Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 16

Note to those involved in the recent edit war:

Payasodeculo (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Brucejenner (talk · contribs). That will be all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus 2010

Government to look at legalising gay marriage [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.157 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

lede edit

I'm looking to change

"The conflict arises over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status, such as a civil union, which is usually more limited, or not have any such rights."

to

"The conflict arises over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union, which usually grants fewer rights), or not have any such rights."

The changes are for two reasons. One is that simply saying civil unions are "limited" does not say limited along what axis. The other is that having other comma-delimited phrases within a list of items simply makes it harder to read, and thus setting it off with parenthesis instead makes it clearer.

Objections? Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections. CTJF83 chat 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good edit. Should there be an "or" between ". . .allowed to enter into marriage, or be required to use a different status (such as a civil union. . ." And I would add, because that's what we're talking about: ". . .civil union which usually grants fewer civil rights, or not have any such civil rights." This is a civil rights issue, afterall.Malke2010 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Edit added. I did not use the "civil rights" language you suggest, because that term is generally used to describe issues of discrimination. So while the right not to be discriminated against in marriage can reasonably described as a civil rights matter, the actual rights of marriage generally cannot. -Nat Gertler (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this article primarily concern medicine.

Wikipedia has tighter guidelines for editing for articles regarding medicine. But my thought is that this article is principally sociological and political in nature, and that therefore the scope of what is allowed should not be restricted according to the guidelines for articles dealing with medicine, but according to the more general guidelines. I have had some edits nixed on the basis that they conflicted with the guidelines for articles on medicine, and I feel that it is better, especially on a political subject, to have a broader range of views represented, so that the reader can decide credibility for him or her self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesint (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the American College of Pediatricians doesn't qualify as a reliable source under WP:RELY or WP:V either. See this for example. Regardless, the ACP was used to criticise a peer-reviewed medical article. For such criticism a source abiding by WP:MEDRS would be preferable. Gabbe (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gabbe. The data from the scientific community is pretty clear on this point: there is no detrimental effect for children if they grow up with same-sex parents.UBER ^(talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At a general level, is important to ensure that any medical information is correct by medical standards - and medical guidelines here are developed for medical information. If edits relate to socio-political matters, then medical guidelines would not apply, but if edits relate to medical matters, then I can see why they might be challenged according to medical guidelines, if they do not meet them. I don't know the specifics, but I'd tend to agree, in the case of medical sources, WP:MEDRS would make sense, as we are not specialists, and the best way to avoid POV in this area would be defer to those with the expertise. Mish (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to stay clear: despite the parenthetical after the title at WP:MEDRS, it notes "These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources with specific attention to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related aspects of all articles." (emphasis mine) So that's not just for medical articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is WP:UNDUE, not just the source. I mean, even if we made the admission that the source qualifies as reliable, by itself it cannot override the numerous other reputable sources that contradict its statements.UBER ^(talk) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite scholarly consensus when available. Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims."

Wikipedia:Verifiability: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Wikipedia:NPOV#A vital component: good research: Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. --Destinero (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Copypasting is not theconstructive way of discussion or how to get consensus--DeeMusil (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

interracial comparison

I'm about to ax the piece at the end of the lede where "some scholars dispute the comparison". For one thing, one author is not "some scholars", and representing the view of one person would seem to be WP:UNDUE, particularly in the lede. For another thing, the source doesn't seriously dispute it - it calls the analogy "helpful", just not perfect. That's the nature of analogies. (As for the previous supportive source there, that fell under WP:SPS.) Even if a quality source is found, I'm not sure that the whole comparison angle belongs in the lede. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me just make clear that I agree with this decision. I reverted twice the user who wanted to include another variation of that statement, but eventually I didn't want to appear like I was edit warring so I changed the phrase and included a reputable citation to boot. But yes, per WP:UNDUE, it's a statement that doesn't even belong in the lead. It would be fine in the body though.UBER ^(talk) 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the whole "interracial marriage comparison" argument is quite US-specific; while we're not the only country to have had miscegenation laws, there isn't a big overlap between "countries that are seriously considering SSM" and "countries that had miscegenation laws in people's lifetimes"... and in the case of Germany, it's hard to argue that miscegenation laws weren't part and parcel with the same events that involved discrimination against homosexuals. As such, I lean to being quite cautious about the use of this topic in this article (although I could be convinced otherwise.) Of course, the same concerns would not hold for the article on SSM in the US. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree.UBER ^(talk) 03:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Inter-racial comparison could be just a false argument. These two things cannot be directly compared as interracial marriage is between man and woman (regardless of color skin, ethnic or other factors). This is something else. Additionally, the source is form USA Today, part OPINION, so the reliability is disputable. Comparison could be used in the way A says B about C, but I think, not in the head of the article. Head should be a summary from the article content, but there is no content like this in the article. I prefer to move it into controversions or remove it completely. --DeeMusil (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument that "These two things cannot be directly compared as interracial marriage is between man and woman" makes it sound as though the only things which can be compared are things in which there is no difference, which would make comparison pointless. This set of marriage restrictions based on the relative biological status of the two participants can indeed be compared to that set of marriage restrictions based on relative biological status of the two participants. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Countries that have legal SSM needs to be updated

Nepal has legalized SSM. --DCX (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, according to this recent article. AV3000 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about Argentina and Portugal situations

There are already 3 married couples in Argentina and growing. As a new and real situation, I propose to add "Performed case per case after judicial decision". I'd like also to ask why are we ignoring in this article facts as the Argentina case or Portugal situation, not mentioned anywhere in the right-top table while using so many space for "Civil unions and registered partnerships", "Unregistered co-habitation" and "Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs" when this article is entitled "Same-sex marriage". Is it more important the Unregistered co-habitation in Croatia than the marriages already done and in fully equality in Argentina? No, at least not for this article. Please consider this. Thanks

Just as a practical matter - that "right-top table" isn't part of this article. It's a separate template - Template:Same-sex unions -- and is best discussed on that template's talk page. And the reason that that template reflects other sorts of same-sex unions is that it is a template meant to be included in a range of same-sex-union-oriented articles, not just this one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Iceland & Slovenia

http://www.365gay.com/news/iceland-could-have-gay-marriage-by-june/

Here's an article on Iceland, just so the section on current proposals can be updated and cited to this article...

Any word on what has happened in Slovenia? The SSM bill has passed the 1st reading but I haven't heard anything since.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.216.65 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation in Poland

Hi. I'm wondering if we should include Poland under unregistered cohabitation. In the recent case of Kozak v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that tenancy succession benefits provided to those in "de facto marital cohabitation" must also extend to same-sex couples. See here for a brief overview of the case. The ruling appears to be very similar to Karner v. Austria (2003), on which basis Austria was included in the "unregistered cohabitation" section of the template before it passed registered partnerships. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria. The reason why I'm unsure of adding Poland is that I don't know whether the decision has any applicability beyond the particular plaintiff in the case. I think Poland should only be included if, as a result of Kozak v. Poland, same-sex couples are now recognised as being in "de facto marital cohabitation" for the purposes of tenancy succession law. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the decision does seem reminiscent to the Austria ruling. However, I agree with you that we do not know whether the ruling applies broadly. --haha169 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rulings of ECHR does not apply automatically to all cases. Everybody who wants to execute rights implyinf of this ruling needs to go to court. Furthermore, in Poland , doesn't exist something like "unregistered cohabitation" in the sense of family law, so this ruling doesn't change anything so far. A Man from Poland (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well clearly there is some recognition of "de facto marital cohabitation" under Polish law. Does this only apply to tenancy succession, or also to other areas of law? (e.g. inheritance, social security, etc). Ronline ✉ 14:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Informations about status of cohabitations http://fragolina.pl/artykuly/Konkubinat_405 http://www.kancelaria.home.pl/images/artykuly/konkubinat.html Ron 1987 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently it is only tenancy succession under this ruling, but it does not work the way as it is in USA for example. In Poland only rulings made by Polish Supreme Court or Constitutional Tribunal have the power of law. Ruling by ECHR applies only to situation in which was made until the parliament enact proper legislation. But everyone who will go with similar case to ECHR will win. A Man from Poland (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear yet, whether the Polish law recognizes same-sex unions

These are judgments for one case of a homosexual couple in which the Supreme Court held that a homosexual relationship is not a cohabitation (defined solely as the union of man and woman). However, the court described same sex union as a partnership. Besides, it found, that there is no basis for this to cohabitation and partnership be treated differently by the law. Polish law generally does not cover informal cohabiting couples, but some laws on different topics also include couples living in informal relationships. (see: Sytuacja prawna i społeczna osób LGBT w Polsce/Uznanie związków osób tej samej płci on Polish language wiki site))

Definition of cohabitation by the Supreme Court:

Według Sądu Najwyższego: „konkubinat to wspólne pożycie analogiczne do małżeńskiego, tyle, że pozbawione legalnego węzła. Oznacza to istnienie ogniska domowego charakteryzującego się duchową, fizyczną i ekonomiczną więzią, łączącą mężczyznę i kobietę. Konkubinat nie odnosi się więc do związków osób tej samej płci, które najczęściej określa się jako związki partnerskie. Konkubinat pełni podobną do małżeństwa rolę, przy czym brakuje mu cech sformalizowania woli wzajemnego pożycia.”

Some judgments for gay coupe:

WYROK SĄDU APELACYJNEGO W BIAŁYMSTOKU

z dnia 23 lutego 2007 r. Sygn. akt I ACa 590/06 1. Pod pojęciem konkubinatu należy rozumieć stabilną, faktyczną wspólnotę osobisto-majątkową dwojga osób. Bez znaczenia we wspomnianym aspekcie jest płeć. 2. Nie ma podstaw do stosowania odmiennych zasad przy rozliczaniu konkubinatu homoseksualnego niż te, które mają zastosowanie odnośnie konkubinatu heteroseksualnego. http://bialystok.sa.sisco.info/?id=1352

WYROK SĄDU NAJWYŻSZEGO W WARSZAWIE

Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 301/2007 Jeśli osoby pozostające w związku partnerskim dorobiły się majątku, to po jego ustaniu należy go rozliczyć zgodnie z przepisami o bezpodstawnym wzbogaceniu.

Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 326/2007 Do rozliczeń majątkowych po rozpadzie związku nieformalnego sąd nie może stosować reguł prawa rodzinnego o podziale dorobku małżeńskiego. Skoro nie ma przepisów, które regulowałyby konkubinat jako trwałą wspólnotę osobistą i majątkową, do ich rozliczeń majątkowych mają zastosowanie wyłącznie przepisy kodeksu cywilnego. http://dziennik3rp.blogspot.com/2007/12/nie-ma-wsplnoci-jest-bezpodstawne.html http://www.rp.pl/artykul/4,74934.html

Incorrect statement. No citation.

quoting the main article:

article: Same-sex marriage

In the United States, although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, same-sex couples can currently marry in five states (New Hampshire, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut) and the District of Columbia and receive state level benefits.[72]

Additionally, several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage.[73][74]

Thirty-one states have put same-sex marriage on the ballot, but none have passed.

end quote

What does this last sentence mean?

lesliedf

You're right, that's misleading. I believe I've heard the statistic that 31 states have voted on marriage equality, but of course in most cases what was being voted on was preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages. If that statistic is correct at all, I believe the intended meaning is that "31 states have voted against marriage equality" (or against recognition of SSM, or however you want to phrase that part of it.) The "none has passed wording has to go, even if the sentence stays. And if it's not sourced, I'd suggest just killing it. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Finland

http://www.365gay.com/news/finland-considering-gay-marriage/

I am not too keen on technology but think this might be worth adding somewhere into the future legislation sesction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.216.65 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun. It says they are expected to pass it next year which is a while away. A brief mention at Registered partnership in Finland would be warranted though. CTJF83 chat 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Portugal

The President of Portugal just signed the same-sex marriage into law, and didn't use his power of veto. Now the law must be published in Diário da República, and then is going into effect in 5 days (vacatio legis), due to absence of imperative schedule. Please amend the same-sex marriage page according to these new info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMJL (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source (per WP:V)? Gabbe (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The key fact here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Portugal

It's already allowed in Portugal since the 17th of May (international day against homophobia) - please revise the text because I haven't got editorial rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.83.5 (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the information about Portugal's recognition. Portugal does not, however, allow same-sex married couples to adopt as adoption laws have not changed with the ratification of the current same-sex marriage bill. The current wording of the section on Country-wide recognition: "...are the only countries in which the legal status of same-sex marriages is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages." I think Portugal can still be included in this section with the wording as the legal status of "marriage" in Portugal (under the new marriage laws) does not apply differently to same-sex or opposite sex couples - it's just the strict adoption laws which haven't been amended to allow anyone, not even single adults, but opposite-sex married couples to adopt.

◈ithinkhelikesit 04:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What precisely is the relevance of this line?

I am a little perplexed as to the reasons why this line is in the article: "Some past presidents of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality assert that some appointed members of the American Psychological Association committee involved in crafting their recommendations had conflicts of interest on LGBT matters, due to being either homosexual or involved in LGBT activism."

This appears to be a surface opinion rather than a sentence with merit, guised as being credible with citations attatched. First of all, The American Psycholigical Association is a much larger group than the Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. Since the APA does not discriminate against homosexuality or anyone of any sexual orientation for that matter in its hiring processes it only stands to reason that some of its members may be involved in advocacy groups. NARTH is a very tiny group by comparison. NARTH is in itself an advocacy group of Conversion therapy... the goals of the orginisation are particularly aimed at getting one to change their orientation through "therapy". The APA is not an advocacy group: It is an orginisation that represents psychologists in the United States... and has members that may be involved in advocacy groups: this is a huge difference... (homosexuality is only one field of interest of the APA). Yes, these two groups are often at odds with each other, but if the article is going to show this, it needs to explain what issues precisely they are odds with and why. To explain what I mean, if the article is going to show that NARTH thinks that the APA is an advocacy group of homosexuality, adding citations to the line isn't enough. This does nothing to show why NARTH believes this. Also, there should be a counter-argument... or at least a reference to the APA's opinions on NARTH, so that the article is more balanced.

Thank you, wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Inventing a counter-argument to appear balanced would not serve. I know of no claim that members of the committee were not involved in activism, nor have I seen the APA stooping to respond to NARTH, but if you can find someone, please put it forward. I don't think we need to drag every detail of this sort of tertiary claim through the article. (And the accusation is not that there are gay APA members - of course there are, heck, recent events points us toward there being gay NARTH members - but that the small committee in charge of this was specifically populated with gay activists; it's a putting-the-fox-in-charge-of-the-henhouse accusation.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misinterperted what I meant by "counter-argument"... (But I suppose it doesn't matter, now, anyway, since the section has been changed) however, I wasn't trying to necessaily say the article should answer the question: "How does APA respond directly to NARTH?" But rather the question "What does the APA say about the issues being raised by NARTH?" And just for sake of reference which comittee specifically are you refferring to? 165.138.95.59 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the committee at hand is the APA's "Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships" (and it should come as little surprise that a group made of researchers in that field has people for whom the connection is personal)... and as with not responding to NARTH, I don't know that they've responded to the NARTH-linked accusation or depiction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I will try to find more information about that committee, later. I have other tasks at hand at the moment, however I am reading a book on Marriage Equality "Why Marriage Matters" to be precise, which mentions both NARTH and the APA in it, so perhaps I will come back to this argument when I am finished with that. I'd rather study more about the broader topic of the article itself, than to just dance around one issue... we could dance around until one of us drops... I suppose I will be the one to drop out for now... I rarely edit this article anyway. Also, just in case you were wondering, I am not affiliated with either orginization. Wolfpeaceful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.95.59 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gay Marriages in Royal Families

If a King were gay and he married a man in a country which has such marriages (Spain, Belgium,etc).....what would that man's title be in the royal family? would the country have 2 kings, 2 queens? I think this is an interesting topic that the article should address.Daniel32708 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting question, but I doubt there is an "answer" to it. The only factoid I know close to that topic is that one of the few differences between marriage and civil partnership in the United Kingdom is that married partners of peers are given courtesy titles, and that is written in law somewhere. But I am not a lawyer nor am I particularly familiar with UK tradition or law, so .... --Joe Decker (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, but one that should only be covered in this article if there are reliable sources to cite (see WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS). Sadly, I doubt there are any such sources in this case. Gabbe (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding to the U.K. (remember not all Monarchy's function in the same way as the U.K., I am only using this as an example, because the U.K. is one of the worlds most prevelant Monarchies)... In this case, the second "king"'s official title would probably be King Consort (which is a title given to the Husband of the Queen Regnant... in this case it would be a title given to the Husband of the King "Regnant" {i.e. King})... unless as noted above the legal title was a Courtesy Title... or perchance "King Consort" may be deemed as a Courtesy Title. If such a thing were to occur, a proposed honoforic title would probably be passed through a bill to Parliament. They may also likewise add to the bill or propose another bill for future titles of such figures. It is possible they may create a new term altogether, however that is unlikely as "King Consort" is a likeley candidate for the term. However, you should also note that the next in line for the U.K. throne is Prince Charles (Prince Charles is a heterosexual)... unless Prince Charles abdicates his throne to Prince William (whom is also heterosexual.) By the way, England has had some gay kings: Edward II is a good example, however he was married to a woman. Other homosexual kings: Frederick II of Prussia, Gustav III of Sweden, and Henry III of France. 165.138.95.59 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just for the record though, UK does not currently have a gay marriage law, so in such a case it will be just like a concubine or something like that. Spain and Belgium do have such a law, so in those cases it would probably be "King Consort". Daniel32708 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)daniel32708

Yes I know that the U.K. doesn't currently have a same-sex marriage law (and seeing as both current candidates for the throne are heterosexual, it may be a long while before they have a same sex marriage law for kings specifically... but the U.K. has allowed openly gay men to serve in the military without discharge since 2005, so who knows, maybe there will be a same sex marriage law regarding general population rather than heirs to the throne... but that's an act for a later parliemnt, I believe...) I was merely using the U.K. as an example for the sake of titles. I don't know anything about Spain or Belgium's laws... [I can only deduce from the information I have preiviously learned, which is far less than I wish I knew, and far more than I ever bargained to.]

Religious arguments in support of allowing same-sex couples to marry are one-sided

I think that that most of the "religious" arguments are one-sided against allowing members of the same sex to contract a legal marriage. Some religous groups permit it, and some see it as "wrong" on moral grounds to deny same-sex couples equal treatment. The fact is there are religious groups that allow it. Reformed Jewish, some Episcopal Churches, the United Church of Canada, some United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, some Quakers (Friends), some Old Catholics, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, certain Buddhist groups. I just think the religious argument FOR ALLOWING same sex marriage does not really get into the argument.

Additionally, religous groups that allow same-sex couples to marry ccould and do assert the argument that their religious freedom is being breached, as they cannot sanction the marriages they see fit. So the whole religious freedom argument can go both ways depending on a particular religious group's view. I think this argument could be expanded upon, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.85.29 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Divorce Rate" study

An editor has inserted and reinserted a citation from The Daily Beast of a 2004 study regarding "divorce" rates in Norway and Sweden. This inclusion is problematic in this article for several reasons:

• Neither Norway nor Sweden had same-sex marriage in 2004. As such, the reference to "divorce" as originally put in this article on SSM is misleading; these were not marriages being divorced.
• As replaced in the article, the reference was that "found divorce rates for same sex registered partnerships much higher than heterosexual ones", which is not accurate; the study did not compare same-sex registered partnerships to heterosexual ones, but to heterosexual marriages.
• The study was not a general study, but a study within a specific cultural set, and cannot be appropriately generalized.
• Even beyond the apples-to-oranges comparison of registered partnerships to marriages, the study relies on a very mixed data set ("The data cover marriages contracted 1993-1999, Swedish partnerships entered 1995-2002, and Norwegian partnerships formed 1993-2001")
• As for the claim that this is a Stockholm University study, I cannot find that in the study itself; none of the four folks conducting the study are listed as being from Stockholm University at the time of the study (although the lead author is now with the University, at the time he was credited as being with the "Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research".) The Daily Beast cites the "Institute for Marriage and Public Policy" as the source of the study, which does not appear to be accurate and would be problematic if it were, as IMAPP exists as an intentionally anti-SSM organization; they have cited this paper in their efforts, but do not appear to have generated the paper.

Overall, this appears to be a misattributed study that is being misdescribed, overgeneralized, and is somewhat off-topic. For that, I am again removing the insertion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Whoops. I am not deleting the insertion... because someone beat me to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And, as someone else noted, adding this section is also redundant, as the information from this study is already covered elsewhere in the article, more accurately described - see the end of the Parenting section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Gay Marriages in Argentine, not legal, but allowed (??)

I'd like to suggest to add Argentine as a country with same-sex marriage "Performed by court order" in the balance at right, and also in the text itself. The facts are that law does not recognize same-sex marriage, but Constitution warrants equality, and that's the reason why judges are binding registry offices to officiate weddings one by one. Here's the last case of same-sex marriage to be held in the next days: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-146532-2010-05-28.html 81.60.142.171 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Homogamy"

I removed a paragraph concerning a proposal of using the word "homogamy" to refer to SSM. The proposal is non-notable. Lots of alternative terms have been proposed, but few have caught on. The proposal is all the more trivial, because even the author of the source quoted admits that no one, or essentially no one, currently uses the term to mean SSM. Add to that that the source has yet to be published, and won't be for another year, if it is ever published. If the proposal is favorably received and the term does in fact begin to be used by a significant proportion of scholars, then it should be all means be mentioned in the article. Until then, it remains trivial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabic article

Yes, I know this is the English wikipedia but I can't think of where else to bring this up since I don't speak Arabic. I put the Arabic article (first in the Interwiki links) through Google Translate. The first part is fair enough but it then quickly descends into strong POV, using a publication surrounding fidelity in gay relationships as a springboard for some strange conclusions. If any of the people watching this article speak Arabic, it might be worthwhile having a look to see if the article can be balanced a bit more. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Askini, 11 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} On the Page about Same Sex Marriage, under "Europe" the line:

"On June 11, 2010, the Icelandic parliament, Althing, emended the Icelandic marriage law, making it gender neutral and defining marriage as between two individuals" Has misspelled "emended", it should be "Amended" .. as in to correct.

Askini (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done —fetch·comms 21:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Domestic Partnership History in America

The Transgender Center Archive in Houston, TX has uncovered a 1846 American newspaper reporting on the “domestic co-partnership” of two “Millerite” women. Please look at including this under the history heading: http://www.tgctr.org/2008/12/03/transgender-archive-sheds-historical-perspective-on-prop-8-and-gay-marriage/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.19.41 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Same sex marriage is a law in Argentina

At 4.oo am local time, same sex marriage became a law approved by the senate. So the "Legal recognition of same-sex couples" part should be modified adding Argentina to it. It's for the whole country.Ursinism (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Recognition of Foreign Marriages in Mexico, Really?

What is the basis for indicating on the world map that Mexico (outside Mexico City) recognizes foreign same-sex marriages? I seriously doubt the accuracy of that categorization. Civil codes outside Mexico City do not provide for same-sex marriage, and I'm not aware of any authority supporting recognition of foreign same-sex marriages in those other states. If there's no authority for the proposition, most of Mexico should be gray, not light blue on the world map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.73.44 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Debate USA

Oddly there is no mention of the Bill passed in the Hawaii legislature in April 2010 which sat on Govenor Linda Lingle's Desk for nearly 2 1/2 months. To the chagrin of supporters of same sex marriage, the bill was vetoed on 06 July 2010. Opponets of gay rights sang in the Hawaii Capital Routunda, "How Great Thou Art" for hours the entire day that the bill was vetoed. It is further suggested that an amendment to the Hawaii state constitution be added to ban the rights of same-sex couples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.69.242 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That failure to change the law to enact civil unions in a single state, while quite vital in its own context, is too small a ripple in regards to this overall article. As you can see in the debate section, there are dozens of attempts to change state laws that are just refered to in a count or summary. However, it should be (and is) covered in the Same-sex marriage in Hawaii article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada in history section

I've moved the following paragraph here:

The Canadian Parliament approved the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” in July 2005. A Conservative Government motion inviting MPs to request repeal of same-sex marriage in Canada failed in December 2006, so same-sex marriages continue to be honored throughout the nation.

References

In my view it is far too much detail on one country in a two-paragraph summary on the modern history of same-sex marriage. Gabbe (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Parenting

I think we should mention Stephen Nock's views on the quality of the researches on the subject, as they're mentioned in the LGBT parenting page. Does anyone mind if I add a few lines here (or, more generally, few lines about methodological questions on those studies)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.160.48.140 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We needn't (and shouldn't) mention everything that's mentioned on the LGBT parenting article... and certainly don't have to mention something that's mentioned in one sentence in that article... and in this case, a sentence whose value is greatly questionable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nat Gertler here w.r.t. Nock, and would add two comments. First, it seems to me that the parenting section of this article has grown beyond a useful size--to the extent that LGBT parenting is a contect fork of same-sex marriage shouldn't we limit the summary to a paragraph or two? --j⚛e decker^talk 23:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I agree the parenting section has grown beyond a readable size. I still think we should point out in th article that some scholars question the methodology of those studies. A bare sentence could do it, for completeness' sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.42.51 (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nock is totally incompetent to provide expert opinion on issue beyond his education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting#Nock --Destinero (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, seems like you have my opinion fleshed out with data and WP policy. Agreed completely. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, destinero. A better sentence would be "other scholars question Nock's questions". To say "is totally incompetent" doesn't seem very NPOV to me. Can't we just have those two opinions in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.140.13 (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a chronicle of every opinion anyone has ever had on a topic. (And NPOV is a requirement of article text, not a requirement of discussion.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mhhh, I'm still not convinced: he questions the methodology and not the findings of those researches. If a mathematician critiques a physicist's studies because of poor math, should we trash his critique because he's not a physicist in the first place? Anyway, let's get over with mr. Nock. Can I add some references, to, e.g. Stacey & Biblarz (2001)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.140.13 (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving "Marriage Privitazation" section

The marriage privitization section does not appear, to me, to make sense as being part of the Parenting section. I suggest moving it out of that section and up a level. No? Yes? More importantly, if yes, where does it belong? (e.g., between what major sections, or in what major section?) --j⚛e decker^talk 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved as above. I'm tempted to suggest the 2nd paragraph of this section is speculative/OR, any opinions? It's unsourced, I've marked it asking for citations. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why has Argentina been removed from the list?

The Predident has said she will sign it, and the law is slated to take effect on August 13. Please correct accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.147.193 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The table on the right is actually being included from here: Template:Same-sex unions. There's a discussion on the discussion page about this very topic, essentially, Argentina will be readded the moment the bill is signed. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The bill is signed, and I see the listing is back. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How will we now categorize the United States on the world map?

At 00:00 EDT on July 22, the ruling in Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will go into effect. This means that the federal government will recognize all same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. Wherever a same-sex couple may reside, whether it be Vermont or Texas, if they hold a marriage license issued by Massachusetts, the federal government must honor it (although the state does not have to). The world map for capital punishment has the entire United States filled in as red, as the United States at the federal level imposes the death penalty, even though individual states at the state level have their own polices. This is specified in the map for only the United States. I think that the world map for gender-neutral marriage should follow the same convention: because it is possible for a couple to be married in the United States and have the United States recognize that marriage with the full force of law, it should be filled in as dark blue on the world map, with specification reserved on the state-by-state map. Or at the very least have the United States be its own color, with the notation that the legality of gender-neutral marriage is now too complex to be summed up neatly with the color scheme used for the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.239.138 (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The first that is needed is a source, another map would be created instead. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. As per Tbhotch... Indeed. By the way, are you certain that it's the 22nd or the 23rd? (That is, do you have a source for that?) Either way it'd be a useful thing to add to the articles on Gill and Commonwealth. I know there was a two week stay after the decision on the 8th but depending on how you count that it could go either way. It still might not happen, of course... I believe that it was widely expected that the case would be appealled as well, but there's no way to be certain. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This article mentions that the ruling takes effect on July 22: http://www.immigrationequality.org/template.php?pageid=1115

redirect from commitment ceremony

Hi, I've never attempted to edit Wikipedia before so really don't know how to go about it. I searched for commitment ceremonies and got redirected to same sex marriages. The conept of a commitment ceremony is not exclusively for the use of the LGBT community, and this redirect shouldn't be in place. Can someone, perhaps the article owner, remove that redirect please?

Thanks, Jane 2/8/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.89.224.75 (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion of better articles to which the redirect should point? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nepal???

As of 17 Aug 2010 the nation of Nepal is hosting same sex weddings, yet it is not listed in this article as a place where same sex marriage is legal... http://www.hindustantimes.com/Nepal-hosts-first-Indian-gay-wedding/Article1-588033.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.69.242 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Effects on straight marriages

I don't understand why the Effects of same-sex marriage section has no discussion of the effects of same-sex marriage on society as a whole. There is discussion of work by APA and other organizations about effects on same-sex couples, but nothing about effects on straight marriages or on society. But claims about such effects from organizations opposing SSM are widespread.

For example:

But providing benefits to couples is not the whole purpose of marriage. It’s not even its primary purpose. And that’s what’s wrong with Mr. Walker’s ruling, and the arguments on both sides of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. They’ve been arguing over marriage’s benefits. Instead, we need to be thinking about marriage’s role in sustaining the existence of the human species. When we do that, we’ll see the fundamental wisdom of the decision of the majority of California voters.

Another example:

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.

But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.

The FRC paper has a number of other claims that are about effects of allowing SSM on straight marriages. It seems to me that not only are some of these claims worth including here, but maybe along with the effects on children, they form the backbone of the conservative view of this issue. K. the Surveyor (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion for consideration? The first source you use, btw, is an opinion piece and not likely to be considered a reliable source. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it being an opinion makes it less relevant, because I'm not sure that any less subjective sources on effects on society exist. So mere claims may be all we have that addresses this obviously important issue.

But the FRC source would probably carry more weight. So I favor including some claims from that source, cited as claims of course, and not as scientifically proven facts. K. the Surveyor (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

While the APA and CPA sources could use some trimming, they both at key points speak to the science, and they are professional organizations speaking to their expertise. The FRC, in contrast, is a lobbying organization, and when they speak to their opinion, it is nothing more than that - their opinion. So it doesn't speak to the facts of the issue, and if the discussion in the article turns to opinion, when they are presenting an opinion they are presenting it as that, and not as a survey of opinions. As such, it is hard to see why their opinion is of sufficient significance to the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They speak to the science about effects on and behaviors of those involved, but that is not the issue I am raising here. The kinds of concerns raised by the two sources I just listed are often not about the people involved in gay relationships or their children at all, but are effects on the the behavior of other people in straight marriages, effects supposedly brought about by changing ideas and culture. That is simply not addressed by the two sources currently cited, but is a vital component of conservative arguments. K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither quote says anything about science related to same-sex marriage. If one wants to make some claims about the "conservative" argument on SSM, the FRC is not a source on that (they are a source on their own arguments). The section being described is not the section for discussion of opinion; the controversy section is aimed more at that, and in the "family" question, there is a primary article on SSM and the family, and if anything we should be aiming this article to be more of a summary of that, not less. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim anything explicitly in the text about conservative arguments against SSM. I'm just saying that effects on society obviously are important to many conservative arguments and that's a big reason to include effects on society in any section on effects in general. Any facts or even guesses that important arguments rely heavily on ought to be given attention somewhere. I also noticed that on the family page you mentioned, there actually is a cited study about effects on society that said divorce rates went down after legalizing SSM in Denmark. That should clearly be included, in my opinion, probably with a mention of its criticism in National Review.

Maybe you are right that assertions without scientific evidence to back them up would be better off in the controversy section. But if so, I think that this section ought to be renamed, maybe to "Scientific evidence on effects" or "Scientific evidence on effects of same-sex marriage," since those seem to represent the purpose you have in mind for the section. Those titles would be less confusing than the current very broad one. K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There are problems integrating the Denmark study into discussions of same-sex marriage, in that there was not (and still is not) same-sex marriage in Denmark. As for renaming the section, I really don't see the problem with the effects section talking about the effects, and not what some people without facts to back them guess what the effects would be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One later study is called "Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate." It also includes Sweden as well as Denmark, though not during the time when Sweden actually had same-sex marriage as opposed to registered partnerships. Still, it is clearly relevant and intended to address same-sex marriage. (You are right about Denmark not having same-sex marriage. I confused this with "the rights of marriage," as the family page says.)

On the second point, it clearly is not natural to ignore widely discussed hypotheses that for whatever reason haven't yet been either supported or shown to be doubtful by peer-reviewed work. Let's at least rename the section to something like "Known effects of same-sex marriage." K. the Surveyor (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Known" is presumed when you read it (if we didn't know about it, why would we be writing about it?) Adding "known" to the title of the section just adds a POV by implying there's other, possibly nefarious effects people aren't aware of. elektrikSHOOS 07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that "known" is presumed, because many hypotheses are widely discussed but there is not enough evidence either for or against. Nat is saying such hypotheses don't belong in this section. Fair enough, but if so, why hide it? Let's tell readers what the section includes and excludes. If you want another phrasing, fine, but some heads up would be helpful to readers. K. the Surveyor (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I refer back to my second point: using the word "known" adds a POV. If I were you, I'd read over WP:FRINGE and then come back here to comment. elektrikSHOOS 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has no bearing on this because these are not fringe positions -- and nobody is saying they should be removed from this article. If I quote FRC saying that gay marriage will lead to unwanted changes in how people behave in straight marriages, that is not "fringe," although you may very strongly disagree. This a very common and notable (see WP:N) view. "Fringe" does not equal "not published in a peer-reviewed journal."

The main issue here is about which section this belongs in. Nat is saying that material not addressed by published research doesn't belong in this section. I said fine, organize it how you want, but then the title should reflect that the section is about scientific evidence. K. the Surveyor (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Under that logic, just about every section header in Wikipedia would need some form of disclaimer that it's not for stuff people made up. (And if you're going to say something is a notable view, you'll need some source other than FRC stating the view.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage in the United States

This page is not for general discussion of same-sex marriage. See WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:TALK.
The following discussion has been closed by Elektrik Shoos. Please do not modify it.
Just a note: the American Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State; so the recognition of any marriage performed by a religious member or in a religious setting on religious property is technically illegal and all such marriages should be overturned and denied any legal right or respect. Religion in the US has no legal standing, and no legal right, to an opinion. When the illegal meddling of the religious is discounted and removed from thought, the issue would settle quickly!Lostinlodos (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC) That's interesting. However, this page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, not for a general discussion on the topic. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Gabbe (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Improper Reverts

This section was created by a banned user. Per our policy on banned users, all edits by banned users may be reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Skoojal (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)> WP:AGF each three days a sockpuppeteer returns. TbhotchTalk C. 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Well, Mr Truetalk. First of all, I suspect you are sock puppet, as you are intimately familiar with many aspects of wikipedia, despite being a new account. If you call your edits NPOV, looks like several editors disagree. So, I suggest that instead of reverting again, you bring them up for discussion instead of complaining that your edits are reverted. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Parenting section

I was reading through the article, and the parenting section seems quite out of place to me. It substantially reproduces the main article LGBT parenting, where it could be a much briefer summary. It also doesn't explain the connection between LGBT parenting and SSM until the last sentence of the sixth paragraph, and then only very briefly. The related section immediately above, for Same-sex marriage and the family, is entirely without a summary. I would propose that:

• The Parenting section be folded into the Children and the Family section, with both LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage and the family listed as the main articles.
• The summary for both articles be reduced substantially to a brief paragraph or two, such that it can highlight the basic points:
  • "Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union."
  • "Numerous studies show that the children of same-sex couples are not disadvantaged in any recognizable way."
  • "Opponents of same-sex marriage claim that children do best with both a mother and a father."
• The "Education controversy" section be made a subsection of "Controversy", where it naturally seems to fit.

The benefit of SSM to LGBT parenting is appropriately addressed again under the "Effects" section, though it gets a bit lost in the lengthy quotes. That's a separate issue, though.--Trystan (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

sometimes also called "gay marriage"

I want to make two changes to the (sometimes also called "gay marriage") part of the opening sentence:

• drop the "sometimes". Since we're saying it's also called something, it is clear that it is not always being called one or the other.
• replace "gay marriage" (quoted) with gay marriage (bold), as it is being shown as a synonym, per MOS:BOLD

Concur? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur...I think it is mostly called gay marriage. CTJF83 chat 17:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, too, but just noting the "same-sex marriage" shouldn't be dropped because not all same-sex marriages are marriages between gay people (i.e., a gay man and a bisexual man), just as not all opposite-sex marriages are between straight people (i.e., a straight man and a bisexual woman or a straight woman and a gay man using her as a "beard"). --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I never thought of that. CTJF83 chat 20:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also because, while people can be gay, marriage cannot. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, marriage can be very gay! But I don't think linguistically the two participants not both being gay disqualifies it from being a gay marriage, any more than my heritage bars me from being involved in a French kiss. Gay describes the marriage, not the individuals; certainly we understand that a guy cheating on his wife with some other woman's husband is having a "homosexual affair", even if both men are practicing bisexuals. Still, "same-sex marriage" seems to be the more common term of serious discussion, more clinical if you will, and should remain the lead term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the term "gay" describes the marriage, not the married individuals. Maybe the article could use a sentence or so stating something to that effect? Unless, of course, there is already such a sentence and I just missed it (I tend to do that sort of thing). But there's also the fact that, grammatically, the phrase "gay marriage" is incorrect, because the word "gay" means "sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex," and I'm pretty sure a marriage cannot be sexually attracted to marriages of the other gender --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By that argument, you cannot call something a medicine cabinet, because digesting a cabinet will clearly not improve your health. Definitions for "gay" do include it as relating to homosexual interests rather than simply being homosexual itself, as seen in definition 6 here, or 4b here. Straight men can enter a gay bar; straight men can enter a gay marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've got me there --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[undent]A medicine cabinet is a specific thing: a cabinet for holding medicine. A same-sex marriage is also a specific thing: the opposite of an opposite-sex marriage -- a topic we interestingly don't have an article on. But we don't use the term "gay apartment" for an apartment where gay people live (it might make it a gays' apartment, possibly). "Gay marriage" is ungrammatical for the same reason, but it's also potentially inaccurate, since not every person married to someone of the same sex is gay: there are plenty of same-sex marriages in which neither partner identifies as gay. Anyway, "gay marriage" is still fairly commonly used, more's the pity. Ideally, we wouldn't need a qualifier at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We may not use "gay apartment", but we do use "gay resort", "gay retirement home", "gay club", "gay district". That's because the word as an adjective doesn't just refer to things that are in themselves homosexual, but also things that pertain to or are in the style of homosexuals or homosexuality. The dictionaries reflect this. Anyway, in the absence of objections, I'm going to make the discussed change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion

In the section titled "Religion", could someone add Progressive Islam? It is a liberal branch of Islam that I believe recognizes same-sex marriage.Adamlance (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source before it is added, thanks CTJF83 chat 00:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a few with simple Google search. [2], [3], [4]. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this is sufficiently notable to mention here. Seems a small minority or even fringe view. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It does have a solid following in the U.S. and Canada. If you click on the wikipedia article: Progressive Islam you will see that it has a small but strong following, and I think it's worthy of mention. It only needs to be one sentence. Adamlance (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Based solely on sexual orientation?

The last sentence of the second paragraph seems insufficiently backed up, whatever one court decision in California might have said. "Based" is a very general term. I think quite a few would deny that the heterosexual definition has much to do with individual proclivities in general, orientation or any other. K. the Surveyor (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On a second look, this source is not a court decision at all but an amicus brief filed by the APA. Because this is not a scientific paper, however, I don't think it should get the same weight as scientific research findings. For the APA to make a claim about the psychology of gay behavior is one thing, but when they begin theorizing about gay marriage as a social institution, that is simply the opinion of their organization due to it being outside of their scientific scope. I didn't read through the entire brief, but my impression was that they didn't cite any papers when making these claims, either. In fact they acknowledge that they "conclude" some of these statements in their brief on page 36, implying the statements aren't scientific research.

The obvious question this raises is why the APA opinion gets such huge space further down in the page. Clearly these quotes need to be shrunk. APA has no special, elevated authority to make calls on many of the subjects mentioned there. K. the Surveyor (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Marriage license" as effectively an Americanism

I think the term "marriage license" is effectively an Americanism (or maybe a North Americanism). It may originate originally in English law, but I don't think the term is used in England anymore. I know for certain we don't use the term in Australia. In Australia, one does not apply for a marriage license to get married. The government licenses civil celebrants and recognizes religious denominations. There is no pre-approval from the government required to marry, just using an authorised civil or religious celebrant. One has to send off a notification form to the government, to let them know one is getting married, but that is not an application for permission, it is just a notification. If one uses an authorised celebrant (civil or religious), sends off the notification form, and meets all the other legal requirements for marriage (e.g. minimum age, no incest, not already married, opposite sex, etc.), then one is legally married, no license involved.

The problem I see is there is a tendency for American editors to export the terminology "marriage license" to other countries where such things don't exist. I have no problem with that terminology being used in relation to the United States, or other countries which have such a system. But I don't think it should be applied to other countries unless we know for a fact they do actually have marriage license. If one doesn't know, one should take the side of caution and not imply they exist when they might not.

Rather than saying "country X issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples", one can simply say "country X recognizes same-sex marriages" (or, alternatively, "country X does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but does recognize them performed in foreign jurisdictions", or "country X does not recognize same-sex marriage", or so on.) So this marriage license terminology which Americans like to insert everywhere is unnecessary and quite possibly in some cases incorrect.

I was inspired to write this by a sentence which said Israel does not issue same-sex marriage licenses. I don't actually know whether they issue marriage licenses, but given that Israel has no civil marriage and all marriage is performed by religious bodies, I suspect they do not have any close equivalent to the American concept of a marriage license issued by civil authorities. I think this sentence was likely just an American editor thoughtlessly imposing their terminology on the rest of the world. --SJK (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To reinforce my point, this is the form we use in Australia [5]. If one reads it, one will note that it is not actually sent to the government until AFTER one is married. The prospective bridge/groom must give it to the celebrant a month before the marriage (assumably to prevent rash decisions), but the celebrant only actually sends it to the government if the marriage goes ahead, and then only after the marriage. This is very different from the American system, where one gets permission from the government before the marriage takes place. --SJK (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. On your alternative wording, I'd like to see the avoidance of the term "performed" (as in "marriages performed on its territory"); it describes marriage as an event, when this article is discussing it as a status. "Entered into" seems more appropriate (and "jurisdiction" is probably more precise than "territory".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one more addendum: to be married in Australia, one must provide the notification form a month before the ceremony. After the ceremony, the celebrant issues a marriage certificate as proof of marriage. Then, the celebrant is supposed to forward the notification form to the government. Now, suppose the celebrant was lazy and forgot to submit the form. Suppose they even lost it entirely. The couple are still however validly married, even though the government knows nothing about. They may have some problems convincing the government of the fact, but so long as they could prove they filled out the form and gave it to the celebrant beforehand, and that the ceremony actually took place (e.g. the celebrant admits losing it, or claims it was lost in the mail, etc.), the government would accept the marriage as valid. So, unlike the US, where a valid marriage requires a piece of paper from the government, a valid marriage in Australia does not require any piece of paper from the government (unless you count blank forms as pieces of paper from the government), it just requires a piece of paper to be sent to the government afterwards, and the marriage is still valid if that paper is accidentally not sent. --SJK (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Children and the Family

This section reads more like a debate than an encyclopedia, and has a pronounced slant towards one viewpoint.184.74.22.161 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV policy doesn't promote a lack of viewpoint, but rather an editorially neutral point of view. This is achieved by giving the relevant POVs their due weight.

Merely tagging is not enough. Please present your suggestions. --DVD-junkie | talk | 16:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather than simply presenting suggestions, I have made the necessary edits. However, I have not removed the tags from this section, because I predict that certain editors who seek to impose their POV on every aspect of the encyclopedia will not allow any of my changes to last 24 hours. Hopefully I am mistaken.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The material you've added has a problem with the quality of the sources and their applicability to your claims. "Some literature appears to indicate that the gender of parents is relevant to child outcomes" is your claim. The sources you cite are:

• An "iMAPP policy brief" co-written by Maggie Gallagher. This is basically a self-published source, and is not peer-reviewed science - not a reliable source.
• Three articles on "Father absence" which, in their summaries, do not present them as a contrast to mother absence, and thus are not claiming relevancy of the gender of the parents.
• An article from the "American College of Pediatricians", which is a WP:FRINGE group, as discussed here.

As such, you may come to realize that editors that you see as seeking to impose a POV are actually acting properly for reliable sourcing of comments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate it when I'm right.

Nat--question: Does an amicus brief submitted in a court case qualify as peer-reviewed research? There is an immense block quotation under "Effects of same-sex marriage" that is drawn directly from such an amicus brief. I have no problem with using an amicus brief as a reference (although I think block quotations are usually inappropriate for an encyclopedia); it may provide citations to primary source research, or it may contain useful and relevant information in its own right. It seems that you don't have a problem with it, either, as it has not been tagged. I could give an array of similar examples from this page and related pages. This leads to the conclusion that sources may be subjected to a different level of scrutiny depending on who the editor is and what "point of view" that editor brings to the subject.  :) I believe that the sources I provided meet Wikipedia standards, and I have no problem with a third party getting involved to decide the dispute.

One classic leftist technique for dealing with contentious issues is to refuse to debate them by claiming that there is no debate, and steadfastly pretending that anyone offering a different perspective is (a) mentally unstable; (b) filled with hatred; or (c) bitterly clinging to guns and religion (in the words of our president). The goal is to marginalize and silence the opposition to satisfy the utopian fantasy that there is no opposition, and that everyone shares the same leftist perspective. Unfortunately, this approach also permeates the academic establishment, making it difficult or impossible for dissenting voices to be heard in mainstream journals. Whether the issue is Darwinian evolution vs. intelligent design (see Ben Stein's movie entitled "Expelled"), climate change, or same-sex issues, the approach does not seem to change much. This approach only works when people put up with it. I am not going to.

The truth is that there is debate over whether or not the gender of parents matters. This is shown in the variety of sources I cited. That debate should be acknowledged in this article--if the goal is to have an encyclopedia article. If the goal is to have a one-sided propaganda piece, then this article should not be here and should be moved to a resource that promotes your POV.184.74.22.161 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You ask if an amicus brief is peer-reviewed research. The answer to that is clearly. obviously no. You can learn more about what the term means in this context by reading peer review and WP:FRINGE. There is no review process for amicus briefs. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And it should be noted that the amicus brief is not cited as a statement of fact, but as a source for a quote - a quote whose organizational authorship is noted. That is not to say that the use of that quote cannot be questioned, but there's a difference between using the Flat Earth Society Bulletin as the source for the statement The Flat Earth Society believes that "the Earth is shaped like a pancake and using it as a source for, simply, The Earth is shaped like a pancake. (Note: I am not an expert in the Flat Earth Society and have no idea if such a bulletin ever existed, much less the specific statements made within.)

As for the rest of 161's comment, it seems to be based on a number of odd assumptions, like that an editor who edits one thing is therefor responsible for everything else in an article and, in fact, the whole of Wikipedia. Or that we should somehow lower the standards of inclusion because the view is unpopular due to a presumed conspiracy - claiming that one's belief is kept down by conspiracy rather than by evidence is pretty common among those who believe against science. It is convenient to argue that "intelligent design" is "expelled" from academia, when in actuality it basically "flunked out". If 161 hates that citations that don't actually support the attached statements will not be included or will not put up with it, that's more an issue for 161self. If one opposes the WP:FRINGE guidelines, then that's probably best discussed over at WP:FRINGE. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, certain editors definitely are going to revert your edits if you don't provide reliable sources for your claims. And it would be much appreciated if you read the references that are provided before tagging the text as lacking references.--DVD-junkie | talk | 23:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dvd-junkie, the sentences that I tagged for lacking references really were lacking references. They were also blatant expressions of an editor's opinion. And what makes you think I didn't read the sources that actually were provided?184.74.22.161 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep tagging references as missing that are provided, while, at the same time, failing to provide reliable sources for your claims. I am therefore reverting.--DVD-junkie | talk | 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing: unreliable sources & original research

There seems to be a bit of POV pushing going on. The sentence Some literature appears to indicate that the gender of parents is relevant to child outcomes. is sourced with five sources:

1. 1 is an opinion piece by a activist group, and hence not reliable.
2. 2 Does talk about the absence of fathers, which is a broken family vs intact family issue. It does not include intact same-sex couples. Hence, original research.
3. 3 See 2.
4. 4 See 2.
5. 5 "American College of Pediatricians" is an activist group. Not a reliable source.

I suggest that the person who wants to add this takes his or hers POV somewhere else. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The section of the article at issue is blatantly POV, as anyone who is even trying to be even-handed can realize immediately upon reading it. I'm just trying to restore a semblance of balance. The insulting response reflects more on your own POV--and desire to exclude relevant perspectives from the article--than it does on me. 184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the solution is to find actual reliable sources that satisfy the requirements of wikipedia and stop using unreliable sources as well as sources that actually do not say anything about the actual topic at hand. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is this at?? I'm typing in the bolded phrase and don't find anything. CTJF83 chat 17:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Duh, sorry, I'm acting like this is my first day...I agree with its removal, per the reasons above. CTJF83 chat 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with the criticism of the sources, in terms of controversy about what is or isn't measurably true, the reliable sources we have (much as with evolution or the shape of the earth) all provide the same answer. There is no policy-based NPOV issue in this section, and we should remove the tag barring the demonstration of reliable sources that indicate otherwise. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should mention that these claims are made, but also make clear by whom they are being made, and include the other side's view also. For example, considering the studies which show lack of father produces poor childhood outcomes, one could include a quote representing the view that this implies same-sex parenting may have worse outcomes than opposite-sex parenting; then next a quote representing the view that such use of these studies confuses the issues of intact vs separated families, and dual vs single parent families, etc. That way we can inform readers of the substance of the controversy without directly entering into it ourselves. In the context of citing these views, I think it is fine to quote the more major activist organizations on one side or the other, so long as we make their activist nature clear. An activist group is not a reliable source for a scientific claim ("research shows absence of father produces X"), but it is a reliable source for the fact that such claims are being made in the debate. --SJK (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thi9nk this might have a place in the social views section, not in the sections that deal with the facts. Not every controversy has to be spelled out in every section over and over again especially if the controversy is social of nature. Just like the evolution-creation 'controversy'. It is a social controversy, not a science controversy. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a place where third-party sources on claims is called for, as it provides a level of filter for the significance of the claim. It differentiates something that one group said on one occassion from some general claim common to SSM opponents. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

Aside from its first sentence, the whole second paragraph of the lede should be broken up and moved down into the body, if not to child articles. This majorly WP:UNDUE paragraph really diminishes the article's credibility. K. the Surveyor (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What it is UNDUE in it? --Destinero (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with something doesn't make it undue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Court documents

I believe 166.137.136.59 has a point: the court documents are a reliable second-party source reporting on scientific findings. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While as a general rule I'd say that that depends on the source of the documents (in many cases anyone can file an amicus brief, and I myself have filed one with a state supreme court), in this case the brief is authored by a group of large scientific bodies, each dominant in their field and in fields relevant to the subject matter. That certainly seems to me to qualify as a reliable source on the question of of science and fact. However, if there is controversy about whether this is a reliable enough source for the statement, I'd suggest taking it up not here on the talk page but bringing it to WP:RSN, where a greater body of editors experienced in the policies and practices around WP:RS will be able to contribute to building a consensus here. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to revert an edit by someone who disagreed but was unwilling to explain themselves here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and I'm in agreement with your reasoning. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You weren't forced to do anything; you chose to continue to edit war. As to the sources, court documents are treated as primary sources. Lastly, two editors is not consensus. Right now, you don't have it just because one other person agrees with you; so far two others disagree with you, but there may be more, so wait until others have had a chance to comment instead of edit warring. You do -not- have consensus.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, a court document is a primary source regarding that case, but is a secondary source regarding the scientific research it summarizes. I'm sorry to have to say that you seem not to fully understand the issue here. I hope we can come to a consensus with you, but we already have one without you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And, Daedalus, if you want to request that others not edit war, the first step is not to edit war yourself. Otherwise, it comes out sounding a lot like "don't you dare touch my version", as if you own the article. I recommend that you self-revert. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is there was already consensus for the previous version of the article, whereas you don't have consensus for your change; eg, the crux is that you don't get to have your way before consensus is achieved, only after, and only after it is in your favor, so, no, I will not be reverting to your preferred version, that you do not have consensus for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And I'll say it again; you do not have consensus for your edits. Another editor agreeing with your stance does not make a consensus, especially when there is equal opposition to such. As long as there is equal opposition, you cannot claim you have consensus.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, tossing 3RR violation warnings on my talk page is not conducive to the assumption of good faith, given that you're the one edit-warring against consensus, and that I let your mistaken reversion stand. Poor form, sport! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not edit warring against consensus, because no such consensus exists.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the question of whether it's a primary source, please actually read WP:PRIMARY, and recast your arguments in terms of policy. Primary sources are not automatically invalid. Thank you. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Please do not assume I haven't, and try assuming good faith, as well as not putting words in my mouth. I never said primary sources were invalid, I simply corrected you that the court documents were primary, not secondary sources.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not sure what Daedalus' objection is. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969: Your edit summary, in conjunction with the reply here, appeared to me to indicate that "also, court documents are primary sources" was a reason to remove the statement. Do you believe that it is? If not, I apologize. If so, could you explain further, given that WP:PRIMARY specifically does allow primary sources in some circumstances? I'm honestly confused by what appears to be your argument, but I understand that I may be totally missing your point. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I will write an in-depth reply to you in a moment, and it shall be below all of these replies, as it is probably getting difficult to follow this discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sincerely. I think that would be very helpful. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please just stop ur POV additions. The existing page omitted the source because it is Scientific Fact. the whole paragraph almost rests on the same source so its absurd to single out a sentence not in agreement with your prejudice. u cannot just decide its an opinion. it was on the originsl page & it was only roentgen who tried to undermine the Facts. 166.137.136.59 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Please just stop claiming POV of others. As I said previously, there is equal opposition on both sides, so consensus cannot be claimed of either. Me, Daye, and Roen on one; you, Dylan, and Joe on another. Neither side can claim consensus while there is equal opposition. As to what you have said, 166, I am looking into it, unfortunately, wikiblame appears to be broken, so I'm going to have to search manually. If your claim is true, I'll self-revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. If you claim the source isn't reliable but can't seem to explain why, we have no reason to listen any further. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why you cannot claim that another agreeing with you is consensus; in other words, you cannot claim it without giving others a chance to comment, so how about you do that.. oh, and stop putting words in others' mouths.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not stop. In fact, I can't, since I never started. Instead, I've been trying to get you to state your reasoning, if any. So far, no luck. As far as I can tell, you just don't like that source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you will, because doing so is disruptive editing; just above, you say that I claim that a source is unreliable, when I have indeed said no such thing. So indeed, stop putting words in others' mouths.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's make this simple. Daedalus, in your own words, what is your objection to the version that I and other here have supported? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I already said, in response to Joe, that I was going to make an in-depth reply(in this location) due to the text above getting hard to follow chronologically. That aside, let me begin;

First and foremost; it's the same source, with a slight different wording to diminish the amount of space required for its existence.

That aside, I feel that the change is slightly POV-ish, in that it sides with a single POV on the subject from a particular group, and argues it as undeniable fact. While it very well may be fact given its source; its method of creation, it wouldn't be right in this kind of article where there are opposing opinions on the matter. So, per Wikipedia's policy asking for a neutral point of view, the previous wording seems best, in that it does not treat the assertion as an absolute fact but as a finding of a specific group. Now, if we had several such groups coming to the same conclusion, I believe that would be a call for the wording to be as it was changed to.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, the report was a summary of scientific studies. As such, it already reflects more than the findings of a specific group (unless you mean "all social scientists"). It is already neutral, and it does not need to be specifically attributed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that it treats one side as plain fact, no, it is not already neutral.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The scientific opinion is plain fact. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I've given my own views in the comment below. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, Daedalus would like to retain the language that states where the opinion is coming from, and Dylan wants it to read as if it were a plain fact. Is that basically it? P.S. The page is protected from editing for the next week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That is my understanding of the dispute. I tend to frame the dispute in terms of this Request for Arbitration. [6], which is I believe precedent on the conflicts between "point of view" and science. I'd say that one side feels that questions of science should reflect opposition to the scientific consensus only when there is "legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." Given the provenance of the brief, it's certainly a valid argument that it represents a clear statement of scientific consensus (to my mind, much as "gravity" is a scientific consensus), and that weakening the statement by an apparently limiting attribution indicates the existence of a putative but unstated and unsourced legitimate scientific disagreement. Perhaps we could split the difference with a statement such as "There is a scientific consensus that....", which weakens the objectionable (to me) limiting of the statement while making it clearer that the statement refers to harm as determined by science. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't object to that wording. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Should someone ask the admin to lift the protection? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Already did, already done. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe, now that we have a compromise and the article is unlocked, would you like to do the honors? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Wikipints all around, on me! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I had wondered whatever became of Joe Decker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah? I'm around, mostly just sourcing unref'd BLPs, 'cept when I'm off in Greenland or whatever. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Should have checked the link. I don't know what happened to that one, but I have his baseball card! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of the section on marriage privatisation

I'm concerned that marriage privatisation is being given undue weight. Libertarianism is primarily an American phenomenon, and thus this subject doesn't have much world-wide notability. Bob A (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard this argument advanced by anyone but American Libertarian Party types. Upon a search, it has been mentioned by the Adam Smith Institute in the UK. However I think you are right that weight may be a serious issue here and it certainly demands question. The American LP does not enjoy much support outside of rather narrow circles and my guess is that marriage privatization would have been quite alien to the giants of classical liberal philosophy that the LP claims as its own. The same goes for the ASI. Plus we need to place American and British politics in a wider global context where privatization would often seemingly be an unknown concept. K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its relevancy rises to the level of the section it is in; it may make a subsection of Controversy, however. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Libertarian view is sort of irrelevant, in that it opposes marriage as anything more than a contract between the spouses. A contractual marriage of this sort offers no rights to a partner past what you can grant. In contrast, marriage as it exists today grants other rights, such as protection against deportation. In short, this is less an argument in favor of same-sex marriage and more an argument against marriage. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any objections I am going to move this whole section somewhere else, possibly Same-sex marriage in the United States. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

American amicus briefs

My opinion that I have expressed at least once before without reply is that citing amicus briefs by themselves is inherently inadequate to demonstrate scientific consensus. These briefs are constructed with the purpose of winning a single court case and can hardly be seen as objective regardless of provenance. In contrast, a source like say the IPCC assessment report on climate change is not "pitched" toward any one narrow legislative or judicial goal but is intended as an overall summary of current scientific knowledge. Plus, consider the process involved in creating an IPCC report. We know that someone named Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle from the APA helped write this amicus brief, as well as a couple of lawyers, but many more scientific eyes are typically run over other statements.

Also consider that the sources for these statements come only from the American Psychological Association. Outside of the West there may not even be recognition of "gay people" as a class and Western papers also acknowledge that the number of journal articles concerning non-Western cultures is woefully inadequate. Therefore it seems too great a stretch to claim that US or even US and Canadian statements constitute a global consensus, and we can again contrast the IPCC which represents a deliberately worldwide meeting of the minds on its respective issue.

I again request that all of the statements in the second paragraph sourced only by amicus briefs, and not just the one inciting the recent fracas, be moved down into the body and given proper qualification. K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, the brief reflects the views of the APA, which is to say, the scientific consensus. This is sufficient to qualify it as a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not just the APA, around a half-dozen organizations. While there are other science-based organizations qualified to judge the consensus, I am unaware of any others that have so clearly, one way or another, on this question. Their results are "in view of" a wide variety of globally-produced research. If I had a 6-0 result in AfD nobody would argue consensus, particularly if all six !votes were from very respected AfD-qualified organizations, and that analogy understates the reality of this particular statement. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

K., I'm afraid that, short even one reliable source documenting the lack of, or a contrary scientific consensus, there's no basis that I see for me to support your change. Your "there may not be"s seem too hypothetical to me, but if you can point at science-based alternative statements of consensus, I'd be glad to listen. The APA and the half-dozen other organizations behind that brief are basing their opinions based on the global process of research, science done in other countries is not excluded from their view. Please see the request for arbitration link I provided in the section above. (It's [7]) --j⚛e decker^talk 01:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the consenting organizations as I was prompted to look at their resolutions on the subject. However, I still have issues here. Let's consider due weight. It seems much better to pull quotes not from a brief but from the original resolutions of the signers. The brief was written by Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle and a couple of lawyers while the resolutions were written by the APA Council of Representatives, the APA Assembly, and the AAMFT Board. So if we are really serious about all this being undisputed fact, then we have to state as fact that "It is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges." That's what the APA concluded in 2004.

I think this is reductio ad absurdum. It's clear that these statements are not just based on scientific facts but also on the values of the generally affluent and secular American professional organizations involved. Normative statements like saying that gay marriage should be legal are clearly not facts, and the AAMFT in particular is very open about its statement reflecting values. Other sectors of American society and especially non-Western societies may have quite different values. I think the current lead is unfair to these groups. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks for the thoughtful reply. First, briefs are written by lawyers, this is no surprise. The views expressed in this filings are however, related to the views of the people submitting the brief in ways that are enforced by legal prohibitions. It's fair, I believe, to assume that the organizations involved "sign on to" the brief, if they don't, they have a civil case and the court system has a criminal case.

Turning to what was actually written in the brief, it's not clear to me how the quote you pulled out is the best quote available from the organizations in relationship to the question being discussed, which is, as I see it, the question of harm to children being raised by same-sex couples by marriage bans. The brief provides specific examples justifying that conclusion by science. Page 22-23: "Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents", from an AAP study. They reinforce specific quotes from specific studies with attributions to other science, see footnotes 42, or better, 49, which states "The general impact of stigmatization on children has been well documented." and then notes by way of an example the Milch paper.

I entirely disagree with your characterization of the source, in specific, "these statements are not just based on scientific facts but also on the values of the generally affluent and secular American professional organizations involved." The brief seems based, as near as I can tell, on a review and broad understanding of the scientific literature. It, I grant, is possible that "the scientific literature" as a whole is biased in the way you describe. Your use of the word "secular" is in fact suggestive that might be (or might not be) part of your concern, as "secular" is generally used in correlation with "science", and in opposition to "religion". In any case, it doesn't matter! Whether or not "science is POV" is not our concern here, as WP policy supports the scientific viewpoint including legitimate scientific alternatives. It's not against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies to exclude non-scientific counters to scientific consensus, WP's policy as described unanimously by ArbCom demands that exclusion.

To the extent that the question of the reliability of the brief as a source for determination of scientific consensus is in disagreement, I'd once again suggest considering opening that question to the wider audience at WP:RSN.

To the extent that there is quite a bit of science being summarized and simplified, as is always necessary in such briefs, I believe that is best to use the organization's own summary of the research being quoted. Selecting details from specific parts of the argument, or things that are cited by citations, is dangerous, and violates the meaning of the warnings in WP:PRIMARY. As a result, I think it's clearest to go with the summary the organizations themselves provided, or make as clear a connection to it as possible. And that summary reads "Depriving Same-Sex Couples of the Ability to Marry Has Adverse Effects on Their Children.", which is wholly in line with the brief and the quotes from studies within the brief. That seems a summarization of science, but one based in science, and entirely valid, at least to me.

Rather than ad hominum arguments ("affluent and secular"), it would be more effective (at least in terms of convincing me to your view) to provide significant scientific opposition via WP:RS and present it. I do wish we had more sources here, but I actually believe this one is solid enough on policy grounds. Anyway, enough prattling on my part for the evening, I look forward to your reply. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe, I am not saying that the amicus statements should be moved because they are wrong but because there are more notable sources available. One of those is the original APA resolution on gay marriage made in 2004 that was reprinted in the brief. This was the first resolution the APA or I think any mainstream body of social scientists had made supporting gay marriage. It was approved by the Council of Representatives and is therefore much more notable than a single brief. Here is its first and foremost conclusion:

...the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges;

I'm afraid that I don't understand why you think that the main question is one of harm to children. In any case I don't think specific aspects of the debate should be the main criteria for notability. The APA resolution seems quite prominent although I have located some others that could compete with it, namely the Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association, the Member Resolution on Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment Regarding Marriage and some other reprints in the brief. Which of them should be in the lead is a reasonable question but in my view they are all superior to amicus briefs.

I continue to think it's regrettable that we are only using American and Western sources. Unfortunately I am monolingual. However, judging by the fact that advocates are relying only on resolutions by its gay and lesbian section and women's section, the main British Psychological Association has apparently not touched the issue, and the Australian Psychological Society apparently also made no resolution if we infer from this page. I will try to investigate this further if possible.

Finally there are some other issues that I now see after beginning to think about the actual amicus content. The second and third sentence of the second lead paragraph are simply not about gay marriage. Although they do come from a source about gay marriage, for a sentence to be in the lead of an article of this size it should include the article's subject. I am also concerned about mentioning the concept of "stigma" in the later sentences because in scientific usage this word may have different implications than in popular use. But more important than these issues is that other sources are just more notable than the brief. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the sentence that we're arguing about (I think we're arguing the same citation, maybe I'm wrong?) reads "There is a scientific consensus that "the stigma created by states' differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts", and that "depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry has adverse effects on their children". When you ask about why I focus on harm ("adverse events") you're right, there are two statements to work from here, but I'd claim that my response above really is related to the applicability of using the amicus brief to source the second half of that.

But if you're more concerned about the first half, then you're entirely right to call me on not putting more discussion to that point. That was an oversight on my part.

With regard to why I put more weight on the consolidated statement of six organizations in 2010, rather than one of those organizations in 2004, well, I think the combined statement speaks more strongly to how widespread the consensus is--six organizations vs. one. The greater recency is also a factor, the progress in the underlying research in the last few years has been substantial.)

I'm monolingual as well, I understand your regret about the English-only thing. With regard to the underlying science, most of the journal publications and such are going to be in English even when the research is done elsewhere because that is the common practice of scientific journals. To add to that, most of the "same-sex marriage" that is available to study right now is in Western nations. So I think some of this is likely unavoidable.

I haven't looked at the rest of the lede, but most of this discussion for me has been the applicability of what I'm seeing as footnote 8 to the particular sentence i've noted above, I haven't looked at the questions more widely. I will, but I wanted to be clear that so far I've entirely focused on that sentence. Sorry for any confusion on that point! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hoo boy. I thought we were discussing all the sentences cited by amicus briefs in the second paragraph. Here they are in red:

There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits and burdens conferred by civil marriage. Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential aspects. Lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[5] Financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage, and children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society’s institutions.[5][6][7] There is a scientific consensus that "the stigma created by states' differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts", and that "depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry has adverse effects on their children."[8]

There are two briefs, one with four signers ([5]) and one with six ([8]). The APA has filed more than twenty briefs like the first one. My opinion is that the original resolutions by the APA Council of Representatives and the APsychiatricA Assembly are more notable than this single brief. Now, you might say the brief represents a consensus of many organizations, but I am not sure how meaningful that consensus is when the actual authors are listed as just one APA employee, Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle, and three lawyers. We also already have three sentences from this single brief. I think we would better replace them with one sentence from the APA resolution, one from the APsychiatricA resolution, and maybe one from the AAMFT's or just leave it at two sentences. (The fourth signer, the CPA, is a state-level group.) In any case, the current second and third sentences are simply not about gay marriage and so they demand to be replaced.

Moving on to the other brief, we don't know how it was constructed and so it may well represent more of an integrated consensus than I assume the first brief does. But even so it probably wasn't approved directly by the assemblies of any organizations. I think that as a rule it is better to use these because of their extensive review process and lack of partisan input from lawyers. That aside, I have doubts about whether the word "stigma" means the same in general and scientific usages and so whether it should be used without qualification. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, I'm sorry about that. I need to take a deep breath and look at all of your comments with fresh eyes, probably tomorrow. (It's evening my time.) My apologies for the confusion. More soon. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Though I would probably only bother looking at my last two statements in the thread (e.g. from the one starting "Joe"). —K. the Surveyor (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"My opinion is that the original resolutions by the APA Council of Representatives and the APsychiatricA Assembly are more notable than this single brief. Now, you might say the brief represents a consensus of many organizations, but I am not sure how meaningful that consensus is when the actual authors are listed as just one APA employee, Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle, and three lawyers." The brief is essentialy identical but updated to the older one: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf which clearly states "In preparing this brief, amici have been guided solely by criteria relating to the scientific rigor and reliability of studies and literature, not by whether a given study supports or undermines a particular conclusion. The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici." That means that all amici (including the American Psychiatric Association from the older brief) views are the same in such issues and statements for the court. Moreover according to the http://apaconvention.typepad.com/2010_apa_convention_blog/2010/08/apa-continues-its-legal-efforts-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage.html "APA’s Council of Representatives passed a measure reaffirming APA’s support for same-sex marriage, based on the scientific research. That action was followed by the Board of Directors’ voting to file amicus briefs in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger" and it is obvious the amici curiae brief in the article has owerlhelming support among scientists (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/08/same-sex-marriage.aspx) and experts approved by the APA’s Council of Representatives (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/08/support-same-sex-marriage.aspx) followed by the Board of Directors’ voting to file amicus briefs in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. As such it is much better to provide readers up-to-date consolidated source of scientific and expert positions like that than to reference every imaginable statement of any body without references of scientific literature which supports positions and everybody has the chance to verify them. Furthermore the amici brief put it clearly: " This brief cites scholarly works of several of the experts who testified before the district court, including Doctors Letitia Anne Peplau, Gregory Herek, and Michael Lamb. The testimony and research of those experts relied on by the district court accord with the rigorous scientific standards outlined above and reflect the scientific consensus." http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf The court rulings put it clearly too: "Plaintiffs called nine expert witnesses. As the education and experience of each expert show, plaintiffs’ experts were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified. Moreover, the experts’ demeanor and responsiveness showed their comfort with the subjects of their expertise. For those reasons, the court finds that each of plaintiffs’ proffered experts offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified." https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf "According to the Howard court, of the eight expert witnesses testifying at trial, “[t]he most outstanding of the expert witnesses was Dr. Michael Lamb.” The trial court explained: Without a single note to refer to and without any hint of animus or bias, for or against any of the parties, Dr. Lamb succinctly provided full and complete responses to every single question put to him by all counsel and was very frank in responding to inquiries from the court. Of all of the trials in which the court has participated, whether as a member of the bench or of the bar, Dr. Lamb may have been the best example of what an expert witness is supposed to do in a trial, simply provide data to the trier of fact so that the trier of fact can make an informed, impartial decision. Like the district court in this case, and after review of similar evidence, the Howard court ultimately issued various factual findings supporting the conclusion that being raised by gay parents does not pose a detriment to children." http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus44.pdf It is totally obvious that there could not be *any reasonable dispute* about the credentials of the experts on which contributions the current scientific thinking and the amicus rely: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-herek.pdf

The same is true for the second discussed amici brief. There is no legitimate reason to exclude this references. The only imaginable attack on them could came from the people against equal rights and possibilities backed by marginal unscientific propaganda sources or from people who don't understand how these briefs were prepared. If an editor aims for the IPCC-like report, then he should accept these briefs, since there is none better secondary source in terms of consolidation of up-to-date scientific and expert knowledge. --Destinero (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this evidence. However, there are many ways to define the "best" source. Certainly the brief is more voluminous, provides more citations and is more current. However, the fact remains that not nearly as many people were involved with actually creating it. It was apparently prepared primarily by one psychologist and three lawyers if we are to believe the opening pages and then given a stamp of approval by others. Even with the second brief we can guess that there was nothing like a full approval by the board. I think this is significant because in writing a lead we are absolutely not concerned with questions of volume. We are concerned with the notability of the statements. To analogize, it is like we can access a ton of 14k gold and ten pounds of 24k gold and can only take away what we fit into a jewelry box. The ton is worth a lot more but unfortunately we can't fit it. We have a lot less 24k gold but it's purer and so we put that in the box. Same logic here. To continue with the analogy I am in no way trying to "attack" the value of the brief as a legitimate scientific source in the same way that taking the 24k does not impugn the 14k's value.

Also, there are apparently ten other briefs quite similar to this one, but there is only one main APA resolution on gay marriage and its importance was only reaffirmed by the 2010 resolution you point out that merely cites the 2004 one and does not elaborate. There is an APsychiatricA resolution as well but both can be included in the lead while we cannot possibly incorporate 11 different briefs. Finally I should qualify that I have absolutely no problem with listing the briefs as sources in the lead as long as the statements themselves are drawn from the resolutions. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation." The statement is from this year. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/rollofhonour/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian.aspx#recent --Destinero (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

K, Destinero, etc.: Again, first, let me offer my apologies, I thought we were having a different argument than we were actually having, and it'll take time for me to make sure I"ve caught up. I had assumed this was a pile-on from the discussion which had seemed to conclude a few hours earlier in the previous section, and read things incorrectly as a result of that assumption. My sincere apologies.

I absolutely have no problem with including references to the original APA statement, etc. in general. I think they in one sense are stronger references in that it is easier to see how they are directly connected to what they claim than the amicus briefs, at least for statements where they say the same thing. I'm going to talk about the "part referenced by 5", then the "part referenced by 8".

For the parts referenced by [5], a first glance (and I'd be curious to know what you think, because I haven't reread it in detail), actually felt like it was mirrored better by the 2004 APA statement than by the amicus brief. I'd be okay with replacing the one with the other, or better (to my mind) including both. The RCP statement seems relevant to this section as well and could be added. I'm pretty comfortable with some combinations of any of these references, and would (as a matter of taste) tend to lean towards "more", but it's all good.

For the parts referenced by [8], however, that on that one point the six-party amicus brief there more clearly made it more clear that the lack of access to gov't benefits to parents had "adverse consequences" (e.g., harm). As a result, I like including the six-party brief as a reference, but I've no objection to adding the 2004 APA one here too, one has the benefit of being arguably closer to the science, the other has the benefit of more signers and six years of recency. In fact, my general preference here is "and." --j⚛e decker^talk 23:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is quite ok Joe. I have also changed my direction in response to looking at the original resolutions that you mentioned and so you are by no means alone.

I support replacing the part referenced by [5] with statements drawn from the original APA and APsychiatricA resolutions and have elaborated on my reasoning even more above in response to Destinero. The second and third sentences in red above certainly must be replaced because they aren't even about gay marriage. I would however certainly have no problem with using the [5] brief as a citation for new sentences.

Basically the same applies to the [8] brief. Now you say that you would like to include the brief as a citation and I have no problem with that although I prefer the actual statements to be drawn from the original resolutions of the signers (1, 2, 3). Of course with [8] it's harder because there are some signers that do not appear to have central resolutions and besides at six there are just too many of them. (I did find this from the AAP.) So maybe there is room for compromise and drawing some statement(s) from the brief here, especially as compromise seems called for with Destinero who just wants to use briefs. And I also like making use of the RCP statement but see my below comment. So anyway look at these citations. We will need to decide whether to keep the existing parts referenced by [8] or use the resolutions instead. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this reply, but I noticed your reworking of the paragraph and I have to say it seems neutral and well-sourced to me. I can see one place where I might have reworded a sentence differently using the briefs wording, but on reflection what you wrote is entirely logically equivalent to what I wanted to say, and that's more than good enough for me. Moreover, the paragraph feels just better written. Great work, thanks again for your patience with my confusion. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Great work Destinero in locating this source, seriously. But it seemingly demonstrates a lack of international consensus as the RCP talks of a civil partnership and not same-sex marriage. Britain has civil unions but not SSM so perhaps this makes sense. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, agreed. -j⚛e decker^talk 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out to the fact the original resolutions of expert bodies are covered in the appdendix of the amici curiae brief: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf (the end of the document). Thus I see absolutely no sense to duplicate references where one amici brief could be used for everything related, since there is all, updated and nicely referenced to the specific scientific research. --Destinero (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might be of interest to know that a discussion on this exact topic was also had at the LGBT parenting article and the conclusion was that amicus briefs were inherently less suitable than the original statements by the organizations. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of one editor there can't be called conclusion. The original statements by the organizations are part of the amicus briefs and thus I will reference the briefs in the article, since it is utterly nonsense to duplicate references when the amici brief does cover all. --Destinero (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-US sources may contradict lead

I may not be around much more to work on this article, but I'd like to note that the RCP statement found by Destinero only adds to my suspicions that non-US scientific sources might sharply differ with the scientific consensus mentioned in the lead. In fact the RCP statement does most definitely differ even if it may be too little evidence for major changes. I hope that others who are fluent in foreign languages or living outside North America can investigate further, possibly via sources unavailable online. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Map is rather silly, please change it

In the "current status" sections there is a map and now, why there are two sections there? one titled "same sex sexual activity legal" and the other one "same sex sexual activity illegal"? its not really accurate cos many countries that are marked gray have no ban on sexual activity whatsoever and actually some of them has been the first to decriminalize same sex sexual activity while the others never had any bans in that matter!!please change that silly mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.198.105 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right...I changed it to "same-sex relationships legal" Gray means there is neither same-sex relationships or homosexuality is not illegal CTJF83 chat 02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post as a RS.

Ckatz, I took a look at both the article and the discussion about the reliability of that source, but my conclusions do not match yours. First, you were a bit selective in your quote from the discussion. It also contains the sentiment that "It is similar to other current affairs periodicals in containing a mix of opinion and straight reportage and so it should be used in a similar way, distinguishing the two". As it turns out, the article being referenced is very clearly straight reportage. Despite the topic itself being controversial, the article stays carefully neutral and reports just the facts. This makes it a reliable source, even if some other articles lean more towards opinion. I also searched for the author's name in Wikipedia and found that he's been referenced dozens of times. In short, I'm not sure why you feel that this citation should be removed. I look forward to your explanation. Dylan Flaherty 01:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I must add that, although I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, the last time you deleted this link, you gave an entirely different reason, "rm spam links posted by single-purpose account", which wasn't actually correct. I think you need to be very careful when you do explain your objection, lest your credibility be damaged. Dylan Flaherty 01:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do assume good faith, as I am certainly doing the same with you. The comment is based on this edit by the single-purpose account Yermi888, who has been adding links to the HP. Note that the reference link we are discussing - and the related text - was added by a single-edit IP only three minutes prior to Yermi888's edit to the EL section. It is highly unlikely that the two represent separate individuals, so it is clearly a case of the same person attempting to add more spam links to the project. Furthermore, I did check out the article prior to removal, noting that it was not posted by a news organization, but instead by an "independent multimedia journalist" posting on his blog. Note that "Yermi888" is in all likelihood one-and-the-same with Yermi Brenner, the independent journalist in question, as all of the account's edits involve adding links to Mr. Brenner's articles. As such, my observations and actions were certainly not out of line, as we do not "reward" spammers who are trying to take advantage of the project. If you're prepared to stand behind it, so be it, but please don't be looking for hidden motivations where there are none. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting on this further, I think it would be most interesting to review the "dozens of times" Mr. Brenner has been used as a reference on Wikipedia. While there may well be instances where they involve legitimate posting by an uninvolved editor, based on what I have seen I would not be surprised if many of the posts can be traced back to other single-purpose accounts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than getting entangled in whatever is going on between the two of you, I've decided to simply replace the citation with two others. I think it's more productive to find an unquestionably reliable source than to just remove what we have now or fight over it. Dylan Flaherty 02:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IP who restored the Brenner reference is in Germany, whereas the HuffPost bio states that Brenner is based in Israel. It could still be him, but if so then he's either traveling or using some sort of proxy or something. Dylan Flaherty 02:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)