User talk:Thethirstyscholar

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON 19:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. →Gƒoley Four   (GSV)  19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * STOP your disruptive editing! I've already explained SAME-SEX marriage is the official term, not gay marriage...and it referes to bisexual males and females. C T J F 8 3  chat 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC) This is interesting. I respect your opinion that Same sex marriage is the official term, but gay marriage is the MOST widely used term. Then I would say Same sex marriage, but the fact of the matter is that homosexual and hetrosexual are the proper terms. Look through court opinions sometime. It would change your idea on this maybe. The words homo and hetro have origins in Latin for same/different, sexual wise.
 * That's fine, but discuss changes like that on talk pages...clearly 3 other users agree with me. C T J F 8 3  chat 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC) These webpages are going to need some major work and updates
 * Well update and work in a constructive way. C T J F 8 3  chat 19:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Court ruling
It is not really nice to discuss things though edit summaries, but whjat court order do you refer tyo that states gay-marriage over same-sex marriage? PS. If you keep going like this, I predict you end up blocked rather soon. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Well, if you read the Prop 8 decision, the legal terminology is used, as well as the Cal. Supreme Court. There are others, but those come to mind. The legal premise is homosexuals are a constitutionally protected group, a minority discriminated against. The rights are about homosexual marriage, not same sex. IT is linguistics, if anything at all.
 * The wording uses in the prop 8 ruling is same-sex marriage. So, no, the ruling does not support your position. Same-sex marriage is not limited to gay people, but also allows boisexuals for example, many who protect strongly being labeled homosexual. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The bisexual issue is very interesting. Are commenting on this from first hand knowledge? Of course, you can open a whole other can of worms- two same sex people married to one another would be a homosexual relationship-if you were having relations with others, it technically would violate the marriage vows. Bizarre
 * If you, like you indicate at your user page, are gay, the issue of bisexuals not liking to be labeled homosexual is very well known. What marriage vows would be violated? And yes, if there is a third person, you violate the marriage vows. Just like in a opposite sex marriage. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR
There is currently a discussion here about your recent edits. -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)