Talk:Traditional marriage/Archive 2

RfC
the term "traditional marriage" as used in discussions of legal definitions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization. note that previous extensive discussion of ths issue, along with suggestions for contextualization and alternate terms, can be found on the Traditional marriage talk page. oedipus (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree Plenty of mainstream sources in the US use the term "traditional marriage" in a completely neutral manner. Take this article from today's Chicago Tribune as an example..  Whether or not to use the term should be used on a case by case basis, not something that this RfC can foist upon the community.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - First, Wikipedia articles are not discussions. They are summaries of previously published material. You cannot attempt to limit the use of a common term to fit a legal or religious definition. The term is indeed neutral as tradition simply means a long established practice for whatever reason. "Traditional marriage" is just referring to marriage as a long standing practice. It is niether specific to any religion or a practical legal definition. To be honest......this sounds suspiciously close to the Prop 8 argument and constitutional ammendment. Again, this appears to be advocacy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * AGREE/SUPPORT: this RfC is not a discussion -- this is an attempt to bring clarity to a term that has a highly specific meaning when used in the context of U.S. legal battles over the legal definition of marriage... the point isn't whether U.S. media uses such short-hand, but whether use of such shorthand is appropriate for a reference work such as wikipedia, whose audience is neither parochial nor national, but international...  use of short-hand -- especially short-hand defined by one side of a socio-legal argument which self-referrentially connotes a specific cultural-historical understanding which is not self-evident to those outside of the argument, but who are using wikipedia in an attempt to understand the issues and their background -- is not acceptable...  wikipedia should not rely solely upon a group or movement's self-description -- "judeo-christian creationism" is still religious-based creationism even if "intelligent design" is a term in "common usage" in some circles and publications to describe it; likewise, when used by advocates of limiting the legal definition of marriage in the U.S., "traditional marriage" is a specific cultural-religious interpretation of an institution, and not a "tradition"...  the "tradition" to which the term refers is explicitly a specific limited definition of a speciic christian interpretation of marriage, and not merely a neutral sounding "tradition"... oedipus (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note to mention that the above support !vote is from the RFC proposer. I would also like to point out that this is indeed a threaded discussion and reminder to the proposer that a local consensus cannot override the genral consensus of the wider community. Our policies on Verifiablity, Neutral point of view and Original Research have determined how we summarise previously published material. This RFC is an attempt to circumvent policy, guidelines and common sense for a partisan definition of the subject in a manner that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * why cannot one comment upon one's RfC proposal, especially when that proposal must be stated succinctly, leaving no room for explanation... why should my opinion be discounted simply because i raised an issue for comminity discussion?  am i not a member of this community?  this is not a partisan attempt to redefine the term, but, rather, to contextualize and explain it through a wikipedia community discussion of the use of a term which is -- by design -- non-neutral and divisive...  wikipedia should not use advocates' own divisive definitions of their positions and actions without contextualization -- there are many in the U.S. who belieev that they hold very "traditional" religious and social views who do not agree with the self-proclaimed advocates of "traditional marriage"...  moreover, it is a term which is parochial in nature, and which, therefore, needs contextualization whenever used...    — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJR (talk • contribs) 06:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing that I stated above says you cannot comment, but you should have made that as "Support as proposer" and placed it along with or just below your original posting to be clear this is not a random editor agreeing with you. The wikipedia community cannot "design" a term. This is an attempt to make up a definition per a partisan idea of the subject. You clearly show though discussion that you have a bias and are using your own agenda to persuade the community to create something from nothing to suit an ideaology.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh. This is not really RFC material. No, the term "traditional marriage" should be avoided outside direct quotes; its use in reliable sources is quite rare compared to its use in unacceptable sources, and it also runs the risk of being ambiguous. Does a legislator who "supports traditional marriage" in Wikipedia's voice simply oppose same-sex marriage, or does he or she also advocate coverture, oppose no-fault divorce (or any divorce), etc.? It's impossible to tell from the wording, so it is better to use neutral and descriptive language for the person's positions, with the POV phrase enclosed in quotes if no elaboration can be found. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I see where Roscelese is coming from here and would really only disagree with one point. We do not need to add quotes to the phrase when the source is using it (the same would be true with the weasal word "allegation", It need not be in quotes if the reference is using it). The term is a common usage to refer to the tradition, and is a neutral discription in comparison to "Same sex marriage", also a common phrase not needing to be quoted.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, using wording directly from a source is generally exactly what quotation marks are used for. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Not really. Only if you are using entire blocks of wording. If the term is common as "traditional marriage" is, you do not need to place them in quotes. It isn't a copyright violation.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Roscelese: currently, legislators, advocates and entities who are listed as a supporter of "traditional marriage" in Wikipedia's voice oppose same-sex marriage -- they are the ones who coined and use the term "traditional marriage" specifically to refer to indivisible, monogomous, heterosexual unions, and who apply the term in opposition to those who base their conception of marital unions on a secular basis, which accomodates the union of same-sex as well as heterosexual couples... the point is that wikipedia currently uses a term defined by a partisan and highly divisive faction in the definition of legal marital unions debate in the U.S. oedipus (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole point of my comment is that even assuming the term was neutral, which it is not, it's too ambiguous to use - you mention "indivisible," but I'm sure many "traditional marriage" supporters are fine with divorce, because they use the term to mean opposite-sex marriage and that only. But others would use it to encompass their opposition to same-sex marriage, to divorce, their advocacy of women as housewives, go figure. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, is it possible to demonstrate how the term is not neutral?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhm...you just said above this wasn't a partisan issue. Now you claim it is...on the "other" side? Right. You are advocating a position in the opposit direction...that is partisan. By the way, you really need to demonstrate your position to be accurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Amadscientist: are you here to engage in constructive dialogue, or are you just here to push your partisan points? i stated that this RfC isn't partisan, but that the root of the request has to do with the partisan nature of the term "traditional marriage"...  the fact is that "traditional marriage" is used by opponents of a non-religion-based legal definition of marriage to oppose what is called -- in "common usage" -- either "same-sex marriage" or "marriage equality"...  hmm -- which of those terms is more partisan?  and why is "same-sex marriage" in "common usage", but "marriage equality" castigated as "political correctness" simply because it is the preferred term by those who want a non-religious legal definition of marriage?  like it or not, the term "traditional marriage" is a loaded dog-whistle term, successfully self-applied to a movement by the movement itself...  a note on "common usage": just because the press and public refers to the estate tax as the "death tax" -- a term market-tested and aggresively pushed by partisan strategists -- doesn't change the fact that it is a tax on one's estate and not on the act of dying..  "common usage" isn't always the clearest or best usage, especially for a reference work...  if a group or movement has self-branded their effort, then it is incumbent upon a reference work to explain why and what precisely is meant by the term -- when used in this context, "traditional marriage", is specific to the argument over who can get married to whom, and as used by its proponents, does not include those who oppose divorce; ask an epicopal congregation that recognizes or performs same-sex unions -- they will tell you that they are the true traditionalists, upholding jesus' message, for, after, all, jesus said nothing about sexuality and marriage (or about same-sex relations, for that matter) -- the only new testament "justification" for persecution of homosexuals is found in the letter of paul to the hebrews, which most biblical scholars agree is not the work of paul, or -- at least -- not the work of the author of the other works and letters ascribed to paul in the new testament... oedipus (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to bring the discussion from above down here to keep the discussion from being disjointed. First le tme address something. I believe you have, or are attempting to narrowly define the term "Traditional Marriage" in the same manner that Proposition 8 in California attempts to define "marriage". A vote by the masses. It is just not that simple.

First, lets remember this is not a discussion of the general subject but a discussion of a set proposal. Wikipedia has policies and guideline and we simply do not have the luxury of pushing a point of view. As yet I have not expressed a partisan opinion. I am actually a staunch gay activist in real life and have my opinions like everyone else, but Wikipedia has taught me that neutrality offers clarity. Here we do actually use the most common terms and that is generally done by researching what and how something is mainstream and used within the academic community.....not the activist community. As a gay man in a relationship with my long term partner of 25 years, I may have a view that differs greatly from opponents to "marriage Equality" but I also have to stop and look at the reliable sources. Archives of opponents and proponants are not generally going to be reliable. They may not even be primary sources by our standards. It depends on several factors based on policy and guidelines.

As I stated above, we have three issues that need to be addressed. (1) What is the origin of the term. (2) Who uses the term and (3) is the term neutral or non neutral.

You claim: "the fact is that "traditional marriage" is used by opponents of a non-religion-based legal definition of marriage to oppose ...."marriage equality"... " I concede this of course, but then the other side has its terms and there are some more loaded than others. From what I am reading "Marriage Equality" is considered less loaded than "Gay Marriage" or "Same Sex Marriage" as it simply refers to the equality of all couples who have a legal right to cohabitate and live in that lifestyle without legal repercussions. So, who actually did originate the term? Who actually uses it and how? Another issue brought up are the use of quotes. I feel that issue is releveant to when and how the sources use it. Similar to this situation is the phrase "Greek Love". The term is used in quotes in different ways depending on the individual academic. The issue is pretty much the same and we should only be making use of quotes when the source does, otherwise these become what is called scare quotes. Now I have some sources that I want to present for some clarification. I will stop here for the moment in case you wish to respond.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist:

FIRST, did you read my reply to the last comment you directed at me in the previous section, shortly after you said my request became clearer with each post, immediately above your comment about OrangeMike? in it i addressed common usage, treaditional marriage, and the fallacy of using self-defined terms as "common terms" in a reference work, even when such sloppy shorthand is used in U.S. publications; and need i restate that outside of the U.S. (as well as inside the U.S., outside of the arguments over the legal definition of marriage, such as in academic sociological circles) the term "tradtitional marriage" has a completely different meaning than that ascribed to it by organizations using that term in the U.S. in opposition to changes in the legal basis of marital relationships... moreover, the term "traditional" is relative to the traditions of the individual consulting the article...
 * I did read it. No, you are simply not accurate. Everywhere in the world the term Traditional marriage refers to traditons specific to that nation or culture. While the actual traditions may differ, the term does mean the same thing. How it is abused by activists on either side is not something we take into consideration before we find the abuse of the term.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

SECOND, i am nor using "scare quotes" but rather emphasis quotes so as to provide an easy means to distinguish terms and concepts being discussed... as a Screen_reader user, quotations set off strings of text change the voice characteristics of the text being spoken, allowing me to tell that the text spoken with certain characteristics is to be understood as a string or quote or term...  not all uses of quotes are meant to intimidate or scare -- i have merely used them to indicate terms and to highlight specific terms...  i am not advocating putting the term "tradtional marriage" in quotes as a WP policy, as that wouldn't explain to anyone not intimately familiar with U.S. cultural-political divides the explicit and the subliminal connotations of the term "tradional marriage" used in this stituation
 * The quote matter is about how to use the quotes when referring to the term in an article based on what the source says as brought up by another editor and addresses when to use quotes around a term. We only do it when the source uses it. To do otherwise is using scare quotes.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

THIRD, i am not pushing a point of view, but merely applying logic: if "traditional marriage" in the specific U.S. context is not a religion-based concept, what is it? upon what secular principle is derived the concept of one man, one woman? does it not fundamentally conflict with "traditional american values" such as equal protection under the law? it is self-proclaimed advocates of "traditional marriage" who have defined and propagated the term -- outside of its use by such organizations to indicate opposition to "marriage equality" (in quotes not to scare, but to indicate it is being used as a term), what meaning does the term "traditional marriage" have? and since it demonstratively has at least two meanings ("marriage within a specific tradition" and in the U.S. in particular "legally defined marriage based on a specific, narrowly defined, religously based criteria", there is a need for providing contextualization when the neutral generic term traditional marriage" is used in reference to the self-described political-cultural movement in the U.S. -- i am not attempting to redefine "traditional marriage", merely emphasizing that there is a broader, more universal definition of the term "traditional marriage", and that use of the term in relation to the politics of the U.S. has a significantly different meaning from the general understanding of the term traditional marriage... therefore, i am asking the wikipedia community for consensus on a contextualizing phrase for such articles, e.g. "self-described advocates of 'traditional marriage' (the retention of legal restrictions on the ability of individuals to marry based on a specific-interpretation of Christian doctrine"
 * I don't think that demonstrates that you are not pushing POV. I think it leans toward a demonstration that you are. You claim "it demonstratively has at least two meanings ("marriage within a specific tradition" and in the U.S. in particular "legally defined marriage based on a specific, narrowly defined, religously based criteria"" That is clearly definning the term based soley on one side of the argument. Below I am beginning to gather sources to demonstrate that the term is very standard to refer to a conventional, contratual arrangment but also other traditions are included and date back a very long time. I think you are actually arguing in the direction of a limited interpretation that is similar to that of the opposition of marriage equality and regardless of what side you are on, it isn't appropriate. --Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

FOURTH: this has nothing to do with activism of any sort, but with clarity, neutrality, and non-U.S. prejudice/POV -- common usage in the U.S. does not equal common usage worldwide...

FIFTH: in the academic community and outside of the U.S. the term "traditional marriage" is used to describe a marriage conducted within the norms of a particular society.
 * Nope. AGAIN>>>this isn't about what is "normal". Its about what the "traditions" have been.

SIXTH: in the U.S. there are not only federally recognized marriages conducted in religious institutions, but also traditional marriage ceremonies performed on tribal lands -- would not those ceremonies qualify as "traditional marriages" in a specifically american context?

the point is that the term "tradional marriage" as used by opponents of non-religious-based legal qualifications for marriage in the U.S. are using the term as a partisan shorthand for their particular understanding of "tradition", and that particular meaning should be explained and contextualzed, rather than simply parroted because it is in "common use" as sloppy shorthand because one side of a political argument has been allowed to set the terms of the discussion through the cooption of a neutral descriptor... oedipus (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Federal Government is not recognizing a ceremony or a religion. It recognises the license provided by the state. You can marry anywhere and within any religion, but if you don't have a license, the state says you are not married. To address your concerns directly, no we do not contextualize a meaning before it is used by a reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Some uses of the term in mainstream academia:
 * Merriam Webster defines "marriage" as:
 * According to Jessica Fienberg, Assistant Professor, Mercer University School of Law, opponents of same sex marriage do not attempt to justify an outright ban but frame the argument as a question as to the protection of traditional marriage from a redefinition (the argument of the OP) but states that same sex supporters are almost never challenged with the actual definition of "tradtional marriage". She believes that by showing the real meaning of traditional marriage that it will provide supporters of gay marriage a response by showing how traditionalist are protecting other required parts of the tradition.
 * Stephanie Coontz (history and family studies - The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. Co-Chair/Director of Public Education, the Council on Contemporary Families, nonpartisan association of family researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago) States that real traditional marriage was a practical matter of increasing ones family and labor force. She claims that a love based relationship was simply too unstable.
 * (I will bring more references tomorrow after a good nights sleep. Its 2:ooam here now)--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: i appreciate the research, but for the generic term "traditional marriage" i don't think that mirriam-websters is a sufficient starting place to fully investigate the use of the term "traditional marriage" (plus, i would point out, it is a dictionary of "american english", which revives the issue of U.S.-centric parochialism)... i think we need to counter-balance what you've investigated so far with a check of the sociological and anthropological research on "traditional marriage" -- the use of the term to describe marriage within a specific tradtion pre-dates the relatively recent use of "traditional marriage" in regards to the debate over the legal definition of marriage in the U.S. -- anthropologists and sociologists have been talking of and describing "traditional marriage" and "traditional patterns of marriage" for well over sixty years, especially sociocultural anthropologists who study kinship relationships and social organization...  it is very late here, also, so i will dig up some concrete references tomorrow and add them here...  i don't think we are working at cross-purposes -- i'm not trying to grind any axes, only to ensure that there is clarity concerning the term "traditional marriage" especially when used in relation to the political disputes in the U.S.  hope you get a good night's sleep... oedipus (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then please offer some references yourself. You have not demonstrated anything. This is the English Wikipedia and the accusation of "a dictionary of "american english"... revives the issue of U.S.-centric parochialism" is just insulting. This is the English Wikipedia. I am going to use English sources. Period. As I have said this isn't about defining something to an English or American tradition, but that the term "tradition" does not change from country to country, just the actual traditions themselves.
 * @Amadscientist: what is insulting -- especially to me as a fellow citizen of the u.s. -- is your complete inability to understand that "english" does not equal "u.s. english" -- wikipedia isn't just a reference for residents of the u.s., and the term "traditional marriage", when used in the debate over the legal parameters of marriage in the u.s., has very specific meanings that are not apparent to non-u.s. users of wikipedia... the term "traditional values" as used in the u.s. was coined by a partisan group with a particular aim in an attempt to frame the conversation, and that is something that makes it a non-neutral term in regards to the debate over the legal definition of marriage in the u.s. oedipus (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that is just innaccurate considering I use the English spelling of many words including "Theatre".--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: i think that the opinion of stephanie coontz -- that real traditional marriage was a practical matter of increasing ones family and labor force -- strongly undermines the idea that the common consensus on the term "traditional marriage" relates exclusively to the supposed "judeo-christian" underpinnings of the legal definition of the instiution of marriage...

i am a professionally trained medievalist, and "traditional marriage" patterns as described in the literature of and about the middle ages, antiquity, the renaissance and beyond almost exclusively deal with marriage contracts; transfers of land, property and money; and prospects of increasing the fertility of one's family and one's land -- this was as true for peasant as noble, and marriage was considered primarily a legal contract sanctified by the religious ceremony called marriage... this continue to be the case in western cultures well into the nineteenth century, and as professor coontz says, love based relationships were not only thought too unstable, but the hight of irrational passion...

and what of "traditional marriage" in the catholic tradition? durin the middle ages, in most catholic countries, a couple could begin carnal relations either upon the announcement of their betrothal or on the publication of their first bans -- something which i doubt many would characterize as a "traditional marriage" today, but which constituted the main form of traditional marriage for hundreds of years...

traditions are mutable.... traditional marriage has myriad definitions, which is why the term has a disambiguation page...  the term as used in the U.S. battle over the legal definition of marriage, however, is used as a divisive non-neutral term by partisans of a political agenda to define the basis of legal marriage on religious principles and to imply that their interpretation of "traditional marriage" is an inherently morally superior position... it is a term designed to put opponents at a disadvantage, forcing them to defend "non-traditional marriage" rather than advance the far more neutral concept of marriage equality under the law...
 * That sounds very much like you are supporting the opinion of Stephanie Coontz. It also begins to undermine the "christian concept" as you do mention the fact that christians didn't even have as strong a marriage tradition linked to the church as other religions and cultures. There is a great wealth of information but the bottum line here is that you want us to make a determination on a phrase before sources are even examined or used anywhere. That is innappropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Amadscientist: please use the following link to review the results of a google search for "traditional marriage" and "en.wikipedia.org" and you will find the term "traditional marriage" widely used in wikipedia's own discussions of marriage patterns that have nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage in the U.S. or other majority/historically christian countries -- follow any of the listed links and you will find the anthropological, sociological an historical use of the term "traditional marriage"... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22traditional+marriage%22+en.wikipedia.org/wiki/&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ei=xTk1UY_PHsex0QGZi4CgDw&start=0&sa=N&biw=800&bih=476 oedipus (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support the proposition that traditional marriage is not a neutral term. The neutral term is heterosexual marriage. But what a large argument over a tiny disambiguation page! To ensure a neutral point of view it is important that the term is qualified in the lead, but that the qualification is brief. I am thinking along the lines of "The term traditional marriage is a term that is interpreted on this disambiguation page to refer to a heterosexual marriage between two and only two people. It is recognised that other interpretations exist." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That defines traditinal marriage to have a definition that may not be what the sources say. As stated traditon does not refer to opposit sex marriage alone but the concept a long term practices of which that is only one part. Heterosexual marriage is not a neutral term.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not convinced me of anything except that this will run for ever. :) I stand by my comment. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats fine. Not actually trying to change your mind, just point out a few things. Still not convinced this can be changed with a local consensus but we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support the suggestion that the term "traditional marriage" is ambiguous and should be changed to a more accurate term. I believe that "traditional marriage" is inaccurate because it may be perceived differently by different persons in different cultures and countries. It is important to remember that Wikipedia's readers come from everywhere in the world. What if there was actually a country where, traditionally, same-sex marriage was preferred to different-sex marriage? That would actually be possible, and a reader from a such country would completely misinterpret the term "traditional marriage". The term "traditional marriage" also extends to other contexts than only the difference in sex, as it means everything that is traditional about marriage. Terms like "same-sex marriage" and "different-sex marriage" are more accurate because they have the same meaning everywhere in the world and have no other meaning than the meaning we want. While the term "same-sex marriage" may be more or less neutral than "traditional marriage", and that is up to discussion, I think it is clear that "same-sex marriage" is more accurate. If "same-sex marriage" isn't neutral enough, then we can just find another term that is just as accurate while also being reasonnably used in academic sources and while being more neutral. One thing seems clear to me: regardless of whether it is neutral or not, we cannot choose "traditional marriage" because it isn't accurate. --Julien Dethurens (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. "Traditional marriage" is many things in many contexts. Currently in the US the most common use is as political leverage against gay marriage. Traditions change over time, of course; the divorce rate among heterosexual American couples is much, much higher today than 100 years ago. The rights of the woman in the male/female marriage are much higher than 100 years ago. This dab page should tell the reader that opposition to gay marriage is a very common meaning of "traditional marriage" in modern parlance. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support some explanation of the term. The term "traditional marriage" is ambiguous and some more descriptive language should be used. FurrySings (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have to agree with Amadscientist. The sources provided by the user indicates that the verified definition of the term that is the subject of this disambiguation page matches the heterosexual marriage definition in the context of the United States and the arguments made between the opposing positions of those who support or oppose same sex legal marriage. This is by no means a reflection of my own personal opinions on the marriage debate, and those opinions should have no sway here, nor should anyone elses. It is what can be verified. I agree that the term is a loaded one, just as "undocumented immigrant" is, but many terms are loaded terms even if some editors view them as "more neutral" than other terms, what may appear to be more neutral to some, could be advocating a POV to others.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Focus on the phrase, its history and not the politics. Censorship will not make it go away. It is a phrase that has been coined. Why? That is what the reader wants to know. I'd like to know. Readers don't care about the current rancor around some term - there is plenty of that and it is a common trap when writing about current contentious socio-political-legal-religious things. I did a quick search looking for the first time the term was published, and found a social-legal article from:
 * 1975 - An article from a sociology professor entitled "Traditional Legal Marriage and Alternative Family Forms" at UC Berkley. :
 * 1977 - An article (probably controversial at the time, as it would be today) which has some citations from 1960's and even a judge from the 1920's. '''
 * so how bouts we craft a very careful, neutral introduction on when this phrase (the best we can tell) was first coined, and a brief summary why?''' Lets focus on thatPatriot1010 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak disagree - Traditional marriage can be used in a completely neutral manner, as shown by its numerous uses in reliable sources. However, it is somewhat ambiguous, and would in many cases benefit from clarification of its meaning. ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree As far as I know, from people from different geographic and religious backgrounds, a "traditional marriage" is a marriage between an adult male and an adult woman (although the definition of "adult" can vary. So it is perfectly neutral to use the term. The Banner talk 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It can and has been used neutrally. It isn't usually necessary to mention it (normally the word "marriage" would be used by itself). This means that normally context will be supplied. In any case, articles should not link here since this is a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * support per binksternet Pass a Method   talk  22:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The words traditional marriage are used in a much broader context then just referring to the opposite of homosexual marriage.  Explaining it with qualifiers points to a particular POV.  The phrase as is, is neutral. Marauder40 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the page as it is but change one wikilink. I think the page is fine as it is, but linking the phrase "used by opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States" to List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States makes it sound like only members of that list have ever used the phrase.  I suggest changing the explanatory note to this: "often used by opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States".  I was summoned by RFCbot and I have a limited attention span for debates over disambiguation pages, but I'll try to respond to any followup questions or comments here.  Andrew327 20:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage
Traditionally in America marriage has been between a man and a woman. The first US state to legalize same-sex marriage was Massachusetts in 2003, while the first jurisdiction in the modern world to legalize same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. Thus, without question same-sex marriage is very recent trend in the modern world that is contrary to the traditional definition of marriage (male-female union).

This includes non-Christian states such as India, Iraq, China, Israel, Palestine, etc. Thus, it is rather incorrect to say that traditional marriage in the modern world is anything other than male-female union. I recommend the administers of this page change the RFS to say: "Traditional Definition of Marriage in the Modern World" and an additional page be added that says: "Controversy Over the Term Traditional Marriage." Otherwise this RFS is not neutral, but rather, represents a heavy bias for homosexual advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.199.113 (talk) 20:07 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Totally agree and will be starting an RFC or Request for comments discussing many of those points.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The US is not the whole picture. The term "traditional marriage" has been used for centuries in studies about marriage in various societies, with "traditional marriage" meaning many different things, depending on context. The modern US usage should be put in context of its recent timeframe and its socially conservative / anti-gay political trappings. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, "traditional marriage" in North America's prehistory originally refers to various native customs such as the mother's family raising the child with the father's role, if he could even be identified, having far less importance. And in Utah when white people settled there, "traditional marriage" meant polygamy – multiple wives for those who were prosperous enough. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet, please see below: Today, the most popular understanding of the term is marriage between a man and a woman thus we should either create a separate page with a new title or clean up this one. To describe Traditional Marriage as "Anti-Gay" or a "political trapping" as you just did expresses a point of view. Simply using the term does not make you "Anti-Gay" just as using the term "Same Sex Marriage" doesn't make you anti-traditional marriage. Using the term "Christianity" as an atheist doesn't make you religious just as using the term "Marriage Equality" doesn't necessary make you a supporter. These are simply terms used to describe something by proponents and opponents. To cloud Traditional Marriage with a laundry list of past possible definitions takes away from the most common understanding of the term. The reason we need to focus on the most common meaning of this term is because that is the best explanation for it. Framing it, as you mentioned in a way that supports a point of view is advocacy writing toward one idea which we should be careful of. However, we could certainly break the page up into past meanings and commonly understood meanings but we need to take away the pov language in clarifying the term.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , Binksternet has already pointed out to you that in fact "traditional marriage" can imply a number of other aspects of marriage beyond the sexes of its members: polygamy, women as chattel, other culturally specific customs. Additionally...what would an article on "traditional marriage" according to your definition include? Either it would almost completely duplicate Marriage, meaning that it would be better as a redirect (but that article naturally acknowledges that marriages may also take place between people of the same sex) or it would end up being an article on the usage of this buzzword by the anti-marriage movement, which likewise runs the risk of duplicating existing content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a primary topic here. The anthropological sense of the particular traditional marriage practices in different cultures is quite widespread.
 * The purpose of this page isn't to list definitions, it is to guide users to articles. If someone is looking for an article on "traditional marriage", which articles might they be looking for? I think the current list is decent set of destinations.
 * I would support generalizing the last point to, "Opposite-sex marriage, as contrasted with same-sex marriage, used primarily by opponents of same-sex marriage." The term traditional marriage is used in anti-SSM movements outside the US, and the SSM article provides more information on the term, so I think that makes the better destination. I would keep the "opponents" language. While there are examples of more neutral uses (such as Merriam Webster's definition of marriage, it seems to be overwhelmingly used by opponents. I think it is more neutral for us to accurately note when terms tend to be loaded, rather than appearing to use them in Wikipedia's voice. cf. Marriage equality (disambiguation), which clarifies that term is primarily used by proponents of SSM.--Trystan (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ChicagoGuy, simply making the same assertion over and over doesn't make it so. While the anti-gay-marriage groups use this term for that purpose, anthropologists and sociologists calmly continue using the term for any of the other three meanings listed on the disambiguation page of which this is the talkpage. Wikipedia is not just a current-events reference work, but rather a reference work meant to contain knowledge and learning form all millenia. The false assertion that the very recent politicized meaning is somehow primary is an obvious example of what we call "recentism". -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent discussion friends, I’ll be happy to elaborate. Before I do, please know that I understand the emotions behind this on both ends and respect everyone engaging in this discussion in a real way. : To answer your question, Traditional Marriage according to “My Definition” would be an addition to “Yours and Binksternet Definition” to include and emphasize that the term refers to marriage between a man and a woman. The other definitions are not the primary topic but are other historic meanings. With respect to it being used by those against SSM, I address that later in this entry but will say that is partly true but not completely accurate in that you don’t have to be against gay marriage to use the term, you just may be expressing the term. Even that being the case does not allow us the right to argue on behalf of a side concerning who uses it, why they use it, why they’re wrong, right, etc.
 * Here is my concern with that proposal, would you agree that we should framework Marriage Equality with “Used by opponents of Heterosexual Marriage” since it is also a fairly new term to provide “Context.” This term could also be known as “loaded” by those who support Traditional Marriage. Why provide context to one but not the other? The current “context” is dangerously close to advocacy language on behalf of SSM. I don’t believe that is the appropriate way to objectively display information. Is Traditional Marriage used as a buzzword by some against SSM, I’m sure it is just as Same Sex Marriage is used in response to Traditional marriage. Can it have various meanings, yes. However, the most popular understanding is lost under old explanations that muddy the main understanding of Traditional Marriage. Does marriage article provide an accurate telling of the term, no. As a matter of fact, the term has all past definitions without expressing the most common understanding. We can fix this through a new page creation with a redirect and or clean up of this page.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Supporters of same-sex marriage don't oppose opposite-sex marriage. You are not convincing me that this isn't just about promoting a personal point of view. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ChicagoGuy: you are also not addressing the fact that this is an encyclopedia, and meant to cover the entire depth of human history, not just the past decade's political debates. This month, the phrase may occur more frequently in discussion of same-sex marriage; so what? What about twenty years ago, or fifty, or one hundred? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You both have interesting points, here is my take. I agree with you Roscelese, being a supporter of ssm does not mean you are against traditional marriage which is why we don't label "Same Sex Marriage, used by Opponents of Traditional Marriage." Would it be possible that the same applies in the opposite that those who use Traditional Marriage are not necessary against ssm? i believe so. I actually personally know this to be true in various instances.
 * Good point... but like you said, it is an encyclopedia meant to accurately cover history. Whether it has been five days or five hundred... We both admit that man/woman is a part of the history of the term in more recent times so it today it has a more specific meaning. Also, providing context is fine. Advocacy writing is not, if I may steal from my previous comment "that being the case does not allow us the right to argue on behalf of a side concerning who uses it, why they use it, why they’re wrong, right, etc" When we lead a reader toward a certain way on behalf of a side under the guise of historicity, that is not objective. I believe that has happened, and feel we can do better. Perhaps with a new page as others have proposed: "Traditional Marriage with Regard to Heterosexuality" I don't know, but for the time being we should consider removing pov language. ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is going anywhere. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Supporters and opponents of SSM is the clearest language to use. We don't say "supporters of marriage equality" or "supporters of traditional marriage", as the respective camps tend to call themselves, because those terms are less descriptive and less neutral. It would be convoluted to describe someone as a supporter or opponent of opposite-sex-only marriage.
 * In regard to how "traditional marriage" is used, as a small random sampling, I looked through my first three pages of Google search results (ymmv). 11 uses were about defending traditional marriage from SSM, 6 were satirical or used the term in scare quotes in support of SSM, 11 used the term in a cultural or anthropological sense (e.g. traditional marriage customs in a particular culture), and 2 used the term in a socially conservative way broader than just SSM (e.g. with respect to divorce or gender roles in marriage). I think this supports the destination articles we have here.
 * I'm not clear what it is you are proposing at this point. If you think a new article is warranted, you could try creating a draft in your user space. But what would "Traditional Marriage with Regard to Heterosexuality" look like? Marriage without the bits about SSM? Or a POV fork of Same-sex marriage?--Trystan (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, for you specifically, consider sharing your perspective on the various points I have pinged you on. I’m happy to answer your questions, but I would love for you to take a look at a few of mine or at least respond to the responses I provided, it will help the process.

Yes, I would have to take a look at your research but assuming it is correct, that seems to provide further evidence that most people use Traditional Marriage as a way to explain sexuality more so then the past understandings which hints at it being the primary topic which means we should add emphasis. Additionally, the term is used by those not just in the United States and not just those who are opponents of SSM just as SSM is used by people who aren’t necessarily against Traditional and don’t just reside in the US. Just as I pointed out before, that you can use the term Christian as an atheist. Furthermore, when we make the term SSM the main topic and categorize people into two groups... those for and against, by the way language works (See my above past entry for more information), this highlights the term as being correct in that sub-textually people do not want to be opponents of which is why politicians are either pro this or pro that and rarely opposed to. SSM benefits from the way it is worded which is leading the observer. Thus, I am proposing one thing. “Heterosexuality: Used by those who describe marriage as between a man and woman.”

With respect to you last point on what a page direct would entail, no idea, one thing at a time. I’m sure we could work together though to make it as fair as “Biased” people can lol. I read your user profile. ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC : Has advocacy language snuck onto this page to framework the readers interpretation?
The most popular understanding of the term Traditional Marriage been lost through advocacy writing and coded language.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the last term which reads: "Opposite Sex Marriage, used primarily by opponents of Same Sex Marriage." I am proposing we make this description more clear: Heterosexuality: A marriage between a man and woman. My rationale....1.) The term Opposite Sex marriage is not as widely understood as heterosexuality. Heterosexuality better describes the most common understanding of the term and was the long standing defiinition before it was edited as seen from the edit history of the page. It is also the primary topic as judged by Wikipedia guiedlines. 2.) The term is not used primarliy by opponents but everyone. Just as Christianity is a term used by atheist, it doesn't mean they believe in Christianity or are opponents to but simply use the word to express a definition. 3.) By describing the term as an opponent to SSM, we are creating two camps where the opponent usually has the subtext of being inncorrect. It is why politicians are either pro this or pro that rarely opponents of, this language creates the impression of it being adversarial or problematic which frameworks the meaning toward a certain side.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the current language is not advocacy, this RFC is formatted improperly, and you were literally the only person arguing for this in a reasonably extensive talk page discussion. Please stop messing around. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No; this RfC is simply another way to frame the same invalid argument from the same single determined (although always civil, for which I thank him) editor. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, really he isn't the only one.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Orange Mike, I understand that people will agree and disagree but generally people can be respectful which is what I try to do. I appreciate you recognizing that in my character. Additionally I appreciate yours and Roscelese feedback, though I was hoping to get outside opinions past our own lol. It looks as though there is support for the concerns. Thus, I personally vote to go with Mark Millers and StAnselm. Replace opposite sex with Heterosexual and list Same-Sex Marriage as Mark Miller explained. I will be making an edit request for this. ThanksChicagoGuy11 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Binksternet, you disappeared and now are back! Interesting point, however no one proposed that it was the only meaning, simply one of the meanings if not the most popular. You yourself just described the "Man/woman Relationship" as a Traditional Marriage. Also Trystan said that it was the most popular uses of the term if you scroll up, though to be fair to his point, he said it is also a loaded term to which I disagree. Please contact me on my talk page for more, it seems SSM topics are of interest to you which means you probably have insight into it. My proposal is a combination of yours, Mark Miller, Mine, and StAnselm: Heterosexuality (More Popular Term): Sometimes used by opponents to SSM (Keeps that language, though I still feel the opponent language is unnecessary)ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC) You have decent points Trystan, I still feel that SSM supporters benefit from the Opponent/Proponent language. However, here is what I'll do, I will propose the edit request and let that person be the final judge. If it goes through cool. If not, no worries. I have a greater project that I'm hoping you Trystan and some others will contribute to in creating a seperate Traditional Marriage History or Movement page that I saw proposed by others. No, I'm not an enthusiast but do feel there is biased reporting toward SSM on Wikipedia and want to be fair to both sides. The last thing I will say is that I feel as though many of my points were skipped as I had to answer to new questions without getting a response to points made earlier, that makes discussion difficult. Also, please feel free to edit this edit request if it is formatted incorrectly... still learning to get these things correct! PS Yes, I read "opposite sex" again and that reads very strange, I agree.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Change "opposite-sex" to "heterosexual" since that is the more common term; retain reference to "opponents of same sex marriage". StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove "opposite-sex" altogether. It isn't an article and is a misuse of the disambiguation page. Its also a very odd and confusing sentence. List Same-sex marriage as a "A union similar to traditional marriage involving same sex partners".--Mark Miller (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Unfortunately, there have been a number of well-documented traditional marriages of a man and a woman who were hiding each other's homosexuality. So "traditional marriage" does not always mean heterosexuality. Binksternet (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove the "opposite-sex" entry in the list now. Do not replace it with anything, unless consensus on a new entry is reached. (sdsds - talk) 08:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I"ve never ever ever heard of the phrase "Opposite-sex marriage" until I came to this page. ChicagoGuy11, I feel your pain on this one. Stick with 'Traditional marriage." Everybody knows what that means. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The contested bullet is an appropriately formatted WP:DABMENTION entry. The usage of the term traditional marriage in the context of same-sex marriage debates, as a contrast to same-sex marriage, is a very common meaning, though, as argued in the section above, not reaching the level of primary meaning. It is, however, very likely to be the meaning sought by someone searching on this term. The same-sex marriage article contains a discussion of this use of the term, and is therefore appropriately linked to here. The term heterosexual marriage is less accurate than opposite-sex marriage, much like gay marriage, while very common, is less accurate and therefore less encyclopedic than same-sex marriage. The usage of traditional marriage in this sense is overwhelmingly by SSM opponents, and is often critiqued by SSM supporters. We similarly note at Marriage equality (disambiguation) that that term is primarily used by supporters of SSM. Clarifying how advocacy terms are used distances them from WP's voice.--Trystan (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of procedural notes: (1) While in general new comments do go at the bottom, you can insert specific replies by indenting them further, either with :* in a bulleted list (as I have done here), or with :: in a normal threaded discussion. (2) The RFC should be properly closed to determine the consensus, if any, and what is to be done. They normally run for thirty days to give a number of people a chance to comment. They can be closed early if consensus emerges (or if it is clear no consensus will emerge).--Trystan (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Change: An opposite-sex marriage, used primarily by opponents of same-sex marriage To: Heterosexuality: Sometimes used by opponents of SSM. Please see discussion above but essentially, make the idea more clear removing the term "Opposite Sex Marriage" and reduce POV "Opponent Language" so its more straightforward ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This RfC seems to be incorrectly filed. The policy section is for discussing policies and guidelines. I suggest any combination of soc (society, sports, and culture) and lang (language and linguistics).  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never saw the term "opposite sex marriage" before and I think it sounds ridiculous. It should be "a marriage between a man and woman." There is no need to mention sexuality. Claimsworth (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC) (sock)

I completely agree! Also,, thank you for your comments. I'm still new so if anyone knows of a way to edit the RFC to the proper format... please feel free. Additionally, it seems there is support for changing the language. If this is the case, can we just go in and edit based off consensus or do we wait for the edit request?ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (via Feedback Request Service) Change to "marriage between two people of opposite gender". The current phrase, "opposite-sex marriage" may be a neologism and fall under TOOSOON. I'm proposing "gender" instead of "sex" as traditional marriage does not typically make an assessment of sexual function or development. By contrast, I believe the discussion of "same-sex marriage" assumes the individuals involved to have declared their "sexuality" or at least "sexual orientation". Using "gender" accommodates the reasoning made above that individuals in a traditional marriage may be comfortable in that arrangement in spite of having sexual tendencies that are not, or not entirely, aligned with the usual assumption - including, as has not been mentioned, asexuality. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Came here from RFC and I hope I'm not stepping on too much of a minefield, but: In response to Samsara, replacing "sex" with "gender" doesn't seem appropriate here, because the entry is about the term used by opponents of same-sex marriage. I doubt anyone who advocates for "Traditional marriage" would be advocating marriage between two people of the same sex and different gender! I find Claimsworth's phrasing concise and to the point, and anyone curious about the fine distinctions will find plenty of them if they follow the link. rspεεr (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ...I notice that Claimsworth is a blocked sockpuppet. It does make me stop and think about whether there's an ulterior motive behind the suggestion, but I'll mumble something about a stopped clock. For what it's worth, the current wording is also fine. rspεεr (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to replacing "opposite-sex marriage" with "marriage between a man and a woman" and keeping the rest the same.--Trystan (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , RFCs run for a minimum of 30 days and must be closed by an uninvolved editor or, in this case I suggest it be closed by an administrator. Sorry, but since you have been blocked over this issue I strongly believe this needs a formal administrative closing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and thank you for getting me up to speed being fairly new still to the editing process... so what happened?, your comment of changing to "Marriage between a man and woman" was really all I was requesting. How do we know if this change has been accepted or not? I don't think that is such a dramatic edit request. I previously wrote then edited a desire to have a section on Heterosexuality but actually feel it may be better for an experienced editor to consider this. Getting a new section up may be a bit of a large project. If anyone is interested...ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that there was no consensus which makes sense since there seems to be an amount of groupthink, but this is just disambiguation page so no love lost!ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Need a page for opposite-sex marrage?
Obviously this is a highly charged issue. Same-sex marriage has its own page on Wikipedia, but there is no page for "opposite-sex marriage." It would appear that "traditional marriage" has become a euphemism for a discriminatory movement against LGBTs and same-sex marriage.

Since Obergefell_v._Hodges, same-sex_marriage has become legal in most of the Western world. I see that Traditional_marriage_movement has been deleted, or moved to Opposition_to_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States, which also has now become a redirect to Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Opposition. Therefore I believe it is appropriate and an improvement for this redirect page to include a link to Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Opposition. Jenglish02 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not US centric, a direct link to one country does not make sense. Is there a general article about opposition to same sex marriage in the world? That could be linked in a See also section. Diego (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The irony... Traditional Marriage was argued by same sex proponets to be about evrything other than the most popular meaning of the word. Heterosexual Marriage. Now it seems when defining the opposition to gay marriage we are clearly defining the term traditional marriage as being what everyone knows it is. I'm okay with listing the opposition page, lets go for it.

But in acknowledging that, we should also do this and make a clear page not a disambiguation page to create consistency. And no, the opposition page will not count lol as it will just be a pov look at the word. ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Rarely have I seen such a load of verbiage
This is a disambiguation page. What on earth is all this blether about? This is an article and a half's worth of discussion! Fiddle  Faddle  10:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest doing? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"BIOLOGICAL BOND"
I think "biological bond" should be added to the article as it what many opposite sex married couples are now using in order to differentiate from other forms of marriage bonds. In the interest of inclusiveness and out of consideration to how EVERYONE may choose to self identify, this seems like a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:348C:8A5D:1037:39E5 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think that phrase means? Because I'm part of an opposite sex married couple and it sounds like pure gibberish to me. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)