a "religious views" section should focus on religious views on civil same-sex marriage rather than the religious variety. In some faiths, the distinction makes a very profound difference. Second, providing the number of adherents of various faiths is problematic. Doing so erroneously suggests that the beliefs of adherents to a faith are in perfect accord with the official doctrines of that faith. Consider, for example, Roman Catholics in the West, who are frequently more likely to support marriage equality than members of western societies generally. Third, members of the media make for poor analysts of religious matters. Purely scholarly sources should be used. Fourth, to indulge in Wikispeak, statements by religious leaders and documents put out by religious organizations on this issue constitute primary sources. Wikipedia frowns on reliance on primary sources, insisting reliable and mainstream secondary sources be used. Doing so is particularly helpful in light of my previous point, and non-experts are especially prone to misinterpreting or poorly contextualizing religious primary sources. Secondary scholarly sources should be relied on. Fifth, to indulge in more Wikispeak, it's one thing simply to list a few faiths, but quite another to select a few to discuss in some detail. On what authority or basis is one making the selection? On what basis have we decided that criterion or those criteria are decisive or appropriate? We need proper secondary sources for that. Again, the approach being taken here is highly problematic. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Citing a Washington Post article about a declaration made by the Pope is not a primary source.
 * I would be perfectly fine saying something (well sourced) along the lines of "the views of adherents may vary greatly from the official stance of the religion", and this seems to be true, for example, with Muslims largely falling lock-step behind the official stance, and Catholics varying more.
 * Since the main opposition to SSM worldwide is religious, the section is perfectly WP:DUE.
 * You continue to claim a standard scholarly practice, but have provided no sources to show this, and most of the current sources in the section currently appear to be non-scholarly anyway. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My bullet points will correspond to yours:
 * The Washington Post, as I generally stated earlier, is not a reliable source for the context of the statements of religious leaders and organizations (civil vs. religious, e.g.), the relation of those statements to official doctrines, the place of those statements within broader doctrine, or any one of a host of other considerations. Scholarly secondary sources are required.
 * Your proposed disclaimer misses a couple points. First, there's no need for it if the numbers are omitted. Second, it assumes that the numbers are the relevant point, as opposed to, say, how representative the arguments proffered are of religious views or opposition generally. On what basis does one make such determinations? Proper secondary, scholarly sources are required.
 * There already is a "Controversies" section, with relevant subsections, adopting a proper tone, focus, and level of detail, though the sources need improving. Slight expansion could be made, providing links to religiously themed articles. There's certainly no justification for singling out "Religious views" for yet another section, shifting the clear focus of the article.
 * Sourcing for religiously themed articles on Wikipedia certainly is a huge problem, but one that doesn't help you any. Again, if you are unfamiliar with the relevant scholarship, avoid substantively editing the article. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A few more statements:


 * 1) The article is not about civil same sex marriage, it's about same sex marriage, as evidenced even by the first line of the article. It's everything that could be reasonably construed as relating to same sex marriage, summarised. There's even a section on non-sexual same sex marriage.
 * 2) I agree that providing the number of adherents is problematic, which is why I warned against it earlier. But as long as its only to emphasize the size of the church, in assigning due weight to its doctrine, it should be fine.
 * 3) I've not encountered on the article where a media member(s) have analysed the religious matters in question, probably because I was skimming. I agree that such should be removed.
 * 4) If it's a statement or quote, I would like to point out that Wikipedia uses these quite a lot, even on the article itself (e.g the American Anthropological Association)
 * 5) If "discussing in detail" means providing a statement by the leader of the religious group in question, I think a statement from each camp should be provided, as long as it's verifiable, and generally from the larger groups (e.g the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church)
 * All in all, I'm seriously opposed to deleting the section, given its notability; any discourse on SSM in most circles usually ends up having some kind of religious angle. And as I said earlier, the purpose of the article is to summarise major issues on SSM. Religious viewpoint is a very major issue.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   20:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To respond to your points:
 * The article is clearly almost exclusively devoted to civil same-sex marriage. There can be no question about that. That's how these same-sex marriage articles tend to work. See, e.g., Same-sex marriage in the United States.
 * Who ever told you that the number of adherents to a faith is indicative of the influence of that faith's official doctrines in the general debate? Or even among that faith's adherents? You're indulging in a fallacy, not to mention Wiki "synthesis." Scholarly secondary sources are required.
 * Analysis is often implicit in assumptions, both clear and unclear, regarding context, representativeness, and official status. Media sources should be avoided on religious matters, as on many others. Scholarly secondary sources are best.
 * Statements and quotes from religious leaders, documents, and organizations are often problematic. There is little popular or media understanding (or even attempt to clarify) what these specifically address (civil vs. religious, e.g.), how they fit into or represent official doctrine, or any one of a host of other considerations. Wiki does poorly here. Scholarly secondary sources are needed. An official position statement from the APA, taken from its official website, for example, usually poses less difficulty, though one must approach these matters on a case-by-case basis.
 * See previous point. Additionally, I oppose any detailed faith-by-faith approach, and would insist on scholarly secondary sources to avoid questionable selection criteria (see, also, my previous post above on this point).
 * I am vehemently opposed to this section. I direct you to the article's "Controversies" section and my previous post above. We should delete this section, slightly expand the "Controversies" section, and add appropriate links to religiously themed articles. To single out and duplicate a religious section is to substantially shift the focus of this article that, generally like the same-sex marriage articles like it, is focused on civil same-sex marriage. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just say this, and perhaps comment more when I have more time to consider tomorrow. Any argument that says we need a sophisticated theologian to interpret the meaning of "there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family" is disingenuous at best and obstructionist at worst.   Timothy Joseph Wood 00:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I'm afraid you're just too unschooled to know better. The cited source doesn't even make the statement's immediate context clear. Was the Pope addressing civil marriage in society at large, religious marriage in general, religious marriage in the RC Church, all of the above, or what? The source also fails to mention how the statement relates to official doctrine. Do the details reflect actual assertions in that doctrine? I have my doubts, not to mention a pertinent degree. This is why we need scholarly secondary sources. And, oh, I'll remind you of some Wikispeak regarding "civility" and assuming "good faith." Antinoos69 (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We may need to open a formal request for comment on this issue.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   13:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I love the dissonance of "You're just too stupid to get it. Please remain civil and AGF." Timothy Joseph Wood  14:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In academia, doggedly and rhetorically misquoting someone is considered a breach of "civility" and "good faith," to say the least. Just so you know. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

General Observations: I'll make some general points that need to be kept in mind going forward. First, we need to note or recall that the article already has a "Controversies" section better and more variously addressing "religious views" than the proposed drafts for this section, which should therefore be abandoned. That "Controversies" section can be slightly expanded, with links added to relevant Wikipedia articles. Second, the existence of the "Controversies" section may well explain why this "Religious views" section merely, in essence, provides a list of faiths variously accepting same-sex marriage. If renamed something like "Religious same-sex marriage," the section could stay roughly in its current form, after some minor tweaking; otherwise, the section would have to be removed, as the "Controversies" section is the proper place for "religious views." Third, the study of religion and its many aspects is a thoroughly academic and scholarly enterprise. While it involves theologians, it also involves historians of religion, anthropologists of religion, philosophers of religion, historians of various sorts, biblical scholars, classicists, scholars of the Ancient Near East, and medievalists, to name a few. Media sources generally make for inappropriate references, as they do for just about all academic fields. Leave the media sources for breaking news, and, in Wikiland, be wary of primary sources. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the third time, you can't really make an argument founded on scholarly sources, if you don't actually provide any source. You've offered none for your original argument that the standard practice is to list "few" religions in opposition, and as many in support as possible, nor any to show that the current or proposed sources are somehow glaringly wrong. Unfortunately, "I went to uni" is not a source.
 * Nothing that's been used is a primary source. As has been said already.
 * There's been no source driven argument for why including religions is not WP:DUE weight. Mine's already been made: half the world's religious in two sects that are against. See sources above.
 * There's been no sources given to show why the civil/religious argument is at all meaningful, or even where the dividing line is.


 * So to summarize, if this does not quickly transition from a rhetorical WP:IDONTLIKEIT discussion to a source driven, evidence based one, I'm just going to open it to RfC and be done with it. There's already been pages of discussion, and arguments based on opinion are intractable. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite posting under my "General Observations" for moving forward, you nevertheless fail to address any of them. Kindly do so before babbling further about highly ironic "IDONTLIKEIT." (Btw, your points, such as they are, have for the most part already been addressed above.) Antinoos69 (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My point, as I've stated repeatedly, is that your comments above include absolutely no sources to back up your arguments, but rest entirely on your self-stylization as an WP:EXPERT. If you are such an expert on the scholarly literature, it should be no large task to provide sources for your arguments. This is, I believe, the fourth time I have requested this. It will not be requested again.
 * Further, you are increasingly treading a thin line on making personal attacks. Please review the relevant policy and adjust accordingly. Accusing others of "babbling" and being "unschooled" does not constitute constructive discourse, and is against policy. You may consider this a warning on those grounds. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're being absurd. Step back, take a breath, and get a grip. First, none of my "General Observations," which you continue to ignore, since that is apparently your idea of "civility" and acting in "good faith," logically involve sources of any kind. They are purely logical and factual points about the article and religious studies. Consequently, it would be beyond obtuse to provide any sources regarding them. Second, those wishing to avoid what they consider "personal attacks" must first refrain from making them. Before flinging WP:NPA about, make sure you've bothered reading it yourself. Now, do you have any plans to return to the discussion? Or can I expect only more of the same? Antinoos69 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I do not plan on returning to the discussion, as the discussion appears unfruitful, as I have explained. It is not obtuse to provide a source for a statement such as "It has been standard scholarly practice when addressing this subject to list the pro faiths, with the either implicit or explicit understanding that the rest are con." Since you have not provided such a source, I'm going to go ahead and assume you either cannot or will not. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote you cite has absolutely nothing to do with my "General Observations" and is therefore irrelevant to the current state of the discussion. You are stuck on ancient history. Keep up. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My general comments before I leave this discussion

This situation is not one that I like to find myself in, so I'm just going to assert this for the last time:


 * The article is not about civil marriage, any more than the article on marriage is about heterosexual marriage or non-polygamous marriage. This means that the article must present all sides of the argument, including the religious aspects, and must present them neutrally. Even if the article was about civil same sex marriage, the religious views should still be added, neutrally, because the subject is notable. As I said, those will be my last words, unless an RFC is opened. I would like to stay out of Wikipedia's Supreme Court, thank you.   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. These "Same-sex marriage [in] …" articles are focused on providing the current legal status of civil same- sex marriage within the geographical jurisdictions they contemplate, addressing the sort of "religious views" being contemplated very briefly and/or in passing. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Location of religious views
It seems to me that the section on religious views is parallel to and thus properly belongs alongside the sections on legal and national debates, as it is a similar theme. The section was just moved to s subset of controversies, which is not only an inconsistent location (legal and national discussions are also controversies), but also prevents it appearing in the table of contents, making it impossible for the viewer of the TOC to see that the section exists. I would like to ask that this be moved back. Cl ea n Co py talk 23:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The content of the "issues" and "controversies" sections are indistinguishable. The main header should be one or other (it doesn't really matter), the text of the current controversy section should be moved up under the main header, and the headers should be promoted one level. It makes no sense to have nested headers that are barely semantically different (issues > controversies > debates > criticisms > disputes > etc). Timothy Joseph Wood  00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with you, if I understand correctly. (I hope you were already seated for that one.) The intro to the "Controversies" section could be massaged to serve as the intro to the "Issues" section. The current subsections of the "Controversies" section could then be moved up one level in the sections hierarchy. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. However, should the religion section go under "issues" or into the section that precedes it, "around the world"? Cl ea n Co py talk 11:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say not in the world section, since it is a prose list of countries. The only part that didn't seem to fit this, I have moved to the "other" section, as platonic unions seem more on a non-binary continuum with civil unions, than they belong in a list of countries. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, looking more carefully at the world section, I see what you mean. The planned shift up one level sounds good. Cl ea n Co py talk 12:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * sorta unrelated Should there be both a religious views and a religious freedom section? Or should they be merged?   MediaKill13   (  talk  )   13:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now, freedom is a subsection under religious views. Since level four headers don't display in the table of contents, I'm not sure it matters either way. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What possible reason is there for there to be two sections on religion? (I merged these once, but they were un-merged by another editor.) Cl ea n Co py talk 14:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * These are two very different sections. The "Religious views" section concerns people with personal religious views. The "Religious freedom" section is not so limited. Atheists can and typically do have serious concerns about religious freedom, which often makes it into governmental and national founding documents. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)