Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Map?

The map on the page is incorrect. California does not recognize same-sex unions."Only an unmarried male and an unmarried female may marry in California." I don't know who's supposed to change that, but yeah.

Minidoxigirli 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Same sex union" does not only mean marriage, marriage is one type of union. California has domestic partnerships, that is another type of union. That is why the map is this way. - Trysha ^(talk) 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

Minidoxigirli 21:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from Other Gays

This comment is not vandalism, I swear. I wanted to suggest taht a heading with the aforementioned title be added. There is a growing numbers of gays who have voiced their opposition to the marraige issue. The section could say something ilke. (It would be cited of course. )

Arguments against same sex marriage from openly gay individuals differ sharply from the standard religious and social concerns. This group disagrees on the basis that a fight for gay marriage in some way mirrors the orthodox American values expounded by religious conservatives. They view marriage is an unnecessary convention and contend the gay rights movement was founded on the right to live an unconventional life. --Young Lucky 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are arguments roughly along those lines, but it should be kept in mind that these people usually aren't arguing against legalizing marriage for gay people if they want to get married, they're arguing that they shouldn't want to get married. -Smahoney 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Economic arguments

why is this article longer then the regular wedding article? Doesnt that seem a little lop-sided? Also, how come there is no reference whatsoever to the economical point of view in this argument? If homosexual marriages are reconginised legally, wont there be higher medical costs for the government and employers? Many, american workers get spouse coverage wouldnt this have to be applied to homosexual unions as well if it passes? Not the mention the tax breaks that hetrosexual couples enjoy, would this appply to homosexual marriages as well? By law a spouse can not testify against there partner, would this apply to homosexual couples? Traditionaly during divorce hearings the mother gets primary custody, how will this be modified for homosexual divorces? In NY state a 16 year old can marry another 16 year old with parent permission. If it passes will this be allowed for homosexual couples? The Isiah 03:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, yes and yes. Advocates of gay marriage, as far as I know, do want all of the rights that you described to be extended to married gay couples. If you can find sources that address these points of view (pro or con... preferably both), add them to the article. These are valid points. Medical costs, tax breaks etc. (I believe) are the real issues behind the debate as far as employers and the government are concerned, but they have found the moral/procreative angle plays to non-filthy rich people much better. If they are open about the fact that they simply don't want to extend these rights to gays, they're open acknowledging that they don't believe in equality of sexual orientations. If they just let the homophobia ingrained in the Abrahamic religions to do the work for them, they don't have to be up front about why it truly concerns them. By the way, a person can testify against their spouse, but they cannot be compelled to. --Hraefen 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

just RE compelled testimony: There are circumstances when a spouse *can* be barred from testifying.

Spouses can choose to testify against each other, as witnesses to actions, but communications between spouses are privileged. The witness spouse can choose to testify, or not, to "I saw them do such-and-such." The defendant spouse can prevent the witness from testifying "S/he *told* me such-and-such." Tahrlis 16:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian countries have banned homosexual practices before, I dont buy the religoes argument. This is an economical issue. The Isiah 03:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Highly questionable statement

This sentence, "Homosexuality itself has always been a minority practice, so social recognition of such unions has been irregular at best." is not correct to the best of my understanding, since homosexual relations were anything but a minority practice in at least a few major cultures (Japan, Greece, Turkey). Unless the statement can be sourced I suggest it be permenently deleted. Haiduc 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If 40% of the population participates in behvaior it is still "minority". It is commonly accepted that homosexuality comprises less than half of society, and probably more like 10%. I would suggest that if you can come up with a reference that suggests any culture or society has had more than 50% homosexual relationships, then the statement should be removed. Otherwise, leave it in. Rexmorgan 03:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In Ancient Greece it was more or less the norm for men to have relationships with adolescent boys (though I don't have a source for this to hand; you can google for something maybe). Cadr 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto ancient Japan. Exploding Boy 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As I noted, it would be best to find a source to verify; otherwise leave as-is for now. Rexmorgan 19:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the relevant articles. There are sources galore. Exploding Boy 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sort of ditto Sambia, possibly Sparta and Crete, areas of Melanesia and Australia, the Ottoman empire, Albania, periods in Korea, Hawaii, etc. As a source, try Homosexualities by Stephen O. Murray, or just google. -Smahoney 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I say delete it. There are plenty of references to cultures where homosexuality was (or currently is) a popular practice. Wikipedia's homosexuality article has a few good examples. grendale 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This all depends on what one means by homosexuality. As Smahoney points out, there are different kinds of homosexualities. In our own culture, if we were honest and included adolescent experimentation, you would probably reach a majority. So we are not discussing "homosexuality itself" but rather a variant. Gibbsale 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to adolescent experimentation, which is clearly a psychological item and does not belong in the same catagory as homosexuality. I was refering to the fact, in that some societies, homosexual relationships (strictly male, as far as I know) were viewed as a responsibility or rite of passage. See [Homosexuality in Japan] as an example. In a more modern sense, I suppose that the practice (or occurance) of homosexuality may not be as prominent, though this is still a debated matter. We would have to take into consideration the occurance of bisexuality, as well. Regardless, the questionable statement would be hard to support in the first place, given social stigma has made it difficult to collect fair data on the statistical occurance (or practice) of homosexuality. I stand behind my original vote to remove it. grendale 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect argument?

From the article

Conservative Christians and some moderates view the passage as specificially referring to homosexuals. However, liberal and and some moderate Christians see these passages obscure in meaning and do not believe that these passages refer to homosexuality, since the word "homosexual" wasn't coined until 1892 [22].

This argument makes no sense - it doesn't matter when the word "homosexual" was invented - surely the authors of the passage were aware of the concept of homosexuality. The real question would then be whether, in the original texts, the authors used terminology that refers to homosexual behavior.

I would argue that since modern translations of the Bible are supposed to be translated directly from the source texts in their native language, then the fact that modern translations use "homosexuality" means that the original text also meant "homosexuality". However, I can see someone arguing that Bible translators might have a slight bias against homosexuality, so I am asking for other viewpoints here. Rexmorgan 03:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be confused. The concept of homosexuality (that is, an inherent orientation only to members of one's own sex) arose basically contemporaneously with the word. Prior to this, homosexual behaviour (not the same thing) was frequently seen as a possibility for any male, albeit the types of behaviour were dependent upon age and social status. Exploding Boy 19:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not what the article says - it clearly cites the etymology of the word, not the development of the concept of having sexual relations with a person of the same gender. The problem with the argument is that it does not refute, necessarily, that the writers were using the best terminology of their day to describe the concept. Can you replace the current citation with one that discusses the rise of the concept of homosexuality as post-dating the authorship of the Bible? Rexmorgan 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual orientations are social contructs resulting from permutations in capital's trajectory. There was no concept of sexual orientation, period, until it was fabricated in the 19th century.--Fenian Heresiarch 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As convincing as social constructionist arguments may be, keep in mind that that is one POV among many. -Smahoney 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There were other terms which described a class of person - sodomite, for example - but they generally referred to what someone becomes due to some action, in the same way that a man becomes a husband by getting married.

We have no proof of the term "sodomite" being applied to same sex relationships until after the fabrication of sexual orientation.--Fenian Heresiarch 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are hinging your argument here on a very specific use of the word relationships (or, and pardon my bluntness, you're just wrong - I can pull out plenty of primary source references that are earlier than the 19th century that clearly refer to a sodomite as a class of person - specifically, a class of male person - who has sex with members of the same sex). Really, though, this doesn't contradict what I'm saying above. A sodomite was not an orientation in the way we think of it today, it was something someone became. -Smahoney 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that an anlysis of such primary source references would likely reveal the term's application specifically to male temple prostitutes. --Fenian Heresiarch 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so much. They are male specific, but neither involve temples nor prostitution. The sources I was referring to are from the colonial US. -Smahoney 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as the translation of the bible goes, I don't think your argument is especially sound. We use culturally relevant examples when translating all the time, even when trying to do it literally. In fact, a bias against homosexuality wouldn't even be required to translate a word into 'homosexual', but just a bias toward our current conception of sexuality. -Smahoney 19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, according to your statement, the refutation in the article needs to prove that the biblical-era conception of sexuality does not include homosexual concepts. Which, it currently does not, it just talks about the rise of the word "homosexual". (to clarify for any users who may be unsure: etymology has as little to do with concepts as thermometers have to do with wind speed) Rexmorgan 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues at hand here, I think: The passage in the article says, "However, liberal and and some moderate Christians see these passages obscure in meaning and do not believe that these passages refer to homosexuality", which is true (though it may need a source or two). Their belief doesn't need to be true in order for the fact that they believe it to be true, and notable.

Second is your argument itself, which is fairly strawman, though understandable. The arguments I've heard don't actually say that the existence of a concept is dependant on the existence of a word. There is a whole set of social, economic, religious, and political factors that go into the argument that the concept of a homosexual didn't exist before the 1800s. -Smahoney 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not think that I am attempting to argue this point one way or the other. My intention is not to debate whether this point is right or wrong, I merely brought this up because I believe that Criticism A is talking about one thing - whether the authors were using their own terminology to refer to something similar to what we call homosexuality; and Refutation B is talking about something else - whether the word "homosexuality" developed before the time it was written; therefore not actually refuting anything at all. The optimal outcome of this discussion would be to replace the current refutation with one that is a little more sound. Rexmorgan 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Then I totally agree - the wording is bad. The only problem is that the actual argument is very complex, and so trimming it down could be difficult. However, one possibility is to just remove the last part of that sentence and leave:

However, liberal and and some moderate Christians see these passages obscure in meaning and do not believe that these passages refer to homosexuality.

or

However, liberal and some moderate Christians do not see in these passages a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, or see in them a cultural bias rather than a religious law.

or something like that. Since more liberal positions toward homosexuality are taken for a variety of reasons, not just the one given, this would in a sense be better, as it is less restrictive. -Smahoney 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I added the weasel words reference after viewing the definition of that term according to Wikipedia Standards, I apologize that I didn't put this blurb on the talk page fast enough, but I also don't recall that being a requirement to post such a warning--considering I used the Edit Summary field. I notice that it seems one person (StuffofInterest) is the only person who seems to get to police this article. care to engage in some debate before you just continue to revert? Julien_Deveraux

Debate no, but I would like some examples. When an anonymous IP with only two edits comes along and drops a tag on an article I'm going to be suspicious. Thanks for logging in before adding it back in. If you would provide some specific examples it will help with finding why you think the tag is warranted. In my experience it is usually the responsibility of a person applying such a tag to justify why it is warranted and not everyone else to justify why it is not. Otherwise, editors spend far too much time dealing with allegations without substantiation. I'll leave the tag in for now, but please provide some specific examples of why you think the tag is needed. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, I'm not the only one who "gets" to police the article. I just happen to keep it on my watch list and noticed the change. If you check the history you'll see plenty of others do police work here. Please WP:AGF. --StuffOfInterest 17:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing you'll discover if you've edited Wikipedia long enough is that there are a whole bunch of articles that ought to have a hypothetical {{Irreconcilable Differences}} template added to them because the Wikipedia collaborative editing process will never converge on a single text that approaches the truth while suiting all the partisans. This is one of those articles. Most articles having anything to do with political and religious issues fall into this class as do many articles having to do with the objects of fandom.

Atlant 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Accidental overwriting

StuffOfInterest states in the audit trail (Atlant appeared to accidently overwrite my comments)

It's possible, and if so, please accept my apologies! My browser acted weirdly several times in a row as I attempted to open just the section, and I ended up opening the entire talk page (although your comments definitely weren't there in my edit window). Then again, it might have been just an edit collision, announced or unannounced by the Wikimedia software; these things happen.

But I assure you it was not deliberate. Sorry!

Atlant 18:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much which is why I listed is as an accident. No harm, I just pulled it back from the history. --StuffOfInterest 18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of references to past Pederasty; "two-Spirit" $\neq$gay

I will not take the action but the historical portion of this page which referes to relationships between older men and younger boys as examples of "gay marriage" is counter productive. It looks like something I would expect to see in the NAMBLA handbook. I am not homophobe but that just gives me the creeps. What I will change is the reference to "two-spirits" as gay. I am a native american and I am such a "two-spirit" I have Klienfelters syndrome and am technically a transsexual. Historically the "two-spirits" were transsexual and accepted even among tribes that were VERY homophobic. So saying that "two-spirits" are an example of accepted gay people is a stretch beyond truthfulness. 66.92.130.180 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In Greco-Roman culture it was closer to pedophilia than marriage, but, as the article points out, men often married girls of a similar age. If what you said about "two-spirit" traditions is true, cite it and change the article to reflect this.Emmett5 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the anon's comments, please keep in mind that the husband of the two-spirit was never another two-spirit, and his choice of mate was not equivalent to marrying a woman, it was better than marrying a woman. Regarding Emmett5 comparison of Greek pederasty with modern pedophilia, it is not clear to me how you can compare a clinical mental compulsion with an educational institution. It is as if you were lumping in hygienic hand washing with obsessive-compulsive disorder. (I am largely excluding Roman pederasty from this discussion.) Haiduc 04:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Weather Greek Pederasty was "educational" or not is not my point. Homosexuals want the right to get married, right? All I was saying is that praise for pederasty is counterproductive. The age of the people is not the point either. As child brides are also now considered taboo. The average voter who may be open to supporting gay marriage who reads that will be turned off.

As for the two-spirit issue. Here is my citation. [http://www.circumstitions.com/Intersex.html It's a - um, baby: Intactivism and Intersexuality] lA Native American Perspective on the Theory of Gender Continuum by DRK.

Now listen to a intersexed native American person speaking for themselef. I am 1/2 Montana Blackfoot and 1/2 African American. I have Klienfelters XXXY syndrome. Because of the corrective surgery I need medicine also consideres me to have GID. For reasons of privacy I do not want to reveal anything more about myself. Trust me, Histoically men who were gay were not considered two-spirit. To pass for a female (or male if f2M) at all one would need to have either had a serious endocrine problem or been intersexed (premarin did not exist then). I mean, think about this, by definition a gay man is a man. Pure and simply he is a man who wants other men for sex. That does not make one intersexed or transsexual. Further more in most Native American socieites if a proclivity for the work of the opposite sex is noted a young man or woman could comit to what was closest to a sex change at the time (basically castration). Those are the facts of my personal experience and tradition passed down to me by my family. :-)

Based on those citations and what I know of the historical role of the third gender or "two-spirited" I conclude that being "two-spirit" was in no way a synonym for being gay. (one of those articles mentions a tribe that had five genders perhaps one of those would correspond to being gay. Just not this one. ). 66.92.130.180 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding gender in Native American society, I am sure that it is a complex issue, and while I respect your insider knowledge and personal experience, I think it is presuming a lot to extend that as a generalization of all Native constructs of two-spirit. Take a look if you have time at Walter Williams' work on the subject, I found it to be informed as well as wide-ranging.

Regarding Greek pederasty, I wish neither to praise it nor to bury it. What was, was, and the fact that some readers will be put off by it, or the possible political ramifications of this knowledge receiving wider distribution are not our concern. I for one certainly do not have sufficient wisdom or vision to try to manage social development, and for that reason do not wish to do so. Let the chips fall where they may, it is ignorance that got us into this mess, not surfeit of knowledge. Haiduc 11:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I give up. If you would rather have a article full of POV that claims every one who is not hetero is gay then by all means do so. Let me rephrase that. If you want to classify as LGB people who are T and I the fine. Whatever! It matters not to me because from Iowa to Iran people like me can already get married. 66.92.130.180 18:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil mariage does not equal Same sex marriage.

The term civil marriage simply means a marriage according to the state. There may be states/countries/etc that allow civil marriages to include unions between members of the same sex. However, all couples who have a marriage license from the state have a "civil marriage".

It would be proper to frame a comment "advocates for same sex marriages wish to include those marriages under civil marriage law" but in no way would it be proper to say "same sex marriage" = "civil marriage".

What about civil unions? That is a term given by some people to create a separate legal status than civil marriages to same sex couples. DanielZimmerman 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Civil unions are not marriage. It's that simple. Ardenn 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. But we have to maintain NPOV when we write these articles. So when presenting the fact that civil unions are not marriages, we need to explain why they are not and the issues surrounding that in a factual way. Perhaps my last statement was not clear as to why I was pointing out that you couldnt put "civil unions" as another term that stood for same sex marriages. If I was unclear then I appologize. DanielZimmerman 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we combine 2 sections?

It seems that "debates over terminology" could be combined with "controversy into a much better worded description. Indeed, the debates over what these unions are called are a big part of the controversy.

Many portions of the "debates" section are unverified. In fact, this article could probably be made much shorter and MUCH much better.

If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I will work on combining the two above sections. DanielZimmerman 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

table of contents

why is there a custom/non-default ToC implemented? the default/normal would look much better. -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 04:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Section(s) split

The article is too long, and many of the large sections should be broken off into their own articles. Ardenn 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Under WP:BOLD, I went and split them off. You can see them at History of same-sex unions and Status of same-sex marriage. Ardenn 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

International Organizations Section

This section is wrong, at least to the extent that the World Bank is an international organization. I also believe that there are other multilateral banks that recognize domestic partners (Asian and European development banks come to mind). I am going to modify part of the section, noting the World Bank's policies. Gibbsale

Bible reference with regard of marriage

Does the Bible ever mention the marriage is strickly between a men and a woman? I'm not pro-gay or against gay marriage. I just wonder is any knowns about it.

It is just assumed, I think. Homosexual partnerships are not new in history, and have certainly been institutionalized in the past, but the Abrahamic faiths neither recognized or tolerated those pairings. However, there is no language equivalent to say the anti-gay marriage amendments (i.e., "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman and no other substantially similar union shall..." etc.). That being said, the Bible does not assume monogamous heterosexual marriage, so polygamy is not condemned in any Abrahamic faith. So a man and a woman...and a couple more women, maybe (the real important part seems to be only ONE man). Gibbsale 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in Christianity, Elders are supposed to be "above reproach... the husband of but one wife" (1 Timothy 3.2-7) . See greek exegesis here. In Judaism too, I belive rabbis have ruled against monogamy... google turns up this MPS 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the off article-topic question; I'm very curious: What about one woman married to two men? Is that allowed by your interpretations? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy is unhelpful, because it is a discussion of religious leaders, and not laity. I would also add that the eschatological context of early Christianity places considerable doubt on what beliefs held by the modern Christian churches were actually held by the community of believers in its formative years. The debate over polygamy was not settled by the time Augustine wrote. I think it is fairly safe to say that there is no per se Christian or New Testament position on polygamy. As far as marriage between two or more men and one woman, this is a very infrequent phenomenon and I think almost nonexistent in the region that produced the Abrahamic faiths, but I am uncertain. Gibbsale 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also note Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I would assume that generally forbids all homosexual relationships. Topher0128 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess it depends on your intepretation of this statement. You could say prohibits bisexuality since a gay man would never want to lie with mankind as with womankind, they want to like with mankind as mankind. Alternative, you could say that since it is not possible for a homosexual couple to have vaginal intercourse/coutis, a man can never lie with a woman as a man and therefore it's irrelevant. In any case, this would only refer to same sex marriages between men. Same sex marriages between woman are not relevant. Nil Einne 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for male-male homosexual conduct. Even though I think this kind of teaching is barbaric, I do believe that ALL of the Bible needs to be taught if people want to call it inerrant. Leviticus 20:13 states unequivocally that "if a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." I have quoted this passage, in the correct context mind you, dozens of times in the "same sex marriage" article, and every time I do someone reverts it back. Can I just ask anyone who might be offended by this passage not to ignore it. Part of promoting wider acceptance of same-sex couples is exposing the opponents for what they really are. All I am doing is putting the Bible's hateful message out in the open for people to see. I am not in any way condoning the death penalty for gays.

• I understand that you're simply trying to put the bible passage in there to show what gay marriage opponents might be basing some of their "rationale" on, but others erronously are taking it as some sort of defense of this position. They might need to examine their own beliefs about the validity of religious belief if they can't stand to see something from a 2,000-year-old book that offends their moral sensibilities (imagine that... a bunch of ancients weren't open and accepting of different people), but that's their problem. What you could do as a good faith measure is to register an accoount, and only re-add this passage from that account. Many Wikipedians, myself included, have an inherent mistrust of someone who's not willing to put their name (their screen name no less) behind a contribution. Think about it.--Hraefen ^Talk 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with this

I think People in America forget that America is a free country & that you don't need incorporate the bible into your daily life. I think same-sex marriages is great. Homosexuals get what they want: people of their sex as their partner, straight guys like me can get more chances with women, now there are more women who don't have a partner I can now be their boyfriend & eventually find a girlfriend that I feel comfortable with & that is a match with me. Also means more chicks for me. Am I right or not.?

Wikipedia talk pages are not for discussion about the topic, they are for discussion about the article -- Wikipedia is not a forum. Dysprosia 05:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The above comment was rather silly, but at least he meant well :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hbhiggens (talk • contribs) .

Inconsistency

The intro section says that same-sex civil unions are legal in New York State, and yet the map halfway down the page (Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG) shows that same-sex civil unions are NOT legal in New York State. Which is correct? --zandperl 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside: if it turns out that the map is simply not up to date, may I suggest people give feedback on the "Wikipedia map markup language" idea. We want to help make maps easier to update but we need someone capable of designing the software tools. --Andrew Delong 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The law in NY state is unclear...I think it is best to remove the language that says same-sex civil unions are recognized. The NY Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) has taken a case on the marriage question, and NY City and one other county recognize gay marriages, but I do not think it is fair to say that NY recognizes those unions. Gibbsale 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Debate about marriage

Sweden should be added to the list of countries that is debating complete same-sex marriage to replace partnerships in the next year, and probably the other Nordic countries as well. I don't know of any other countries where it is being debated but I'm sure there are probably some, someone could do some research (i'm too lazy right now, haha)

In some ways, the "debate" section is misleading; same-sex marriage is being debated in legislatures as diverse as Taiwan and Brazil, but this article seems limited to the debates in Europe and the Anglosphere. Gibbsale 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Defeated Proposals

I was thinking of creating a page with a timeline devoted to SS marriage/civil union proposals which had been adopted by legislative bodies, but later vetoed by the executive/judicial. (California marriage [1], Australian Capital Territory - civil unions [[2]], Czech Republic - civil unions [3], etc.). Thoughts? Style guidelines? Is it already on Wikipedia and I've missed it? samwaltz 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Is someone going to change the map of world same-sex marriage laws to illustrate the recent change in Czech law regarding the practice?

Sex vs. gender

In the first sentence, I believe that sex is a more appropriate term than gender. Sex refers to biological classification whereas, according to the article on sex, "The somewhat similar term gender has more to do with identity than biology." The laws which permit or deny same-sex marriage are decided based upon the physical and biological classification of the participants, not on their identity. –Shoaler (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And the first line of the article on gender states, "The word gender describes the state of being male, female, or neither." CovenantD 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think either term works adequately, but sex is a little more precise. On the other hand, Same-sex marriage is the union of two people who are of the same sex does come off sounding a bit redundant.--Birdmessenger 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Interpertation of bible wording

I recentally scanned a Bible with an eye towards seeing what the Bible's stand on same-sex marriage was. I was suprised to see that the Bible (KJV) does not prohibit marriage or sex between two women. Also, marriage between two men is not prohibihed, just sex. Can someone find a way to insert this into the article? I cannot seem to find where this should go. Auric 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I managed to check the Gospels this afternoon and there is no explicit prohibition on same-sex marriage, Jesus refers to a husband and a wife, but this is only because he was asked a question using those terms. Jesus refers to marriage as "the two become one flesh". Dysprosia 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The two major biblical sections people quote are Leviticus 18:22 and the Soddom and Gamorrah thing (Genesis 13:13; 18:20; 19:24, 29; Hosea 11:8). The first Obviously and explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage, but the second is a little less clear cut. Sodom_and_Gomorrah - basically the people of Sodom and Gomorrah get angry and demand to rape (the exact wording ranges from "have" to "be intimate with) the angels who Lot has taken in and then God destroys their town. I would've thought the rape was worse than the homosexuality myself. --Jabberwalkee 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. One interpretation of the oft-quoted Leviticus verse rules out same-sex sexual interaction, but says nothing against same-sex marriage. The Sodom and Gomorrah thing doesn't say anything about marriage either -- one interpretation deals with sexual promiscuity and immorality, another interpretation looks at S and G as dealing with hospitality. Regardless, there's nothing explicit against same-sex marriage as far as I know. Dysprosia 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not speaking of the New Testament, but the Hebrew Scriptures say very little at all about marriage in general. Marriage was an evolving institution in ancient Israel while the books of the Pentateuch were being composed and edited. Consequently, views on marriage are not to be found explicitly. Same-sex sexual behavior among men is explicitly condemned in Leviticus; marriage is nowhere mentioned. Lesbianism is nowhere mentioned either. 66.108.4.183 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovenia

Should Slovenia be listed as the latest country allowing marriage nationwide? See [4] (also: [5], [6], [7]). This is confounding, but I'm going to guess their point was the arguable one that if guests are restricted, it's not full marriage. If that's the distinction they're trying to draw, it's an arguable one. Fireplace 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the point; if it's not called "marriage", it *CAN'T* be same-sex marriage. Slovenia's laws allow a mid-level form of domestic partnership/civil union, but not nearly as many rights as Denmark or Sweden give. —Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if they aren't called marriages. But the news stories above explicitly say things like "Slovenia has passed a law legalizing same-sex marriages but put restrictions on the ceremony." Is there contradictory evidence that they don't call it marriage? Fireplace 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, the institution as introduced in Slovenia received little support from our GLBT siblings there and is quite resented. I think the line above that quotes the restriction on ceremonies of these institutions highlights the inadequacy of this institution. POV, there is NO reason why people should be restricted in the manner in which they get hitched. Enzedbrit 20:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but is it marriage? The news stories above say yes, several editors say no. Fireplace 13:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward with sources debunking this, I'm tentatively putting it back into the article. Feel free to remove again if you've got conflicting data. Fireplace 05:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Slovenia should definitely be removed, unless the Scandinavian countries and perhaps some others are also added, but that would also be innacurate. Slovenia's "marriage" with the restriction that it must be located in a state office, cannot be called a true marriage anymore than the Scandinavian type of civil unions. Just because the news story reports it as a marriage doesn't mean that it is, the media often oversimplifies things like that. Registered partnership in Sweden is often referred to as marriage, but technically is not, however it grants more rights than the Slovenian law, including adoption, and the only exception is the lack of a legal right to a church wedding (I think to appease the churches but I've never understand why it hasn't been changed yet). I think it is misleading to include Slovenia, it gives a false impression that the Slovenian government deserves credit for recognizing same-sex couples as fully equal members of society, something that it didn't do. Of course they deserve credit for creating civil unions, but not marriage. The fact that it has to occur in an office with no guests doesn't seem to indicate that the government embraces same-sex couples as fully as they do heterosexual ones. Any country could claim to have equal marriage when they really only have civil unions, by this logic. Only when they give full equal rights to all their citizens should it be called marriage. Hbhiggens 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if, by that standard, we shouldn't count same-sex marriages as "marriages" because they aren't given federal marriage rights. Instead, I think the standard of inclusion should primarily be whether the legislation calls it "marriage". Differentiation (such as the ceremonies in Slovenia or federal rights in the US) should be discussed immediately afterwards, either in the main body or in a footnote (I did the latter on Slovenia). Fireplace 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd much rather trust LBGT sources to get the terminology right than other news sources; the UK's civil union law was also often called marriage in oversimplifying news reports. 365gayc.com, for instance, calls it "civil union", as do other notable LBGT rights groups. http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/072406slovenia.htm —Nightstallion (?) 12:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Slovenia and and pretty much the entire world does not use the English word "marriage" in their laws, deciding whether their laws define a "marriage" is almost always based on rules which we make up — which is original research. IMHO, the only way we can avoid WP:OR is to list countries for which there is any form of same-sex civil union and describe what the laws provide or prohibit. But I don't think it is possible to say that it is a marriage or isn't a marriage. –Shoaler (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is -- in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, it is the very same legal institution for both homosexual and heterosexual couples, whereas everywhere else, it's a distinct institution. It's that easy. —Nightstallion (?) 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia

This page has become too liberal in its classification to list the partnership benefits, etc., available to citizens in Australian states other than Tasmania as being equal on some ground to marriage. They are not. Tasmania offers the only thing in Australia close to a civil union. The other states do not. Offering next of kin benefits or IVF treatment doesn't mean that those states are progressive enough for same-sex couples and GLBT people. At best, if one wishes to include the other states, and other countries/dependencies where similar benefits are offered in these limited amounts, then a new subheading should be created I feel. Enzedbrit 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

US

However, some point out that the argument for gay marriage itself is not a matter of financial benefit. Were this the case, the gay community would only need to advocate civil union, which has identical financial and/or legal beneifits. However, if the argument for gay marriage concerns a civil right for a consenting adult "couple" to marry, then it is difficult to maintain that this argument does not apply to any consenting adult "group" or, for that matter, to consenting brothers or sisters

While this issue arises in most countries, I think it is most relevant in the US. For example, in many other countries such as New Zealand and the UK, most gay rights activists as far as I can tell do believe they should ultimately be allowed to marry but generally feel new laws allowing same-sex civil unions or civil partnerships with equal rights as opposite-sex marriages are sufficient for now and are more concerned with other issues. The US appears to be one of the only countries where there is an extremely strong voice for gay marriage. I suspect this has more to do with the federal nature of the US as well as the tendincy for significant changes to be made in court. If they are granted marriage by right, then all federal and state entities would presemuably be required to offer all benefits and recognitions given to opposite-sex marriages. On the other hand, ensuring that all such benefits and recognition is applied to civil unions is seen as more difficult. While I don't have a reference for my suggestion, I'm sure someone else has considered this before Nil Einne 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss "neutered marriage" and "gender-complete marriage"

Should we have a paragraph for "neutered marriage" and "gender-complete marriage"? google for "neutered marriage" (24 unique) and google for "gender-complete marriage" (6 unique) My thought is no but I'm open to discussion. In the mean time, I'm going to rm the unsourced paragraph. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on the anon editor's talk page. If we can be presented with a WP:RS for the term then it could be included, but without a source and with failing the "google test" I'm not inclined to have it in the article. Syrthiss 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Google search turned up 61 hits, and 16 respectively noting websites from Daily Kos (where I found it) and Volokh Conspiracy. Both, in the comment sections and not the articles. I believe reliable sources are important, especially when facts on events or perspectives are involved. But it seems that the google search shows the term is in use, as the paragraph stated. This debate is fluid with phraseology evolving quickly. The first paragraph in the "terminogy" section points to that. 66.185.170.210 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the terminology evolves quickly, I'd still rather see the term appear in some form of mainstream-media before including it here. 61 hits isn't anywhere near my personal threshold for "mainstream usage". We don't have to be a current news source; we are an eycyclopedia. Syrthiss 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a protologism and should not be included. Further, none of the google hits are from reliable sources (comments sections on popular blogs clearly aren't reliable). Fireplace 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. Thanks for your viewpoint. I won't disagree that there should be some expectation of reliability. And I do believe that the wiki is not a news media. However, the wiki is updated daily with new events as things change and can be verified.

Three tests here are being misapplied, however. The first is the source should not be blog comments, but I see no attempt to reference blog comments in the wiki article. A google research was first referenced by the editor removing the paragraph, not the author. That editor looked at the number of google hits to determine whether or not to keep the phrase, which is not a useful test for information. Using the Google results to verify the consistency of the usage over a variety of sources would be. In my review some were comments, some were articles. Some were simply usages of the term, some were references describing the usage of the term. Some were debates over the term.

Above it was said this phrase is a protologism. While some bar of applicability should be applied to keep the signal to noise ration down, we should remember it is a section about phrases used to describe marriage laws that permit same-sex marriage. By its nature it is a section on neologisms, because however imperfect there is constant debate on the terminology. There are multiple article titles that point to this page.

I won't be the person to re-add this, I don't really care that much. But I will say that if anything erring on more information is better than erring in the path of censorship. --66.185.170.210 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Policies are from Wikipedia:Verifiability: Regarding policy #1, Are your new terms published by reputable sources? Regarding policy #2, You didn't cite a reputable source, so I removed the term. Regarding policy #3, the burden of proof is not on me. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also looking at the article it would appear to me that the origional editor would have been better served putting a "citation needed" tag as employed in the paragraph above the edit, instead of doing a Google search and deleting. --66.185.170.210 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Both are fine choices. I'm guessing it's my prerogative, but I'm new to Wikipedia. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Great propaganda piece

I don't know who wrote this article, but it stands out as a great propganda piece. I guess the NPOV rules don't apply if your gay. Huge elements such as the gay rights movement's early antipathy to the idea of gay marriage has been left out, such as the following from the 1978 GLF Manifesto.

"COMPULSIVE MONOGAMY. We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one 'right' partner. This is the blueprint of the straight world which gay people have taken over. It is inevitably a parody, since they haven't even the justification of straight couples-the need to provide a stable environment for their children (though in any case we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children.

Monogamy is usually based on ownership-the woman sells her services to the man in return for security for herself and her children-and is entirely bound up in the man's idea of property furthermore in our society the monogamous couple, with or without children, is an isolated, shut-in, up-tight unit, suspicious of and hostile to outsiders. And though we don't lay down rules or tell gay people how they should behave in bed or in their relationships, we do want them to question society's blueprint for the couple. The blueprint says 'we two against the world', and that can be protective and comforting. But it can also be suffocating, leading to neurotic dependence and underlying hostility, the emotional dishonesty of staying in the comfy safety of the home and garden, the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime-as though there were a ration of relationships, and to want more than one were greedy. Not that sexual fidelity is necessarily wrong; what is wrong is the inturned emotional exclusiveness of the couple which students the partners so they can no longer operate at all as independent beings in society. People need a variety of relationships in order to develop and grow, and to learn about other human beings."[8]

"Gay people must stop gauging their self-respect by how well they mimic straight marriages. Gay marriages will have the same problems as straight ones except in burlesque. For the usual legitimacy and pressures which keep straight marriages together are absent, e.g., kids, what parents think, what neighbors say.

To accept that happiness comes through finding a groovy spouse and settling down, showing the world that “we’re just the same as you” is avoiding the real issues, and is an expression of self-hatred."[9]

Is this being omitted for political reasons?

"Scholars" such as John Boswell are treated as objective, despite the fact the late Dr. Boswell has drawn fire from fellow scholars for frequently overreaching with his conclusions. First of all, Dr. Boswell, a classics scholar had no business analyzing the Koine Greek used in 1st century Jewish culture when his specialty was 4th century B.C. Attic Greek. They were two completely different dialects affected by two different cultures. For example, Dr. Boswell (I have read his work first hand) asserts porneia means prostitution in the Bible. Small problem, by the time it came into use in New Testament Koine Greek porneia had come to mean any kind of sexual activity that violated the Jewish law. Sort of like the difference in meaning for the word bum in American and British English.

Anything Dr. Boswell writes shouldn't be written up as a citation, rather as an assertion, largely influenced by his engaging in textual eisegesis, not exegesis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.161.241 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure what "political reasons" you are referring to, but see: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As for LGBT movements past positions on gay marriage, they should absolutely be included in the article. Since you seem to have some knowledge, why don't you go ahead and contribute? -Smahoney 21:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I might want to know is why the change. Was it strategic to eliminate heterosexual opposition to homosexuality, or was it some other reason? Would you object to my changing Dr. Boswell cites this or that to John Boswell believes x is evidence of y; however, the quality of his scholarship is subject to intense debate.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

I'm neutral on the Boswell issue - I'm not especially familiar with his work. However, 'believes' seems very weaseley to me (see Wikipedia:Weasel words) - I'd go with 'argues' or something similar.

As for "why the change?", I can't answer for the entire gay population. I'd only suggest that when you are dealing with a varied population, you will receive varied answers to the same issue - that is, all gay people aren't the same, much less all gay activists. -Smahoney 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with individuals, but I'm more concerned with the political movement itself. User:Pravknight--146.145.70.147 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no "political movement" there is a set of political movements, with different goals and ideals, as you effectively pointed out above.

2. Any political movement is made up of individuals, and the goals and ideals of that movement will likely shift as its population shifts. -Smahoney 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State argument

The argument that barring same-sex marriage violates the Separation of Church and State needs balancing; especially, because opponents view the Mormon polygamy cases as being applicable as a legal precedent for allowing religiously motivated arguments against same-sex marriage. In those cases, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Mormon's efforts to redefine the common-law definition of marriage because Christianity didn't allow for it.

"In its 1890 case of The Mormon Church v. The United States, the Court wrote in its majority opinion, 'The organization of our community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization, which Christianity has produced in the Western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to our [Christian] civilization is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of our government.'

Similar points were made in the 1890 Davis v. Beeson case where the court said outlawing bigamy and polygamy was constitutional because they were 'crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian nations.' Consequently, polygamy was not outlawed because of secular concerns over how polygamy would adversely affect children but only because they were offensive to Christianity.

In practice, the founders’ intent to keep government away from mandating popular adherence on matters of theology did not extend to the expression of Christian sentiments by public officials, nor through statutes aimed at preserving public morality. The 1890s polygamy cases should be considered precedent for our current debates over “gay rights,” abortion, euthanasia, etc., because the court acknowledged that Christian morality was part of our common law. (And, of course, those cases have never been overturned.)" [10] --146.145.70.147 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro/Con arguments needed

The removal of counterarguments in the section regarding pro-homosexual religious arguments reveals a discomfort with the fact clear refutations for those arguments exist. Perhaps a simple solution would be to strike that section and establish a separate article where a balanced viewpoint discussing the pros and cons could be weighed out.

The article as it currently stands is hopelessly slanted in a Critical Theory POV. --146.145.70.200 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer in this case, as in every case, is to attribute specific arguments to specific persons by explicitely citing every one of them. If it seems that the arguments for same-sex marriage are stronger or more convincing, maybe that suggests something about the issue. Additionally, based on virtually identical "arguments" here and elsewhere, I'm guessing that you are User:Pravknight. If so, you need to start signing in before making edits, or identifying yourself when you forget. And, additionally, if so, as I said on Talk:Homophobia: do not just say "blah blah blah this article is POV" if you actually want to get it changed. Instead, copy sentences or paragraphs from the article and say EXACTLY what your problem is (and no, "this is POV" wont cut it). If you just want to whine, get lost. -Smahoney 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The arguments for same-sex marriage aren't overly convincing, and if you ask me most of them are based upon trumped up lies and deceits. Your definition of POV is meaningless because that's what this entire article is. The arguments used against the traditional Christian interpretations of the Bible aren't arguments at all because an honest examination of the facts will reveal they're false. You see, the problem is, I'm not going to get lost. Wikipedia is a great tool, but it shouldn't be used to promote a narrow, extremist Left-wing agenda. --Pravknight 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're prepared to actually address what has been said by others, there isn't much point of participating on talk pages. -Smahoney 22:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced arguments in religion section

Religious arguments

"Conservative and some moderate Christians further state that same-sex marriage goes against biblical teaching, for example, Genesis 19:5 [11](behavior which allegedly contributed to the destruction of ancient cities Sodom and Gomorrah). This story was the source of the word sodomy. Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 (which, by literal interpretation, prescribes the death penalty for male-male homosexual contact), and in the New Testament of the Bible, First Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27.

I believe simply citing the biblical passages, and not fleshing out the counter arguments to the pro-same-sex marriage arguments serves to trivialize the conservative side of the debate. There are ample citations countering the Liberal perspectives on cultural,historical and textual concerns. Only, providing the Liberal perspective give the impression the Conservatives are simply quaint, old-fashioned and don't have any idea about what the Bible really means. That's at least the feeling I get where the counterarguments aren't stated. Keep in mind, the "fundamentalist" perspective on homosexuality still is the majority view in global Christianity, and the involvement of the Global South in the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church over homosexuality bears this out. Two-thirds of the biblical arguments in this section are in favor of same-sex marriage.

My editor always tells me when I have to cover a controversial issue for my newspaper to attempt to devote an equal number of paragraphs to both sides.

Liberals would be lucky to comprise 10 percent of the 2.3 billion Christians worldwide. If people want to talk about minority positions on a global basis here on Wikipedia, the pro- arguments would represent the views of a trivial number of professing Christians.

However, other moderate and liberal Christians have the view that these passages are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts and aren't applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic rape and inhospitability. They see the passages in Leviticus as part of the Holiness code and strictly reserved to the Jewish people of that time. Most of this Holiness code has been ignored and abandoned by contemporary Christians (e.g., prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork).

There need to be counterarguments here. I suggest splitting it up into sections where each could be better explained in a point/counterpoint fashion. Convincing counterarguments are out there, an I view this as POV pushing. I don't mind putting the Gay Theology arguments out there, just as long as they are rebutted.

For liberal Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Greco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and not intended to address modern homosexuality.[12]

The meaning of the Greek words arsenokoités and malakos (translated simply as "homosexuals" in most post-19th century versions; as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version of the Bible) used in Corinthians 6:8-10 has been a hotly contested matter. Conservative Christians and some moderates view the passage as specificially referring to homosexuals.

This last sentence is vague. Whose definition of homosexual is being used here? Besides, very convincing arguments exist showing that Dr. John Boswell, one of the originators of this thesis went out on a limb here because the argument is built upon 4th century B.C.-vintage Attic Greek, not 1st century A.D. Koine Greek.[13]

[14] & [15] 

However, liberal and some moderate Christians see these passages obscure in meaning and do not believe that these passages refer to homosexuality, since the word "homosexual" wasn't coined until 1892 [16]. They find that the view that these words refer to homosexuality is a contemporary interpretive bias that wasn't intended by the original author(s) of the text. [17]

Again, not one counterargument is presented, and there are many.

A fundamental concern of opponents is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack against religious institutions, limit their constitutional right to free speech, force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and that established churches would be eventually bankrupted by lawsuits brought against them.

Some churches and denominations, as listed previously in this article, perform same-sex weddings. Members of these groups may believe that since the major scientific organizations state that there is no evidence one can voluntarily decide sexual orientation, all people regardless of sexuality should be able to marry the person they love and that to deny them is immoral. They also may view laws banning same-sex marriage as a violation of their religious freedom and an unfair favorship by a government of other religious groups.

Proponents claim that since marriages are conducted by the power invested in the celebrant by the state, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law.

There are varying interpretations of what the term "separation of church and state" mean, ranging from the French concept of laicite to a more moderate institutional separation that permits Christianity to serve as a civil religion.

There are more arguments and nuances here that could be explored. That's why I feel a separate, complete article is warranted.

--Pravknight 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I'll take a look when I get a chance and see if I can come up with some specific arguments and references. If I don't get to it soon enough, I'm sure someone else will. -Smahoney 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I provided plenty in the now-deleted article "Christian arguments over same-sex marriage." I provided both sides of the issue, but what angered me was some folks here seemed to want to censor the whole thing. I spent hours writing that article in a vain attempt to be NPOV compliant.--Pravknight 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's fine, but I don't really see why it is relevant. Remember, there is no cabal - what other editors do has no necessary relation to what I or anyone else does. -Smahoney 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, as I tried to point out above, I hadn't actually had a chance to look through your whole post. Have you considered contributing to Religion and homosexuality or a related article? -Smahoney 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggested dropping the religion section completely, and running a separate article before everyone seemed to get in a tizzy fit over it.

It's just not balanced. I suggest dropping it completely, and linking to another article.--Pravknight 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally, articles are spun off when the content of a section of an article gets too long, so if you've got stuff to add, that might be a good way to work it. I'd suggest, though, if there is an uproar, that you post suggested changes to the talk page before posting them to an article and ask for editors to come in and make changes and suggestions. This method has worked well in the past in contentious articles. -Smahoney 05:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments over terminology

The terms "gay marriage", "straight marriage", and all others implying sexual orientation, although popular with the media, are viewed by some as inaccurate. Same-sex marriage partners may be bisexual and not gay, or opposite-gender marriage partners may be bisexual and not heterosexual. Moreover, they claim that sexual orientation has rarely been a legal or religious qualification for marriage (a gay man could still marry a woman). Rather, the relevant qualification is the characteristic sexes of the parties to the marriage.[citation needed]

Why is there a citation needed? That's just common sense.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end, even if you don't have an account.

See Wikipedia:Common knowledge. -Smahoney 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex Marriage in Sweden

 Hello,
  I am submitting a letter and a link provided by George Sved of the Swedish Office of the Ombudsman Against Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation. His letter to me, including the Swedish Government link is as follows:
 "After an initial report and request by the Ombudsman, several motions in Parliament followed by a Parliament decision requiring the Government to look into the possibility of opening up marriage also for same-sex couples, the Government has appointed a special rapporteur for the task.  The report shall be delivered to the Government by March 2007 at the latest.  A preliminary overview of the opinion of the different political parties represented in the Swedish Parliament shows a good chance of such a legislative change being approved."  
 Read our Press Release at  http://www.homo.se/o.o.i.s/1780
 Best Wishes,
 George Sved
 www.homo.se