User talk:MatLocke

Same Sex Marriage
You ought to take such sweeping changes to the discussion page first. The purpose of the article is not to debate homosexuality, but to discuss same sex marriage. Czolgolz (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And just to add, please read WP:RS and WP:NOR, and in particular, | WR:RS Extremist and fringe sources, thanks -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I realize you are correct- I should bring them up on the discussion page first. I will do that now, and with future edits. I do see your point on how some of my edits do address homosexuality more directly than same-sex marriage, but at the same time- some directly relates- and all of it is pertinent to the topic, as the effects of homosexuality are one of the main concerns with allowing same-sex marriage. Also, I have read those articles already. You need not worry that I am violating any of those ideals as far as I am aware. (MatLocke (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I just don't get it, you apologized, promise us you read them, yet you're still doing the same thing. You have to read your edits and understand what they're saying, the only "agenda" we have is one for the truth and that's what all of us, including yourself, should strive for. Your edits, whether they be anti-jewish or anti-hitler are going to get reverted if they contain inaccurate information, that's just the way Wikipedia works -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this in the discussion page- I did read those pages. I never claimed you had an agenda. My information is not inaccurate and I have provided studies that showed the evidence...what more do you want... (Though according to the time on which your sig shows we had not yet discussed it, but my other points still stand). (MatLocke (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your request
No, I have neither the time nor desire to be your personal filter for SSM posts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SSM info
I think the main problem with the information that you are adding is that it is not directly tied to same-sex marriage. Presumably, same-sex couples will have the same problems whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. In fact, I've even heard that as an argument for same-sex marriage - that these problems come because of a lack of legal recognition of the relationships, and if the government were to recognize SSM, that would encourage same-sex couples to be more monogamous and therefore help address the health problems facing the LGBT community. In order to get added to the SSM page, it has to be related to SSM. That is why I added the information of political groups who took the information you presented and applied it to SSM, arguing that the government shouldn't encourage unhealthy practices, because THAT is directly related to SSM.

The other problem with your edits is that the SSM page is a summary page. The information that you add should be brief and should be supported by the supporting pages. That is why I directed you to the men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women page. If you first elaborate your ideas there, it will be easier to summarize them on the main page. There is a temptation to want to put as many pros as cons, but the problem is that just because one side of the argument isn't properly summarized, doesn't mean the other side doesn't need to be either. I would argue that the other side be cut down before I tried to argue to be able to put in information that isn't properly summarized.

I think the information that you have about the lack of stability with same-sex couples relates to same-sex marriage in that by legalizing same-sex marriage, you put same-sex couples on equal status with opposite-sex couples when it comes to things like adoption, and that could be damaging to the children.

If you want to work on the men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women pages to put in the information that in general, same-sex couples are less stable than heterosexual couples, and then I will work on the Same-sex marriage and the family page to show that opponents apply that general information in the arguments against same-sex marriage, and then we can work on an appropriate summary that would include the information.

As far as information is concerned about monogamy, this article is published in a peer reviewed journal. It says:


 * According to Spitzer (2001a), many individuals (especially men) who desire to modify homoerotic attraction strongly value monogamy and are motivated by dissatisfaction with their experience of a more sexually open homosexual culture. Statistics generally tend to confirm this, suggesting much higher levels of nonmonogamy and sexual partners, particularly as concerns gay and bisexual male couples in comparison to lesbian and heterosexual couples (Bepko & Johnson, 2000; Dworkin, 2001; Markowitz, 1993; Rust, 2001; Shernoff, 1999). More representative national studies appear to confirm this trend and achieve findings consistent with the research using less stringent sampling techniques (Gilman, Cochran, Mays, Hughes, Ostrow, & Kessler, 2001; Lauman, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). Even for self-identified closed-coupled gay men, nonmonogamy appears to be a frequent occurrence, possibly reflecting a tendency to define commitment in emotional rather than sexual terms (Appleby, Miller, & Rothspan, 1999; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1995; Bringle 1995).


 * From the perspective of many GLB writers, failure to morally equate "polyamorous" or "polyfidelous" relationships with monogamous heterosexual ideals constitutes a heterosexist and sex-negative belief system (Dworkin, 2001, p. 674). Bepko and Johnson (2000) caution that it is important to avoid pathologizing what may be normative behavior for couples in the gay and lesbian community. This is equally valid advice for working with individuals who seek to increase their heterosexual potential and may have their normative religious values interpreted pathologically as internalized homophobia. One male client alluded to despondency over his homosexual behavior in his decision to pursue change.

Here are some other interesting sources: Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is another interesting result: "Many MSM feel their sexual identity, as well as the hard-won goals of gay sexual liberation, are based on having sex--including anal intercourse--in a free and unconstricted manner." Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another tip. Try adding only one piece of information at a time. That will allow each item to be discussed, starting with your strongest arguments.  Otherwise, they will revert good information just because they have a problem with something else you put up. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)