Talk:Marriage privatization

American-centric

• This article is highly American-centric. Including its use of "liberal commentators" term and most of the debate description. --129.132.211.131 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Some comments

• Reads too much like advocacy, as you only present one side - see WP:NPOV.
• You need to distinguish between various types of position, e.g. (a) state should oppose all "non-traditional" unions; (b) state should allow "non-traditional" unions but support only "traditional" unions" (e.g. right of a bereaved "spouse" to sue someone who has negligently or wrongfully caused the death of the other partner); (c) state should not get involved at all; (d) state should guarantee the right of consenting couples / groups to make their own arrangements (e.g. by treating forcible attempts to prevent such arrangements as assault, kidnapping, etc.); (e) state should provide legally-enforcible contracts for "non-traditional" unions on the same basis as for "traditional"; (e) state should ensure that partners in "non-traditional" unions have all the legal rights and obligations of partners in "traditional" ones; etc. That's why I originally suggested a merge into Civil union, although I notice Civil union deals only with same-sex couples and not with e.g. limited-term cohabitations, group unions, communes and other ideas I've read about various places including science fiction. --Philcha (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this article is hopelessly biased. There are no negative comments! I came to this article thinking this is an interesting proposal, I wonder whether I agree with it, but how can I possibly decide that when I'm reading an article so woefully biased towards marriage privatization being the best thing in the world? I've added the neutrality tag. 86.136.90.38 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only biased POV if there are actually documented arguments against. I put cite tags in "opposition" section. I think that if no documentation is found, the neutrality tag should be removed.Ragazz (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The apparent bias could be, that this is right in a 1+1=2 sort of way, but that's just my biased opinion :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.254.15 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I let the "neutrality" tag ride for 9 days. It seems as though the opposition to marriage privatization is just not that well documented, which is not the article's fault. I'm taking the tag out of the lead. If anyone wishes to put it back, please explain here. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the imbalance came from allowing just about anyone who argued for marriage privatization to be worthy of quoting here, whether they were a person of impact and knowledge or not. I just yanked a section by someone whose presented claim to fame was a self-published book (currently coming in at five-million-and-something on the Amazon chart) and that he was an orthodox Jew and a libertarian, which are both statements of belief rather than of knowledge or import. We seem to be using primary sources for opinions, not letting secondary sources point to the ones worthy of note. The lack of opposition sources means that we have some unbalanced things in here; while some of the arguments are that marriage is an institution of religion, because we don't have anti-privitization forces pointing out that that's false, we're ignoring that plenty of other folks in the general marriage discussion point out that it isn't so (see here for an example of a conservative religious believer pointing out its historical falseness.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marriage privatization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806085511/http://article.nationalreview.com/269352/the-stakes/maggie-gallagher to http://article.nationalreview.com/269352/the-stakes/maggie-gallagher

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Morse non-quote

An editor just properly removed a supposed quote from Jennifer Roback Morse. I just wanted to note that I see where this "quote" came from -- it was from a statement by UK Parliament member Tim Loughton in a committee's discussion of a same-sex marriage bill. So this was not a radical mis-statement of her position, just a summary of her position mistakenly ending up here as a quote. (That it can now be found elsewhere as a quote from Morse likely largely derives from it being featured here as a quote.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)