Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 18

Change to UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287 The Scottish government is to introduce a bill legalising gay marriage in Scotland, can someone update this (I've not posted enough edits to edit a semi protected article, I think) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthe (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2012

Under Religion, please change, 'and there is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples.[229]', to '. However, Jesus explained the reason for the diversity of the sexes in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, etc., which explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman "the two shall become one". Many people incorrectly state that the Bible does not mention one man one woman or explicitly exclude same-sex marriage [229].'

71.124.204.128 (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Bible is interpreted variously by different people. What you're saying is original research. If reliable secondary sources indicate it is a significant viewpoint, that could be noted in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What the IP is referring to is Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–9. While they don't seem to allow a lot variety of interpretation, the above editor is correct in asserting that we need a reliable source (WP:RS) to select these verses out as contradicting SSM. Primary (original) sources aren't allowed by themselves. Student7 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he had a point. Most Christian supporters of traditional marriage cite these verses. So I've listed the least pov worded ones. But since they oppose SSM, they are necessarily pov. Student7 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Same sex marriage parents make great parents

There is a statement that no expert disagrees that LGBT parent make great parents. It once had a citation (ref name=autogenerated3)Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM; et al. (2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics. 118 (1): 349–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279. PMID 16818585. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)(endref). The latter was rm, the editor stating that this did not say that at all, but the reverse. That would imply that the sentence is wrong. There is hardly any agreement on anything, except maybe in the world of mathematics. So "universal" agreement on anything generally sounds pov. a) Is universality needed here? b) In view of the opposite opinion, is it accurate?

A contending argument is this: I can accept that two same-sex persons, one working, one not, may make better parents than a single mother (or maybe parent) who is working. It is harder to see that having same sex parents provides the same model for growing children that parents of different sex would provide. And this model would be needed for either sex children. i.e. a growing girl needs a model for herself as well as an idea of how men act. If this is true, it would suggest that having parents of the same sex is, on it's face, worse than having parents of different sex. Mindful that the children will most likely not be LGBT themselves. Student7 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Studies show that the difference is minor, such as a 5%-10% higher high school dropout rate. Difference in race has a comparable percentage. The same-sex parenting article doesn't address the differences between those children enough, relying instead on words such as no "fundamental" differences. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Student7, this citation was restored because it does support the text.

Acoma Magic, Do you have a source for the claim of "a 5%-10% higher high school dropout rate"? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make up things without a reliable source. I would like to see who claims children of same-sex couples generally have a higher dropout rate compared to others. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 01:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Student7...

Current claims that children need both a mother and father are spurious because they attribute to the gender of parents benefits that correlate primarily with the number and marital status of a child’s parents since infancy. At this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being. —Biblarz, Timothy J.; Stacey, Judith (2010). "How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" (PDF). Journal of Marriage and Family. 72 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

...having same-sex parents is not "on it's face, worse". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to turn this into a discussion, and therefore it does have to do with article improvement. I can understand how two same-sex parents might wind up with a descendant of one of them, which is then adopted by the other parent. Hard for me as a potential "family judge" to award custody of (say) two (unrelated) girls to two men to raise. And hard to see the advantage of awarding two unrelated boys to two women to raise.

Two additional points. One is that two same-parents have been around "forever." (an answer to one of my previous questions). If they've been around "forever," why haven't we seen some of the children in the media either as successful people or criminals? The second reflects this: that same-sex parents, in volume, have not been around "forever." Therefore the results can't yet be perceived. Also, that same sex marriages (pairing, since they weren't legally recognized before) are even less likely to succeed(persist), and therefore the children are more likely to wind up with foster parents.

The answers to these questions are intended to improve article credibility. Student7 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Having two parents as opposed to one is generally beneficial to children (regardless of gender, sexual orientation or relatedness). The basic reason is that there's less financial stress and more time to spend with the kids. As for the results of same-sex parents, the place to look is not the media, but studies that involve real people. The media is not a study and cannot replace a study. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Student7, you're just making a lot of irrational assumptions and all of them are negative. For the record, for every notion of any "significant difference" between same-sex couples parenting and different-sex couples parenting, there is quadruple or more corresponding studies that state there are none. You're being very subjective in your criticism in talking about what would be "hard for you to do". What have the studies of these families shown? They show that the children (adopted, unrelated, biological or otherwise) raised by same-sex parents are not harmed in any way and that they develop the same. Potentially being subject to the prejudice of others (the small-minded, immature, etc.) is not a reflection of the actual parenting same-sex couples provide for their children. And frankly, same-sex couples are well aware and protect their children more due to those possibilities. Your presumption that marriages won't last and children will be likely future wards of the state is utterly ridiculous and unfounded to the core. Most (and I can guarantee it is) same-sex couples who are now marrying have been together for a substantial amount of years, if not decades. I'm beginning to think this is a discussion not fit for a Wikipedia talk page.

You're looking to the media to prove the outcomes of those children? You want them to announce to the world that they are the child of a same-sex couple? What reason would there be to make such an announcement in the media? All of that seems very crazy to me. Though you can easily look to the children of those who are fighting for equality in the courts, which has been publicized. None of their children seem to be evil, corrupt aliens. The obvious thing that is harming them is the discrimination their parents face. Just saying. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Teammm, I think Student7 is looking to the media for examples that might illustrate either side of the discussion, one way or the other, and he's pointing out that there don't seem to be any (outside of a single aside in an old Rolling Stones song, which taken by itself was not encouraging). We can't very well reach the question of outcomes without some examples to evaluate, no?

A more neutral presentation of the Stacey-Biblarz research (mentioned above) would point out their misgivings about the lack of relevant data and the resulting uncertainty such a lack imparts on the current body of knowledge. Instead, we have cherry-picking and declarations that the pronouncements of professional organizations make it all a done deal requiring no further investigation. That's not how science works. Belchfire-TALK 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But there is no cherry picking. The article contains the most reliable information. There are many studies presented by religiously affiliated/motivated institutions and scientists. That's not reliable. There are studies presented by outright bigots. That's not reliable. There are studies that claim to show one thing, but do not. That's not reliable. The organizations in the article, which have membership in the hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers around the world, are not unreliable nor do they present subjectively biased conclusions based on what they studied. Pointing out a difference, for example, of a male child of two lesbians not being as aggressive as the male child of a man and woman is very trivial. The conclusions that the scientific world has come to is that, while there may be some isolated differences, which exist in all types of families not just those with same-sex parents, it is inconceivable to make the generalization that one is better or more efficient than the other. The only contrasts which my have significant differences are those families who do not have two parents, no matter their gender. So there is no rational basis, in my mind and obviously the mind of most studied science on this, to even try to contradict that. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 21:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the higher dropout rate was in the study you just referenced, regarding less aggressive males from lesbian parents. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem, Teammm? (Sadly) that sometimes works in a situation like Chick-fil-A, but humanity doesn't do itself any favors by conducting its science that way. Appeal to authority isn't quite as bad, but it isn't good, either.

I know this comes from a different sort of science, but Einstein made a useful observation about the scientific method: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." The moment we take the word of a scientific authority as final, progress stops.

Gay people can make fine parents, Teammm. I don't think there is any serious question about it, and our articles on the topic should reflect that. But there shouldn't be a problem with giving an honest account about the state of our knowledge, and there shouldn't ever be a motion on the table to freeze the conversation, as if the study of sociology were a game of musical chairs. Belchfire-TALK 21:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your favorite expression. I'm not trying to stifle anyone's editing. I'm sure if there was something contradictory to the scientific consensus an editor wanted to add, they can post it on here for discussion. I'm not a scientist, I didn't make any of the conclusions in the consensus, and I didn't study the subject (even though I don't have to study myself or friends of mine to know what those scientists have said is true), so I can only go by what the scientific community has said. If I was in a profession and presenting an argument contradictory to what most others have concluded, my argument will be tested and if something is right, their conclusions should change in some way. I haven't seen that on this. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Teammm is correct about what reliable sources say, and this is verging into a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. If there's nothing further to discuss, let's end this and focus on editing the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What I find frustrating here is that editors state that this has been going on for generations, all sorts of statistics, etc. etc. Yet even the liberal media doesn't reflect this. http://www.aol.com/video/having-their-baby-woman-gives-baby-to-transgender-man-and-wife/517436149/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl6%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D189268. If this is so "common", why the concern, why the headline? Student7 (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

An administrator should probably collapse this discussion. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam discusses SSM

Should this be added to the 'Subject Debated" column?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-29/vietnam-gay-marriage/56573384/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.245.220 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Obama

Article says that Obama supports repeal of DOMA, etc. It adds that he says the constitutional bans on SSM in two states is "unnecessary." To me this is a weak statement and unnecessary to the article. It may be confusing to non-US readers who don't understand the interplay between state and federal constitutions. (In Switzerland, eg, "state" constitution (if they exist) might supersede the federal. But here, the President does not even suggest that there is a constitutional issue either way. As a non-supporter, I don't want to rm the phrase, but I think that a supporter should. It is not really helpful or important IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Image caption

Everyone involved in the edits about the caption for File:Wedding-chantelois-gomez.jpg apparently prefers to discuss it via edit summaries, but I'm going to play the maverick and open a thread here. The status quo wording—"A gay marriage in Canada"—is problematic for several reasons. First of all, it's not particularly descriptive of what the image depicts. I suspect that whoever initially wrote the caption meant to say "A gay wedding in Canada" (my emphasis). While the word "marriage" can be used as a synonym for "wedding", that's not its primary definition. Readers who know little about the subject could get the impression that gay Canadians typically spend their married lives standing around urban settings in suits and ties, swigging champagne and kissing each other on the cheek. Far-fetched? Yeah, a little, but we're writing for everyone here.

However, the problem cannot be solved merely by changing "marriage" to "wedding". For one thing, the image presumably shows a scene from a wedding day, but presumptions are best avoided; there is no context to suggest that it's part of the actual ceremony and not a reception afterwards (or photo op in between), and "wedding" is generally used as specifically as "marriage" is used vaguely. Also, since the people aren't identified in the caption—although one is apparently notable enough for his own article (with no inline citations, strangely enough)—is the reader expected to assume that they're gay? That sounds like a leap of logic. Maybe one is bi. Maybe both of them are. Maybe they're not the married couple at all. The caption indicates they're a marriage, which isn't really possible. (Nitpicky? Hell, yeah. A caption should be succinct, accurate, and descriptive.)

Finally, I have to say that it's unclear to me that, even if the image did depict a marriage or wedding, it should need to carry the adjective "gay". Ceremonies aren't gay, even when their participants are.

What I'm guessing the image depicts is a recently married couple celebrating on their wedding day. If that can be verified, we can say basically that. Otherwise, I'm not clear on exactly what we can say. Maybe there's a better image available? Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your argument, especially your closing assertion regarding the necessity of the word "gay" in depicting the couple. This was my original point of contention and I'm glad to see the argument validated. Perhaps the caption "A Canadian couple on their wedding day" would garner consensus given the photo is verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyculous (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a change. Feel free to revert back though. I don't think it matters if the image depicts a New Year party or a gay marriage. From looking at it with the caption, it makes sense and serves the article. Acoma Magic (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's better, yes. I'd also be okay with the wording Bradyculous proposed above, but I suggest that consensus should precede any further changes. (Personally, I find the image a little jarring the more I look at it—with the bottle, it looks as much like drunken revelry as joyful frolic—but I guess that's neither here nor there.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection over its removal. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There are alternatives. Unfortunately, none are a whole lot better. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Witherspoon Institute

There's an issue regarding same-sex marriage being discussed on Talk:Witherspoon_Institute. It might be helpful if more editors were involved. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Same-Sex Marriage

Recently I attempted to make the following edit to the religion section.

Many base their opposition to same-sex marriage upon their interpretation of Jesus and his teachings.

The author of the article is Daniel Akin who is the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention. What made this article interesting was its emphasis on applying the teachings of Jesus to same-sex marriage. Many have argued that Jesus had nothing to say about the matter. I thought that wiki readers might be interested in hearing Daniel Akins tradition Christian interpretation on this matter.

While I appreciate Mr. X giving me a good faith edit, I would like to appeal his removal of my edit. Please weigh in on this issue and help us decide if wiki readers would be better informed by Akin's thoughts and my edit. Toverton28 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it's a non-scholarly editorial in an unreliable non-scholarly magazine, so at most it might be useful for the opinion of the author alone. Second of all, it's a primary source, and we have no way of assessing what weight to that opinion as it has not been discussed by independent reliable sources. Opinions like this are dime a dozen, or even dime a gross, so it's really not that significant or useful. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say, but seminary presidents who are major leaders in the largest protestant denomination in the United States are not a "dime a dozen". Daniel Akin certainly speaks with authority when he makes statements on scripture. My main point is that wiki readers would be enriched by hearing this perspective. Toverton28 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Toverton28, I appreciate you bringing this to the talk page. Your edit represented the view of someone to whom the publisher is beholden. Daniel Akin is a prominent leader of the publishing organization, so the blog post lacks journalistic integrity.

You also added this content to the lead of at least one article. The lead should summarize the contents of the rest of the article, not present novel content.

Although it doesn't necessarily preclude inclusion in the Wikipedia articles, some of the claims that Akin makes in his post on Baptist Press defy logic. For example,

His argument for claiming that Jesus spoke against same sex marriage:

"Jesus believed that sex is a good gift from a great God. He also believed that sex was a good gift to be enjoyed within a monogamous, heterosexual covenant of marriage."

These sorts of "if a=b, and d=f, then a=e" arguments tend to insult one's intelligence. — MrX

Thank you Mr.X. I would take a different view that Akin appearing in Baptist Press makes him lack journalistic integrity. If that were true, then all Bill Keller articles appearing in the NYTs would have to be removed from wiki since he was once the editor of the paper. If anything, appearing in Baptist Press (BP) increases the stature of his statements. BP is the media wing of the Southern Baptist Convention. Its articles are picked up by numerous state Baptist papers. I would also like to hear other individuals comment on placement. I think it is also helpful to understand that Akin is a well known evangelical theologian. Neither one of us are likely to win a theological debate with him. The question is not if we agree with him or not, but rather does his article represent a large group of Christians/Evangelicals and their beliefs? Being that his views appeared in BP answers that question in the affirmative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about this edit which added "Many base their opposition to same-sex marriage upon their interpretation of Jesus and his teachings." based on source http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38461. That proposed edit is not suitable for several reasons (source not reliable for "many"; WP:REDFLAG issue because any link between Jesus and same-sex marriage is over-reaching opinion; misuse of Wikipedia's voice for someone's opinion). If the text were rewritten as an attributed opinion, the issue of WP:DUE arises: is the author an acknowleged expert on the issues? is the material useful to the article? is it merely coatracking pro/con arguments? I don't think the text would ever be suitable, except in an article on the author where it might be useful to illustrate his views (although WP:SECONDARY sources should be used for that). Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That he is speaking to a large number of Baptists does not mean that he is speaking for a large number of Baptists (and in fact if all Baptists already held to what he said, he wouldn't need to say it!) So it's certainly insufficient source for the claim it was attached it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinions here? Ron 1987 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Other implications of same-sex marriage

There are many other issues and implications of same-sex marriage, that are relvant to the ongoing political arguments and the interpretation of what 'marriage' means. Some are captured here, but others aren't. Is there benefit in adding sections for things like the impact of the death of a partner on inheritance of assets, pensions, and responsiblities toward surviving children; day-to-day implications such as signing on behalf of the partner, visitation rights in hospital, joint ownership of property, picking up children from school, etc; taxation issues such as dependant spouse and dependant children, joint tax rreturns etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.206.132 (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fictional section

I don't think that "Fictional same-sex marriage" belongs under Issues, I propose that it be relocated to a separate section.

 Done. Teammm ^TM 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"marriage equality" in bold

I've only seen words in bold when they're another name for the article. I don't know if that's backed up by policy, but it's the status quo. So apart from it mocking Wikipedia's neutrality policy, it also shouldn't be in bold anyway. Acoma Magic (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering the context of the sentence, and that the use of the term is clearly attributed to a specific group, I'm having problems understanding how this is "mocking". eldamorie (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is another name for the article. Titles don't necessarily have to be neutral, and the bar for alternative titles is lower than for article titles. Marriage equality is a common term, well supported by available sources, and presented in a way that makes it clear it is used by supporters. --Trystan (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

[ WP:EDITCONFLICT with Trystan]. Acoma Magic, "marriage equality" is another name for the article. It's a redirect. And, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Abbreviations and synonyms, because it is another name (widely-used name)/redirect, it should be bolded. It follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Alternative names and Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names (see the small picture example on both pages?)

As an aside, perhaps you already know that everyone can see through your "I'm trying to present neutrality" charade; your "neutrality" is consistently focused on same-sex issues in opposition of same-sex issues/aspects; a lot of editors at this site have seen this type of behavior countless times before. And your having followed Teammm from the Homosexuality article to the Oprah Winfrey article is hopefully something that does not become a WP:STALKING pattern of yours regarding Teammm or others concerning other articles. From what I can see, there are a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and even essays that you need to read up on if you plan to edit here for long in the topics that you've been editing in. Removing images from articles just because you feel like it (with "justifications" being that "It doesn't look great," "Removed low quality image," or something of the sort), as you did while in conflict with Teammm at the Oprah Winfrey article, is often not good conduct. Not good reasons, since what doesn't look great or is low-quality to you may look great or not be low-quality to others; a lot of images have been discussed before being added or after being added and have WP:Consensus for being there, which is why it is generally best to ask on the talk page of the article in question before removing an image/images. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's mocking Wikipedia's neutrality because it is not an alternative name for the article, yet it's still in bold. Marriage equality is not an alternative name for same-sex marriage. Some may claim that once same-sex marriage is legalised, marriage will then be equal, but it's not the same as an alternative title. Responding to the IP, LGBT articles seem to be mostly or significantly edited by LGBT people, so support is usually well covered. I didn't edit anything Teammm edited, so your allegation of stalking is ridiculous. Images that are low quality or look bad should be removed and I'll continue to remove those. Images don't have to have consensus before being added. They are usually simply added to the article. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, to Scientiom, Jojalozzo's edit of that paragraph looks much better and I'd like to know why you don't think so. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Acoma magic, i disagree with you because there are many neutral reliable sources describing it as such for example [1], [2] Pass a Method talk 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Acoma: I agree with the others that "marriage equality" is indeed an alternative title for the article, as is clear from the sentence in which it appears, and should therefore appear in bold print. I see no possible POV problem with this, and do not agree with your assertion that it is "mocking" in any way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's usually not opposition to medical things, so medical people editing them shouldn't cause any neutrality issues. Where has it been shown "time and time again"? Where are the agreements that have been made? I'm not offended, it's just going to make readers suspicious about whether this article is neutral. Those reliable sources you have there just show that people feel that marriage will be equal if same-sex marriage is passed. It is not the same as being an alternative name for same-sex marriage. The sentence in which it appears says that recognition of same-sex marriage is marriage equality. Which is exactly what I've been saying. They say recognising SSM is making marriage equal. It does not mean that marriage equality is therefore another name for SSM. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: stricken text a response to now-deleted comment. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence most definitely DOES NOT say, as you claim it does, that "recognition of same-sex marriage is marriage equality". The term is properly attributed to "supporters", so I cannot understand why you think that there may be a POV problem with this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's not a POV problem with the words, just that two of them are in bold when they shouldn't be. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Acoma Magic, you have no proof that "LGBT articles are mostly or significantly edited by LGBT people." And it's not just about you not supporting LGBT issues because they are "usually well covered." Most edits that I have seen of yours, including some of your comments, regarding LGBT issues are always in direct conflict with LGBT aspects (such as definitions). And you followed Teammm from the Homosexuality article to the Oprah Winfrey article and were in dispute with him over an image; so you have indeed edited something Teammm has edited and stalked Teammm's edits. There's also other articles you and Teammm have edited, which is understandable since you have taken an interest in editing LGBT articles. But you didn't suddenly end up at the Oprah Winfrey article a little after he did by coincidence. I doubt that that's the first time you stalked (and I mean "followed" when I state "stalked" in this case) his edits. And saying that "Images that are low quality or look bad should be removed and I'll continue to remove those. Images don't have to have consensus before being added. They are usually simply added to the article." further shows how much reading you have to do regarding Wikipedia guidelines/policies. I repeat that what is considered low-quality or "looking bad" is often subjective. And, actually, images do need consensus before being added when current consensus favors one or more images over one or more other images, or when consensus is against a particular image that a person wants to add, or when consensus is for no image. New consensus must be formed before the previous consensus can be disregarded. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and your striked-out comment that "There's usually not opposition to medical things, so medical people editing them shouldn't cause any neutrality issues." is something members at WP:MED can tell you isn't any bit true. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite my lack of proof, they are edited mostly or significantly by LGBT people. I'm guessing you're referring to the outing article regarding definitions. I said I was open to other wordings so... whatever alligator. No, Teammm edited something I edited. I removed an image than he had nothing to do with then he reverted. So yes, it's still a ridiculous accusation. Since that wasn't a stalking incident, let me know if you find any. No, again I was right. They do not need consensus to be added. When consensus favours a different image, then of course, but that isn't what you said before. It is true; remember the word "usually". Maybe we should stay on topic? Acoma Magic (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have proof, you cannot state that "they are edited mostly or significantly by LGBT people." Regarding definitions, I'm referring to more than that. Even this discussion is half about definitions -- same-sex marriage also being described as marriage equality. And, oh, I see that you like to play a semantics game: "Teammm edited something [you] edited." I see. It still does not take away from the fact that you followed him to that article, and that I'm certain that it was you fishing for a dispute with him; nor does it take away from the fact that you have edited a variety of things he has edited. I'm willing to bet that you have followed him from one article to another several, if not more, times, which is stalking, and that it was you looking for a dispute with him at least half of those times. But deny if you must. I repeat that "everyone can see through your 'I'm trying to present neutrality' charade." And you are wrong about images not needing consensus before being added, per my above commentary. In some cases, they do. You'll learn that soon enough if you keep going down the image-path you are going down, if you aren't permanently blocked first. But by all means, go back to being on-topic. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I just did. How could removing an image of Oprah be fishing for a dispute with him? I'm still waiting for an example of stalking. I'm not wrong. You said they needed consensus. I said that they are usually simple added to the article; which they are. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And please stop wasting my time with this off-topic silliness. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Following a user that you have been in constant dispute with to another article isn't looking for a dispute with that user, especially when you nitpick on the article in question in a way that is likely to be reverted? Um, yeah, it usually is. See the WP:WIKIHOUNDING link I pipelinked beneath WP:STALKING above. You are wrong. If you followed him to that article, which you clearly did, you have very likely followed him to other articles. Your only cover is when you follow him to LGBT articles, since you also now largely edit LGBT articles; although a case can be made for stalking if you are showing up to articles in the same exact pattern that the user in question is, or soon after the user in question. If you continue to follow him to mostly off-topic articles (mostly off-the-topic of LGBT issues, that is, like Oprah Winfrey), you will be called out and sanctioned for it. The images issue was already sufficiently addressed by me. None of what I stated is silliness. Stop wasting my time with your denials about stalking Teammm. Go back to, and stay on, the on-topic discussion instead of trying to convince me otherwise regarding your motives. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not in constant dispute, removing a low quality image isn't nitpicking and you still haven't provided any examples in which I've followed him to other articles. I'm allowed to look at other people's contributions and when I saw the Oprah article I decided to have a look at it. A case for stalking or hounding can only be made if I went there to revert or edit his content. I did nothing to his content and I edited something else. Can somebody hat this? I'm involved so I'll leave it to somebody else. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you two are in constant dispute. Saying that you aren't is laughable, given the diff-links that can be provided showing that to be the case. And a case for stalking doesn't have to be made on whether or not you have reverted or "edited his content." You either did not read WP:WIKIHOUNDING or have not comprehended it in its entirety, but it is clear what constitutes WP:WIKIHOUNDING on the policy page about it. And it's difficult to hat this portion of the discusssion since it is mixed in with the original discussion, unless it is all grouped together away from the original discussion. But I wouldn't mind anyway (if it was done by someone other than you, of course). 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is from Wikihounding: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Are we done here? Acoma Magic (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it says nothing about a Wikihounding case only being made "if [you] went there to revert or edit his content." So, yes, we are done here. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I didn't do that, then I assume you agree that I didn't Wikihound. Feel free to hat this yourself, as I've got no objections. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I know what you claim. But you followed an editor that you have constantly been in dispute with regarding LGBT topics to a mostly non-LGBT topic. Wikihounding is not only about specifically editing a user's contribution. It's also about following that user to articles and editing those articles in a way/ways that is/are likely to lead to a dispute with that editor and cause distress for that editor. The policy page is clear about it, saying: "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." You claim that you didn't do that; I'm not buying it. That's just the way that it is. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lucky I edited the article in a way that isn't likely to lead to a dispute with that editor. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Riiight. That it did lead to a dispute is just the luck of the draw. Okey dokey. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of having common alternative titles in bold is to make it clear at a glance to readers that they have indeed arrived at the article addressing the topic they were looking for. In this case, a reader might look for information on marriage equality after, for example, hearing about New York's Marriage Equality Act. Marriage equality redirects here, and the bold alternative title lets those readers see this is the article dealing with that topic. 58.53.192.218, this talk page is for discussing improvements to this article. If you have concerns about edits to other articles or about editors generally, please take them to the appropriate venue.--Trystan (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can see what you mean. However, I'm saying that marriage equality is simply what some people say will be the result of SSM. It doesn't make it an alternative name for SSM. The Marriage Equality Act is titled because it's about making marriage equal through the introduction of SSM. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Without a separate article on Same-sex marriage equality, any discussion of same-sex marriage is going to be primarily about the issue of same-sex couples even having the right to marry. What happens to this article after those rights are secured is anybody's guess. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't tell if that's for or against "marriage equality" remaining in bold. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Déjà vu. We went through all of this a mere three months ago. Rivertorch (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir in Orange?

In the map listing out the countries as per their reaction to same sex unions, its shocking that Indian Administered Kashmir is shown as having a different colour than the rest of India. Last I remembered, the part of Kashmir under Indian rule is pretty much subject to the same regulations as the rest of India. Tigerassault (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir is subject to a different penal code, the "Ranbir Penal Code", and apparently the court decision on section 377 IPC didn't read down the corresponding section of the RPC. - htonl (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If that was a joke, then it missed me (and probably everyone else other than you). But I think we should make Kashmir the same colour as the rest of India Tigerassault (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, why would you think it was a joke? To quote from the ILGA report (page 42, section "India"):

"In most of India, the Indian Penal Code is applicable. In 2009, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was given a more limited interpretation, lifting the ban on same-sex sexual activity among consenting adult men. However, in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Penal Code is not applicable, but rather the Ranbir Penal Code (adapted from the Indian Penal Code) is applicable. Since the judgment of the Delhi High Court applies only where the Indian Penal Code is applicable, it does not change comparable provisions in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, Section 377 of the Ranbir Penal Code remains in effect, prohibiting same-sex sexual activity. If Section 377 of the IPC is struck down by the Supreme Court, then the pari materia provision in the Ranbir Penal Code will be automatically struck down as well - following precedents of the case Jankar Singh v State."

It's my understanding that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the appeal of the Naz Foundation case. - htonl (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Last paragraph in lead

Jojalozzo changed it to something more concise and I think a lot better. This is what it looks like: Studies conducted in several countries indicate that same-sex marriage finds more support among younger adults and people with higher education.[2] Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not.[3]

and this is what it currently is: Studies conducted in several countries indicate that better-educated people are more likely to support the legalization of same-sex marriage than the less-educated, and younger people are more likely to support it than older generations.[2] Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not.[3]

Thoughts? Acoma Magic (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It makes it concise, but the two are not necessarily complementary and the concise version may make readers think they are. --Scientiom (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How does it make it look complementary? It says 'support among younger adults and people with higher education.' This clearly separates young people and people with higher education. 201.67.15.211 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Polls for same-sex marriage and Argentina section

The polls are so close to half that when you take into account the margin of error in the source, it goes down to less than half. Therefore, it shouldn't say a majority when the sources used show that it may be less than half. Regarding my other edit, Same-sex_marriage#Argentina already says "a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples." so the repeat of that just down from it is unnecessary. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. We should stick to what the sources say. Mentioning the margin of error is fine, but don't change language. Teammm ^TM 01:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the change precisely because of what the sources say. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Post a quote or section that resembles what you wrote. Teammm ^TM 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Numbers are as valuable as words. The numbers from the sources show that it could be less than half. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources say 53% and majority, so that's what we must say. This seems nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to use statistics and original research to revise facts. – MrX 02:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The other source says 51% and includes a margin of error that will easily take it to less than half. There's no original research in using the whole source rather than just the headline. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you then think we should go with the outlier of the group to make the numbers look as low as we possibly can? – MrX 02:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There's only 3 polls. Two say 53% and one says 51%. All 3 of them have a margins of error reaching less than 50%. It should say that polls show around half of Americans support SSM and specify the two numbers. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Source #1: "For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages." (Gallup from May 2011)

Source #2: "More than half of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal...this year's 53 percent..."

Source #3: "More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post...grown to 53 percent..." (ABC/Washington Post from March 2011)

Source #4: "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? ...should be recognized as valid ...51% (CNN/ORC from April 2011)

Your edit isn't reflective of the sources. Also, the CNN/ORC and ABC/WashingtonPost polls were redone in 2012 reporting 54% and 53%, mooting old ones. Teammm ^TM 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

One of those sources is just reporting another one. The 54% poll is the only poll to miss out of being half or less according to the margin or error. We should go with what the majority of sources say. The most accurate thing to put is that support of SSM is around half and give the 51-54% number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoma Magic (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's 2012 and no poll is reporting 51% if you haven't noticed. Take a look at the sources. Thank you. Teammm ^TM 13:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't just remove the sources and say that lol. Even the 53% polls show that it could be less than half. I restored the 51% poll as it's only a year old and isn't invalid. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove them, I updated them with the identical new one. What are you...blind or bad at comprehension? Stop trying to edit war. It's far from "lol" material. Teammm ^TM 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The MSNBC source is only used once. Also, the poll is reporting 51% only a year ago and we don't have enough sources for 2012 to invalidate that. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to reporting a range of percentages, but interpreting the margin of error to dispute "majority" is clear WP:OR. Remember, the poll itself is a primary source. We need to rely upon secondary sources to interpret it, and they interpret it as "a majority". Glaucus (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that reading beyond the headline (in order to avoid giving out possibly false information, which omitting the margin of error will do) is OR, but there's no point in arguing the same point again; I'll wait and see if more people join the discussion. Also, you reverted my removal of a bit from the Argentina subsection. I said why I did that up the top of here and do you agree or disagree? Acoma Magic (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Including the margin of error in the text is one thing, using it to dispute the source's interpretation (of majority) is another. But I don't think including margin of error is standard on wiki; it seems unnecessarily confusing when we have reliable sources to interpret them for us. As for the Argentina section, I disagree that it is at all POV (as the edit summary said). Furthermore, the quote from the article was about support for marital rights, not the bill itself. From the article: "polls showing that nearly 70 percent of Argentines support giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals." Glaucus (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just a repeat of the information above it. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really confused now. How is the result of a public opinion poll a repeat of "the Argentine Senate approved a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples"? Just because marital rights legislation is passed doesn't mean that marital rights has popular support, and vice versa. Glaucus (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It just needs to say something like "support for same-sex marriage in Argentina was nearly 70%". If there wasn't already information on the bill then it could be long winded. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Anything over 50 percent is indeed "more than half", and half is a common and useful threshold, so it's reasonable to use that wording in the article. "Around half", while not untrue, is less precise and tends to obfuscate that the figure at issue is in fact above the threshold. I propose a slight modification, changing "Recent polls show" to "Recent polls indicate"; that's more accurate, since the only thing that a given poll definitively shows is the results of a given poll. Various factors, including margin of error, can skew poll results, so I think that would be better wording. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't actually be less precise since the exact percentages (51-54%) would be there. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

51% hasn't been found in a legitimate national poll since the beginning of 2011. That's not considered recent. Okay? The poll you insist on using the 51% has concluded 53% at the end of 2011, and 54% in Late May 2012. All recent polls indicate 53-54%. Teammm ^TM 00:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You only have 3 polls to give. Two of them go to less than half because of the margin of error. So that's the first thing regarding language of "majority". Second, 3 polls is not enough to invalidate a poll taken a year ago. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that at least 3, maybe 2 more studies are needed that were taken later than the 51% poll to invalidate it (assuming the results are higher than 51%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoma Magic (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating the same arguments and beating a WP:DEADHORSE. As Teammm has said very plainly, all recent polls indicate 53-54% If you disagree with that fact, make your case with source-backed references, not hypothetical suppositions. – MrX 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"all recent polls"? It is only 3 polls you claim and one year is very recent. Recent polls give 51-54%. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, 51% and 53% are both over the majority, so the argument is unnecessary. If the 2012 polls were reported on or done by the same source as the 2011 that gives 51%, the new percentage should be used. If you feel the 51% must be in the article, maybe propose to say that "In 2011, polls ranged from 51%-54%. In 2012, polls ranged from 53%-54%." A margin of error is implied in the use of the term "poll". I believe the average user understands that a poll does not actually ask every single person in the world. Acronin3 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much settled, and I don't think you will get a response from Acoma Magic any time soon, as he/she has been indefinitely blocked. 18:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! Thanks for letting me know :-D Acronin3 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Polls show...

The concluding sentence in the lead says, "Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not.[3]"

For starters, we don't seem to have cause and affect here. Correlation maybe but no causation. If I know someone is gay and I do or do not want to get to know them better, that tends to display my own opinion, but does not really demonstrate the cause at all.

With maybe 4% of men and 1% of women, gay in America, it would really be difficult not to "know someone who was gay." Particularly in the city. In rural areas, maybe not.

I think the sentence should be dropped as irrelevant. Student7 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant to what? People who know a gay person on a personal basis (ie. friend or close acquaintance) are more likely to support equal rights for them. I don't follow what you're saying. Teammm ^TM 03:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I also don't understand what you mean. CTF83! 03:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While the objection is without base as given (there is no claim of causation) and it seems rather relevant in reflecting support, the editor is actually correct in that the sentence should be dropped... just for other reasons. The poll referenced to is a US-specific poll, showing only the Americans who say they know someone who is gay is more likely to support SSM; as such, while it would have a place in SSM in America, it doesn't really deserve a spot in the intro in this non-country-specific article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I cited Australia, Britain, and Canada. I'm sure it's a universal thing. Teammm ^TM 01:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The cites for Australia and Britain are not relevant ones, as the reports do not separate the level of SSM support based on whether one knows homosexuals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the cites are irrelevant at all. It's difficult to find references that explicitly analyze in writing the question at hand. Other countries are simply not reporting that specific question unlike the U.S. What the cited polls do show is that the groups supporting marriage equality by significant majority (ie. women and people ages 18-34), are also more likely (by significant majority) to have close friends or relatives who are gay or lesbian. Teammm ^TM 02:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So they don't actually say what the statement they're used as reference for says, and we have no support for the general-case statement that's in the intro. I'm taking it out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

[3] seems to clearly state this. --Scientiom (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said NAT. If I thought the references didn't support it, I would've removed it myself. Teammm ^TM 13:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems very likely this is the case universally, but I don't see the references to support generalizing. I agree with Nat that this should be limited to statements about America. Glaucus (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And statementes specifically about America (which, Scientiom, is what the link you refer to covers) would be weak for inclusion in the intro of this global article, particularly a secondary measure on public opinion. (For that matter, an aggregation of English-speaking primarily-caucasian first world countries as an indicator for the general case would be weak as well.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more sources out there which can be found with a bit of searching for this. --Scientiom (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Until then, can we remove the statement from the intro for which we do not currently have support? (And similarly, remove the similar generalist statement from the body of the article for which the support is a US-specific poll? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears that some editors disagree about the content of the sources that the polls and conclusion are universal and not just for the USA. It also appears there is consensus that this statement about the polls not be included if and until other sources are found that make similar claims for regions in the world other than the USA. Those that are restoring this information should bother themselves to read all the sources to verify this claim before restoring again.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not appear to be the consensus, so please stop edit-warring. Thank you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As for editors that have actually commented on the content of the sources, there is unanimous consensus. Instead of making false accusations, why don't you comment on the sources?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, removal doesn't seem to have support on any basis. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is consensus to keep information in an article that doesn't support the sources, then I don't know if there is any reason to keep discussing this with you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your choice, but I've noticed that your edits keep getting reverted, so I think you need to convince someone. Might as well start with me, as I'm entirely willing to revert your next attempt. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get into an edit-war here. There is no consensus here to remove the text, so it should remain unless consensus to remove it emerges. --Scientiom (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, the sentence is a reasonable generalization, indicative of current social attitudes. It passes the common sense test, and as long as consensus trends toward keeping it, it should stay. – MrX 13:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading the sentence that is actually there, and it's making a specific claim ("Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not") that is not supported by the sources used. When we look at what is actually there, rather than the claim one might pretend it is, what we might want to infer from the sources to support it, and what sources we'd like to believe exist, it doesn't hold up. I'm numbering my assertions, so that they can easily be addressed specifically:

1. The Australian study, while it notes some subset of those who personally know a homosexual (it limits it to "close friends or relatives") and notes percentage of SSM support, does not correlate the two, and thus doesn't make the statement that it is being used as source for and should not be included.
2. The British study is actually a follow-up to the previous study, and has the same limitations in question, the same lack of correlation of the two questions, and thus should not be included.
3. The HuffPo article, which is on a survey of only Americans, similarly limits its statement to having a "close friend or family member" rather than who one knows, and while it talks about those who know such a person and those who support SSM, does not show how those answers correlate. It does not make the statement that we are asserting. Additionally, it is only a survey of Americans.
4. The ABC News/WashPost poll does address a group descriptor similar to what we state and does actually make a statement of correlation between knowing a homosexual and supporting SSM ("Seventy-one percent of Americans now say they have a friend, family member or acquaintance who’s gay, up from 59 percent in 1998. People who know someone who’s gay are 20 points more likely than others to support gay marriage.") However, it is a poll specifically of Americans.
5. Given 1-4, we have a total of one poll actually making the assertion claimed.
6. That poll is specifically of Americans, and cannot be assumed to apply to the general world population.
7. Even if we were to assume through WP:OR that the other sources listed did indicate correlation, they are still of a very limited, non-diverse group of regions - four first world, primarily English-speaking, primarily-Christian, primarily-Caucasian nations - and thus cannot be seen as representing the general case.
8. Even if we had multiple polls covering the world in order to support this statement, it may not be appropriate to put it in the intro. The intro is meant to be a summary of the longer article; this one sentence is almost as long as the one poorly-sourced sentence in the body text it is meant to summarize, and is not particularly primary to the core of the topic (it is not directly about SSM, it is not directly about support for SSM, it is about correlation of some other factor with support for SSM.)

I understand editors' belief that knowledge of homosexuals is likely to have a positive impact on support for legalization for SSM, but we are making a specific claim here subject to verifiability. If you wish to maintain the material, please address the numbered points above. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is non-obvious to a statistician whether people who support Obama/Biden are generally Democrats or whether Democrats generally support Obama/Biden. The cause and affect cannot be separated in this manner.

For my substitute example, I might be able to correlate precincts with % Democrats before the election and % of people in those precincts voting Obama/Biden. For the substitute example, it is not an impossible statistic to compute, along with a confidence factor. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Brackets

The lede currently shows christian and jewish denominations in brackets and mentions the main religions (jewish, christian). I think the brackets and the main religions should be removed because they are unnecessary. I think it should be reverted to yesterday's version. Do you agree? Pass a Method talk 17:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the whole section should be generalized - the list really can go on and on - and is just going to continue to get larger and larger, for obvious reasons. --Scientiom (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it will get larger because the religious view article has been largely stable for years. It will probably remain stable if we define "religious groups" as notable denominations and religions, instead of adding each average joe in the mix.

I've been thinking about adding a hidden hatnote inside the paragraph saying "only add religions and major denominations rather than individual churches, temples etc." or something along those lines. Pass a Method talk 13:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added the hatnote. Pass a Method talk 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I had no response for three days so worded it like the revious version. Pass a Method talk 11:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"typically"

A line in the introduction claims that "Supporters of legal recognition for same-sex marriage typically refer to such recognition as marriage equality." However, the source given for that statement makes no such claim; it merely quotes four supporters (all then US celebrities) as using the "marriage equality" term. The claim is dubious, and the source given quite insufficient for it; I tried switching "typically" with "sometimes", but an editor reverted it for reasons which were cut off (apparently exceeding the length of the explanation field.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is typical. How about "often"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How about "some supporters", and drop the latter adjective altogether? I really don't know that it is typical; it's not uncommon, but even in the US, I know a fair number of supporters who refer to supporting same-sex marriage as, well, supporting same-sex marriage. (And just to slam a quick loose quantification on it: "I+support+same-sex+marriage" "I support same-sex marriage" gets 2.5 times as many ghits as "I+support+same-sex+marriage" "I support marriage equality.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if we take Google as authoritative, 2.5:1 is still often. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we don't have anything authoritative that speaks to frequency. I can see wanting to include the term so that folks who get redirected to this page from "marriage equality" see what's going on, but I don't see the need to claim frequency. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nat, I agree that it is unquantifiable, and perhaps there is a better word than 'typically'. I don't believe that 'some' is the correct word though, because in this context, I think it implies a minority. How about, " Supporters of legal recognition for same-sex marriage often refer to such recognition as marriage equality."? – MrX 16:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we kill the sentence altogether, build the information into the first sentence (Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage or homosexual marriage, with some proponents calling for marriage equality or genderless marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity.) Then either kill the paragraph break leading into what is now the second paragraph, or finish out the first paragraph with something like While most of the world's legal jurisdictions do not grant or recognize same-sex marriages, the availability of same-sex marriage has been a political issue since the 1990s, as various locales have considered and at times chosen ending the restriction of marriage to solely mix-sexed couples. -- making the opening graph the definition and making clear that this is an issue in play. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Take out homosexual marriage and genderless marriage...for starters. Your proposal complicates everything. It should stay as is. Teammm ^TM 02:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know "starters" was a reason. I see no argument for why that one piece of nomenclature is so important that it gets the second sentence all for itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, basically it's not better than what's there now and sounds pretty ignorant. Teammm ^TM 06:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no argument for why we should keep a second sentence that appears to be false, is certainly not appropriately sourced, and has dubious reasons for being so important that it must be the second sentence of the article? Can we agree to get rid of that sentence? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Often (or commonly) may be the best term to use, as was suggested here. The majority of groups, such as the Human Rights Committee, PFLAG, GLSEN, GLAAD, etc. commonly use the term Marriage Equality when speaking about gay-marriage rights. News articles discussing same-sex rights refer to the legislature as "Marriage Equality Laws." It is also common sense IMO -- equal rights for marriage would be considered marriage equality....Acronin3 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this sounds "nicer" than "same-sex marriage," but don't see why it expresses anything other than a foggy notion. What if "Right to Life" changed their name to "Equal Right to Life?" Or Man-Boy advocates to "Equal Rights for all." The renaming really seems to cloud, rather deliberately, IMO, what is under discussion. How about the "right" of 16 year-olds to marriage or (in third world countries) the "right" of 9-year olds to marriage? Isn't that a "marriage equality" issue as well? And, if not, is it only because you don't agree with their position?

I would like to see a clear name in an encyclopedia. Okay to call it anything one wants in a political rally, but let's leave political renaming to politicians, and use names that are clear here. And, if reported, at all, at least describe the renaming as done by politicos/supporters and not by the reliably-sourced world that we are trying to create here. Student7 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "nicer". Frankly, either "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage" sound perfectly nice to me. It's a matter of framing it in terms of the underlying principle -- equality -- instead of just the result. Wikipedia policy is to allow groups to self-identify, such as "pro-life" as opposed to the more honest, "anti-choice". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. My specific objections were already met. I should have read the wording. Student7 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, does anyone have a reason why this less-common piece of nomenclature needs the whole second sentence devoted to it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a separate sentence is the clearest way to introduce the alternative term and how it is used; adding the explanation of the term into the first sentence leaves the it rather overburdened. I would support changing typically to often or commonly, or change the first part to "Some supporters..." and removing typically, as was also suggested above.--Trystan (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's clearer, yes, but need this less-common bit of terminology be covered up front at all? Is it truly the second most important thing that one need know about same-sex marriage? --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's important enough as a synonym that it should be included in bold and early in the lead. It's quite common as an alternative term; some sources use it to the exclusion of same-sex marriage. As one example, the New York legislation is titled the Marriage Equality Act.--Trystan (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Religious approval

We've discussed this several times before. One statement concludes, "...including various Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu denominations and groups, and various other faiths and religious sects."

Let's say in a political article, I insert material that cites Romney as being approved by "various Democratic party members (organizations) throughout the country." There is, of course, an effort by both political parties to "line up" people in the opposite party to agree with the other side. There is conjecturally a "Democrats for Romney" organization someplace (and a corresponding "Republicans for Obama"). These are not null sets. And on election day, exit polls will show that 10% of people identifying as Democrats voted for Romney, and a corresponding number of Republicans who voted for Obama. But neither of these represents the general view at all. Most Democrats are quite happy with Obama, most people who have registered as Republicans will vote for Romney. Any stories to the contrary are just expected media/party "spin."

Question: why are we reporting "spin?" We are not the media. Mainline Christian, Jews and Muslims all approve of chastity and mostly disapprove of lust. Buddhists disapprove of all exterior sensations. I would like to see the above sentence reworded. Student7 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is it in the article? I've searched and I can't seem to locate it. Perhaps you could include the entire sentence here. – MrX 19:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article on chastity or lust, so where the religions stand on those things is irrelevant. This is an article on marriage. Same-sex marriage has significant support in at least American Judaism, with the Conservative Rabbinical Authority having okayed SSM and divorce ceremonies, and the endorsement of the Union for American Hebrew Congregations. This isn't approval by individual members, these are some of the most sizable central organizations in the non-inherently-organized religion of Judaism, and it's hard to paint them as not "mainstream". --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the major religions have a number of denominations. These major branches often deride the others as heretic. The usage of "mainstream" regarding religion is usually POV especially on an encyclopedia. Pass a Method talk 21:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course its POV. The question is does the current sentance in the lead refelect the mainstream of the cited religions, or are they the "heretic" offshoots?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'chastity' and 'lust' comments threw me off as well - what was the point of those comments? This article is about marriage. --Scientiom (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Chastity, lust

Sorry, I thought you knew. Christian objection to SSM is based on such religious objections documented in (for example) Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357 [4] and involves a goal of chastity and the avoidance of what religion considers sin (lust). It is germane to this article because it sums up why Christians object to SSM (though other Christians may word their objection differently).

Yes, but whether Judaism condemns "lust" or praises "chastity" would not in any way answer the question 'does it support same-sex marriage". Even Christianity isn't condemning of marriage (well, Paul wasn't too fond of it) or sex within marriage. For us to say "Judaism praises chastity, and because we editors think that same-sex relations cannot be chaste, therefor Judaism does not support same-sex marriage" would be WP:OR of a rather lazy, presumptive form. Major Jewish groups have voiced support for the availability of SSM and have created ceremonies for it. That's reality, no matter how one may wish to try to apply one's own interpretation of Christian belief to other religions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what chastity is. Quoting from the article you linked to: "...the term has become closely associated (and is often used interchangeably) with sexual abstinence, especially before marriage". And this article is about marriage! --Scientiom (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Add to article, in Summary:

There are three types of marriage, according to Faith and Practice by Frank E. Wilson (ref Faith and Practice ISBN 081921082X). The first, and most important, is between two people - they marry each other. The second, and less important, is by one's religion, and through the auspices of the church. The third, and least important, is by obtaining a marriage license. Marriage licenses were originally created to permit marriages which otherwise would have been illegal, and did not exist in the United States prior to the mid to late 19th century and early 20th century, and were instituted to prevent blacks from marrying whites.(ref Marriage license#United States - both there and here need a reference![5] [6] [7] [8] [9] - the last sentence in that last reference is the most important) Today marriage licenses are similarly used in preventing same sex couples from marrying. Some religions object to same sex marriages, some embrace them. The first type of marriage does not require any permission.

--2ndAmendment (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Brazil

We can probably use some more eyes on Brazil. When marriage is legalized in US states, they're added to the list before any marriages are performed. It would appear that marriage is now legally open in several Brazilian states, but we need 2ary sources to avoid OR in interpreting the judgements ourselves. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Map

Great job on the map. I think some countries should be added to the "Government announced intention to legalize" section: United Kingdom, Uruguay, Luxembourg [already on map –K] and New Zealand. Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 00:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about some of those. I was going off the wording of our articles, and am not clear what distinctions there are. I colored a country tan where the govt is in control of legislation and announced that they will pass a bill. In the case of the UK, Scotland, Uruguay, and NZ, the govt only announced that they will propose a bill for debate. So in one case there is an official statement that marriage will be open, and in the other a statement that marriage might be open. Is this a viable distinction to make? Could we add another color for the maybes? Or am I misreading the political situation in France, Finland, and Lux? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Luxembourg is already on the map - sorry for not noticing it. About the rest - well, it's complicated because I guess each country has its own legislative system and we don't know how they all work (at least I don't). At least from the article about the UK it seems the govt is very determined about making the bill a reality, and it seems it has the power to do so. But maybe I am mistaken. Maybe we can change the phrasing of the statement to something like - "Government-supported bill in legislation", this way it could include those other countries. :) Anyway, very good Job, we've waited for such a map for a long time! :) Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. Maybe "Government proposal for legalization"?, as bills are alleged but not confirmed in some cases. Maybe leave this discussion open for another 24 hrs or so, to see if we get more knowledgeable opinions?

As for the UK, would leg. cover the Falklands, Gibraltar, etc? Relevant for filling out the map. (France is questionable for the same reason.)

Uruguay: we only have one case, being appealed, not an established precedent, so should the green be removed?

BTW, I purposefully left out jurisdictions which have passed laws against gay marriage for two reasons: (1) they don't make any actual difference to people not being able to get married, and (2) it would be distracting to seeing at a glance where things are legal.

And I'm glad no-one's deleting the map: I thought about this a couple months ago but didn't do it because I feared that might be its fate. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The map is very significant and there is no reason for deleting it. If this issue ever comes up I'm all for keeping the map :) About territories like Gibraltar etc - I have no idea, I hope someone who knows will join the conversation soon. As for the rest - sure, let's keep the discussion open, it's always good to get as many opinions as possible. :) Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 03:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and added them, as I'm not sure our sources are good enough to make such a distinction. — kwami (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! :) Ben Gershon - בן גרשון (Talk) 01:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In the News nomination

For those of you who may be interested in an ITN nomination related to this article: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#LGBT-related_politics. --Grotekennis (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Map colour changes

Would anyone object to me altering the current map's colour scheme based on similar maps regarding homosexuality laws? Right now it's pretty drab. I could also move the map to Commons in the process. If no objections, I'll do so in about a week. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would, depending on what you have in mind. This is based on the older map, but the colors are different where the meaning is different. The 2nd color is not just for recognition but also for limited performance, as in California and Brazil, so IMO we shouldn't use the same color as for Mexico in the old map. The 4th color is purposefully drab (close to grey) because it's not clear there ever will be a law, and the country might revert to grey; in the 3rd a law is mandated, so the color is brighter, but again there isn't any actual recognition. So those colors are intentionally drab: Intense color means actual recognition in some form, drab color means no recognition, only potential. (Also, where you see the new map as drab, I see the old one as garish, so it's also a matter of preference.) — kwami (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna roughly do it based on this map with the different shades of blue for different types of relationships, just excluding all the countries with bans and stuff since we already have a map for that. On the current map the dark blue for full marriage rights is good and in common with all the other maps regarding homosexual rights, but the other sets of colours are very dull and lack contrast making the map less recognizable IMO. I'd then use types of greens for the issue being under consideration, the government planning on introducing full rights, and for high court rulings as is the case of Colombia and Nepal. When I'm done, I'll absolutely be open to any suggestions, but I think it woudl be much better than the current colour scheme. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the colour scheme as promised, I think this provides a better contrast, though the map is not wanting to update on this article. As long as there are no objections or suggestions, I'll work on moving the map to Commons, and I'll make it clear there that the map is just for equal marriage and the stuff surrounding it, excluding civil unions and partnerships, as well as any bans or laws against homosexuality, as we already have a map that shows all that stuff. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The new blue isn't bad (though not actually much of a change in contrast), but the two greens are nearly indistinguishable. Also, their darker colors wrongly suggest to me that there are such laws in these countries. Yes, I know that all you have to do is read the key, but the visual impression that one comes away with before even getting to the key is misleading.

In the original scheme, the colors vary across two dimensions: From dark (legal) to light (discussion) and from blue (legal) to yellow (discussion). In-between are a medium-dark blue-green and a medium-light green-yellow. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In my new scheme, the dark blue for marriage equality is the same, but a new light blue I have created where it is recognized in limited circumstances like Brazil. Then there is a dark green where it's heading forward with government support, and a lighter green where the High Court has ruled in favour but the government hasn't done anything. There is consistency betwen the two where dark means "yes" and lighter means "it's unclear". The two greens I feel are distinguishable enough, and none of the colours overlap with the homosexuality laws map so there wont be confusion. I could make the darker of the two greens even darker, to match how the marriage blue is a very dark one. Would that be better for your contrast concerns? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. If you made the green darker, it would be difficult to distinguish from the dark blue. Also, you have the greens backwards: a court mandate is far more certain than some politician's promise. In Colombia, for example, if the parliament fails to pass a law, the court will simply impose it. There's no such guarantee that the legislation will pass in the UK.

I did put some thought into the color scheme. The two dimensions, darkness and color, reinforce each other. The scale is free : limited : mandated : promised : none. The hues corresponding to them are blue : blue-green : green-yellow : yellow(ish) : grey, with the first and last inherited from the original map. The shades corresponding to them are dark: med-dark : med : med-light : light. That is, you can follow the scale using either hue or darkness. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

thumg

I disagree that it would be hard to distinguish the darker green from the darker blue (I've provided a sample to the right), but if it's really an issue we can go with something else. There's no question you put alot of thought to the colour scheme, that's not the issue. The issue is the legibility of the current scheme, I find it very difficult to make out the lighter beige-cream, and I'm sure others will too. It's not just consistency and method, legibility must be considered too. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We could make the tan more distinctive, then. But if we're going to use darker colors for stronger policies, which is the convention of the old map, then we shouldn't mix it up with some dark colors for weaker policies, which is what you're proposing. Government support should be the lightest color or the closest to grey. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

May I make several suggestions?

1) Use fewer colors. US map nearly unreadable.

2) map makers need to consider the use of names on maps. This should be standardized at a higher level for US/World. Think about a map of the Election of the Holy Roman Empire 1199 by color, blue for the Count of Saxony, green for the Duke of Blois, etc. for 36 duchies/counties/principalities the geographical outlines of which are nearly all completely unknown to American readers and maybe most English-speakers as well.

3) Standardize colors for all SSM maps generally which may preclude intermediate designations that the US map has now.

4) either point readers to the map you are talking about, or move discussion to the map itself and point to it from here. It seems to me that map change discussions ought to be held in the same place for historical purposes, and the best place to do that (for archival purposes) is probably on the talk page for the map itself. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For the most part, all the LGBT rights maps are standardized in colour, the US one being an exception. I tried to standardize it and that got rejected. The problem with this map is that it includes two new perameters the others exclude, A: the government's support/intent to legalize same sex marriage, and B: a ruling by a country's High Court in favour of same sex marriage. This map also excludes anything outside of same-sex marriage, including civil unions and registered partnerships, but also bans on SSM and the legal status of homosexual acts itself. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok hang on a second, First off, Fry the new map looks great, much simpler for users looking solely for marriage rights. What I'd really like to talk about is the U.S. map. I agree with User:Fry1989, it is too confusing. The colors used should be syncronized with the rest of the LGBT maps, however one user in particular seems to be impeding any efforts to change it outside what they approve of. I think there needs to be a renewed discussion about overhauling the map and bringing it in line with the rest. When stripes were attempted on the European map they were quickly shot down because the conclusion was that they were to confusing, with that precedent I think the U.S. map should do away with striping as well. If a state has civil unions or domestic partnerships then it should be medium blue, if it goes further to recognize marriages then that color should overrule all other forms of recognition (besides full marriage) like what has been done to uruguay on the world map. On a side note, I'm noticing a trend with the LGBT maps. The World, European, and U.S. maps are frequentely updated which is great. However, maybe they've been forgotten, but we do have maps soley for South America, Africa, and Asia. With all of the upcoming legislation on LGBT rights in general, I think we need to overhaul these maps as well. And, might I suggest creating an article for LGBT rights in Asia? It seems it is the only continent lacking one.

-chase1493 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Terminology in the first paragraph

Current lead: Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity. Supporters of legal recognition for same-sex marriage typically refer to such recognition as marriage equality.[1]

My change: Same-sex marriage (also known as gay/homosexual marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity. Supporters of legal recognition for same-sex marriage sometimes refer to such recognition as marriage equality.[1]

Change was revered for the reason that this is not commonly accepted terminology. I don't see why, as same-sex marriage is also known as homosexual marriage and it is not "typical" of supporters of SSM to refer to it as marriage equality. Zaalbar (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you review other similar articles and talk pages you will find that Same-sex marriage is the preferred terminology, and gay marriage is sometimes used. Marriage equality is sometimes seen as well, although the meaning of that term has somewhat different connotations. I don't think I have ever seen a reliable, contemporary source refer to it as "homosexual marriage" and even if a few did, it would still not be common terminology.

The article is not improved by adding /homosexual to the lead. Also, per MOS:SLASH, slashes should be avoided in these instances. - MrX 14:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So is it fine to change "typically" to "sometimes"? Same-sex marriage is "also known as" homosexual marriage, I'm sure you know that. I can find some sources if you want, but I don't think you are really disputing that it's also known as homosexual marriage. Zaalbar (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Scroll up to see the discussion that has already recently occurred. - MrX 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I already read that but there wasn't a consensus for the lead. Zaalbar (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

True, no consensus was reached. I supported typically or often, and would also support usually. I see Nat has tagged it with a citation needed tag, and then an IP editor made an edit which I think addresses the issue nicely. - MrX 20:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine now. The other part of my edit was adding that same-sex marriage is also referred to as homosexual marriage. There's no doubt that it's also known as that, so it should be there. Zaalbar (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit of an offshoot, but the large image in the summary section colours in governments that supports SSM. Since Obama supports it, shouldn't the US be included? Zaalbar (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, in the US, the President does not make laws. 'Same-sex marriage not legally recognized' is the correct category for the US as a whole. - MrX 15:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't make laws, but the colour represents support for legalisation, regardless of ability. Zaalbar (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No. It's for legal recognition, which is currently on a state-by-state basis in the US. Read it again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about different colors on the map. The chartreuse and tan were intended to indicate countries with likely future recognition. "Government" in this case is the British sense of the word as the legislative body. If the legislature or the party controlling the legislature announces that they are preparing to legalize marriage, there is a decent chance that it will be legalized. Certainly if the high court mandates legalization, there's a very good chance. Obama's announcement, on the other hand, is not directly predictive. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. That concept would be meaningless in a US context, which is what the OP asked about. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition

I made two compromises, but Frankfort responds by reverting both compromises. This is not how BRD works. Also, my main concern about Frankforts version is that he groups denominations and religions together whereas i prefer to keep the two seperate. Pass a Method talk 14:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Pass a method. You didn't take it to the talk page before. You simply started an unnecessary editing war. Now that you have finally come to the talk page after being asked many times, here are the most relevant policies to keep in mind here: WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT, as I've already explained on my talk page. --Frankfort05 (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I responded to you by mentioning that due weight is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not through made up rules such as "a million adherents" or other nonsense you come up with. Pass a Method talk 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your replies indicate that speaking to you is pointless since you always go of-topic ignoring whatever i say. Pass a Method talk 14:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there has been no clear evidence supplied regarding the amount of coverage in independent reliable sources, which is seemingly the justification used above for the dubious edits. And I have to say that some of the comments above seem to rather clearly violate WP:TPG, and at least border on personal attacks. What is basically sought here is that an editor provide evidence from independent reliable sources which supports the changes they wish to make. I do not know that I have seen such yet provided. "Talking" in general is not sought here, but sources which provide evidence which supports the changes that wish to be made. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, people might be more successful if they actually made an effort to discuss things before engaging in edit warring, and also, maybe, used the article talk page in the way it is intended, to provide sources for proposed changes and refrained from indulging in unnecessary and counterproductive commentary on the actions and motivations of others. Unfortunately, I see a lot of the latter in this discussion, but little if any of the former. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2012

The opening sentence should read "A same-sex marriage is a UNION (not marriage) between ....", until at such time as a "sam-sex 'union'" is defined by the court as a marriage. I would only allow the term, "same-sex marriage" in the opening sentence, and probably elsewhere because that is the term usually being used. But until (and if) such a union is constitutionaly defined as a "marriage", i would not give it that stature. Thanks, Harvey Fiala: (Email address redacted by User:Sjö)

76.169.248.64 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see why. Same-sex marriage is recognized as a marriage by the law in several jurisdictions. Sjö (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Vacation^nine 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were no such thing as a legally recognized same-sex marriage, a same-sex marriage would still be by definition a type of marriage, not any kind of union other than marriage. It would be a legal status some advocate for and it would be theoretical. But as a matter of language, it would still be a marriage. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Marriage in Netherlands' caribbean has to be updated

Because the law actually came into effect and there has been a same-sex wedding on Saba recently: 140.112.217.14 (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

South Australia, Rhode Island and Illinois

South Australia, Rhode Island and Illinois are also considering legislation for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MamaMario13 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court and Nero pic

Please, mention The US Federal Court's official announcement (see PDF format at http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-12-07-Certiorari-Granted.pdf) this way: "In December 2012, The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will rule on the federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn California's gay marriage ban. It is because in August 2010, Proposition 8 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8) was found unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. That ruling was appealed and later upheld by a federal appeals court in February 2012. Proposition 8 proponents then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As of now, gay and lesbian couples in California are still not allowed to legally marry until the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit is resolved. Gay rights activists have been waiting for weeks for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision on whether or not it would hear the Proposition 8 appeal."

So, now, please I suggest to take Nero's pic off! It just foments prejudice since many world books mention Nero as crazy, perverse or the first antiChrist in History. We have many other people, such as Alexander the Great, Ricky Martin, etc. Thank you for reading. I hope it can help.

Partly done: I added the announcement, but didn't remove Nero's picture. Your reason doesn't make sense and I see no reason to remove it. Vacation^nine 06:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I comprehend your reasons for inserting Nero's pic and I agree with your feelings completely for denying those mine about taking Nero's pic off. My point of view just confirmed that even in 21st Century we still need to lock an article because of vandalism and it's just because of the fact that homosexuality is still associated with promiscuity (I'm so sorry that it is not a 'pride' for me, even in a LBGT Portal) but, for you, it sounded nonsense. In the same point of view, trying to convince that Nero is the worst example for a gay marriage, I forgot to say that there are many other examples for gay people before(!!!) Nero in History, such as the first gay caveman skeleton(!!!) found in April, 2011 (search Telegraph, Daily Mail, Live Science, etc.) and I still insist in the importance of showing people world wide that, in fact, mankind is the same since The Beginning, i.e. PLURAL. If my personal opinion AND WORRIES still bother anyway, so please check facts in History which confirms that Nero is not 'the same-sex marriage ideal' or 'best example' for this article since gay relations were recognized, if not legal, as far back as 7th Century BC Greece and Nero lived later (2nd Century). You can read more at <http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,1904681,00.html> (Please, answer my 'Nero' separate topic too.) Thank you for reading and, since the Internet make our words seem a little bit acid (this is not my intention!) I have to make clear that I do respect your opinion. Thank you. 10:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Marriage bill approved in Uruguay

I suggest the text: "In December 2012, Julio Bango's bill was legitimized in Uruguay. The bill seeks to reform Uruguay civil code so that heterosexuals, homosexuals and lesbians marriages could be legalized. The proposal now goes to the Senate, where the ruling coalition has enough votes for passage. Then, it will have to go to [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Mujica President Jose Mujica] to sign it."

The reference is the official page of Julio Bago's party in Spanish at http://www.legisladores90.org/spip.php?article1549 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.49.179 (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

When the legislation becomes law, this should be added, but not the vote of one house. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012

same-sex marriage conservative jews don't support same-sex marriage. 98.222.251.85 (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - Sources say otherwise. If you have information to the contrary, please present the sources. - MrX 13:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wording in first paragraph

I'm probably at the limit for reverts on this article so I won't correct it myself. This isn't wrong: "Where legal recognition for same-sex marriage exists, this is sometimes referred to as marriage equality." However, it is misleading because SSM is referred to as "marriage equality" in places where there isn't legal recognition. People seem to keep changing the wording in order to remove the part in which it is attributed to "supporters". However it is only used by supporters, therefore it should be attributed to them. Furthermore, it was de-attributed only a month ago after being there for a year and a half. Maybe somebody could revert it back to this: Supporters of same-sex marriage also refer to it as marriage equality. Zaalbar (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me that it should mention that "marriage equality" is a term used by supporters; it is in some sense a POV term and certainly opponents don't use it. (I say this as a strong supporter of SSM, incidentally.) However, I do have an issue with your suggestion, because "marriage equality" isn't another name for SSM; it's a term for the legalisation of SSM. - htonl (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't another name for SSM, then it shouldn't be in bold. Zaalbar (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We have had that discussion twice already in the last few months. The short answer is that MOS:BOLDTITLE says that "significant alternative titles" should be bolded; and "marriage equality" is a significant alternative title for this article. Note that "alternative title" is not the same idea as "synonym". - htonl (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Therefore I've found some reliable and neutral sources using the term, and added them. Whilst the term certainly was originally certainly used by supporters, it appears to have found its way into general parlance and even into the titles of legislation, not only in the US either. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is unquestionably a term used to create political spin, but more to the point, the lead needs to reflect what is found further down in the body of the article: "Some proponents of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, such as Freedom to Marry and Canadians for Equal Marriage, use the terms marriage equality and equal marriage to indicate that they seek equal benefit of marriage laws as opposed to special rights."

The notion that it has "found its way into general parlance" is pure nonsense, and no source has been offered in support of that suggestion. Belchfire-TALK 00:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The ones I've just added show that it isn't only used by supporters, though. The paragraph you quote clearly isn't representative of the use of the term in general. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Black Kite's analysis. The trend has been for "marriage equality" to be used more commonly by the media, politicians and others, irrespective of their position on the subject. In fact, it is increasingly common for it to be simply referred to as "marriage, which is the ultimate neutral terminology. - MrX 00:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

False. You've simply provided yet another source showing yet more supporters using the term. Bring us a source that shows that opponents are using it, and we can discuss it. Belchfire-TALK 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether it's being used by neutral sources - newspapers - which it is Independent Family Law Week Yahoo SF Chronicle etc. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an artificial constraint on top of a false assertion. Your sources aren't neutral, and they don't even support what you are claiming, nor do they oppose the converse. Again... bring us something that shows the term has become "general parlance" (your words), beyond the political spin you have shown thus far. Good luck. Belchfire-TALK 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Your sources aren't neutral". Two major newspapers, a Law Council and one of the major web news aggregators. I'm not sure what else to say, really. How about the BBC? CNN? Probably biased as well, no doubt. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This is borderline trout-worthy. The premise is that proponents are using the term. You bring us an assortment of proponents and then say, "See? Everybody's saying it!" Well, no. Proponents are saying it. Again, show us some examples of opponents using the term, or admit that usage is limited to supporters. Belchfire-TALK 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to just read some of the sources you provide, but the first source is BBC and it would seem that they are simply reporting on what is said. For example the motion is "on marriage equality" which is what the proposer called it. Zaalbar (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Coulter claims to be a "friend of the gays" while simultaneously saying that leftists are using them (and the blacks and the feminists and the single mothers) to "destroy the family" with the "made-up" concept of marriage equality."
• Newt Gingrich: Marriage Equality Inevitable, OK

- MrX 00:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so Coulter points out that "marriage equality" is an phony construct, and Gingrich moves over to the 'support' column. What's your point? Belchfire-TALK 00:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To quote myself: "The trend has been for "marriage equality" to be used more commonly by the media, politicians and others, irrespective of their position on the subject." - MrX 01:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Say it over and over to your heart's content if you like. I'm waiting for sources. Got any? Belchfire-TALK 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't ever change, Belchfire. - MrX 01:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've only read two of the articles but just to point out, for the two that I read, the article on Ed Miliband was reporting his words of "equal marriage" and The Independent article doesn't seem very neutral: "It is worth remembering that even where civil partners are granted almost identical rights to married couples, unless there is full equality they are still denied the right to marry." and "Can the UK be next?" - that was on SSM by country. Zaalbar (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I just realised that The Independent has a petition for SSM at the end of the article. Zaalbar (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Better sources needed

It's getting messy up top. Can anybody provide sources that are neutral (for example not an article which has a petition for SSM in it) and which aren't just reporting on the used term (for example, not the Ed Miliband article or the BBC one)? Zaalbar (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose you could replace the Miliband one with the Yahoo or SF one, or just take it out. Here's an interesting one from the Washington Post though - Vatican Newspaper compares marriage equality to Communism. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure how neutral or appropriate Yahoo is, but I doubt an article on SSM from a newspaper in San Francisco will be neutral. Also, the Washington Post article is also just using the term to report a historian's mockery of it. Zaalbar (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You doubt that a San Francisco newspaper will be reliable, purely because it's from San Francisco? All your biases laid bare for all to see in a single sentence, well done. With POV like that, do you think you should even be editing this article? Black Kite (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's reliable, just unlikely to be neutral regarding SSM. Zaalbar (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's not neutral, it's not reliable. Exactly why wouldn't it be neutral? Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Independent isn't neutral regarding SSM but it's still reliable. I'm assuming the SF newspaper isn't neutral regarding SSM because of the large level of support for SSM by SF's inhabitants (I recall the mayor advocating a boycott of a restaurant because of its opposition to SSM). Zaalbar (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing such an excellent example of the dishonest approach you are taking here. WaPo says "Vatican newspaper compares marriage equality to communism", when in reality, the comparison was to 20th century communists. HUGE difference. Huge. Your claim so far seems to amount to "My sources aren't biased because they agree with me." It's comical. Belchfire-TALK 01:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The more likely explanation is that a mistake was made while paraphrasing. Why do you automatically jump to accusations of dishonesty? That's not conducive to a collaborative environment. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

More likely during translation. The use of "marriage equality" by one of its opponents was clear though, which is what Belchfire was asking for. Good luck with asking for a collaborative attitude from Belchfire, incidentally. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

More dishonesty. You still haven't provided an example. You're just pretending that you did. Belchfire-TALK 11:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No, what's actually happened is that neither of us has provided an example that satisfies you. Frankly, I doubt if we ever could because you don't want such an example to exist. It's a fairly typical example of your editing style - edit-warring over POV terms, passive-aggressive talkpage postings full of personal attacks, and an unwillingness to accept when you are wrong. I'm certainly not going to engage any further with you here. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Pure projection. And still no source. Belchfire-TALK 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can live with either version, but would remove by supporters. While I suppose the use of marriage equality in legislation is technically something done by supporters, it's an odd qualifier to use for something that has been passed into law.--Trystan (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with that proposal lies in the broader use of the term. It doesn't only refer to legal recognition, it's used as a term by supporters in a social or cultural context of "equality". Zaalbar (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Better wording needed. A "marriage" is not an "equality". You don't get "equalitied" at the court house. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in bold so according to this article you can. Zaalbar (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, if you just wanted to change the wording, then why didn't you change just the wording? Instead, you've reverted the meaning, which isn't very consistent with the rationale stated in your edit summary, is it? Belchfire-TALK 01:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't remove Method's compromise, though I still think "marriage equality" is a term used exclusively by supporters. So it's up to others whether it should be contested. Zaalbar (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are people suddenly not writing edit summaries when they revert me? Zaalbar (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about the edit summary part, but I will say that Pass a Method's edit is NOT a "compromise". Furthermore, it is NOT supported by any sources, thus it seems fair game for removal. Belchfire-TALK 03:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is no, Method, which should be clear from the revert. Until an appropriate source is provided, it is OR and you should self-revert. Zaalbar (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

São Paulo state needed on maps

Both the Same-Sex Marriage map and the World Homosexuality Laws map are missing São Paulo state. I'd update them but I don't know how. Can anyone help? Frimmin (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Frimmin

Sorry, I thought I'd fixed that, and that it wasn't showing up because of my cache. Trying again. — kwami (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you update this map? Ron 1987 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Espirito Santo, Brazil

I recently found a reference on ask.com to same-sex marriage legislation, Jan. 3, 2012, for Santo Espirito state, Brazil. Upon further investigation, I found an online article in Portugese that seems to verify this, best as I can figure with the garbled translation. I am brand new to Wikipedia, so didn't want to try an official edit. For those who are better able to do so, and perhaps for those who speak Portugese, here is the link: Glenrhart (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

http://www.conjur.com.br/2012-jan-07/tjs-alagoas-espirito-santo-orientam-cartorios-registrar-uniao-gay

Glenrhart (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

Looks like they're trying to regularize access, are are similar to Alagoas. I know we debated whether Alagoas should be on the map or not. Presumably we should treat ES the same?

This is a very different situation than in the US, where marriage is not legal until a law is passed legalizing it, and then it is legal: simple 'yes' or 'no'. Brazil's in kind of a legal limbo: it's recognized if it's performed, but there are few states where people have equal access to have it performed. So it's a continuum from yes to no, without any obvious way for us to decide. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my thinking, although I didn't explain it in greater detail. I read the Alagoas discussion, and the ES situation seems virtually identical. To me, that means that either both or neither should be included in the listing of Brazilian states performing same-sex marriages. Glenrhart (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

Regarding religion and marriage equality: 1st Timothy 4:1-4 specifically admonishes Christians against forbidding anyone to marry.

In light of the current debate regarding the rights of LDBT to marry (aka "Gay Marriage") isn't 1st Timothy 4:1-4 being overlooked? Here is a biblical verse specifically admonishing those who forbid others to marry! Some areas of the bible do appear to condemn homosexuality, but without any direction as to what a Christian should do about that other than to avoid being homosexual themselves. Yes, "they shall surely be put to death", but it does NOT say "put them to death". In other words, there is no direction on how to react to homosexual people. Yet here in Timothy, we see a specific direction that we should never forbid anyone to marry. Shouldn't this be highlighted in the entry especially in light of the current debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.170.153 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But gay people can get married, and always have been able to. Tim4 just never says they get to choose who! Sure we could argue it means something else, but given the context, it probably meant that in latter times a man might be forbidden from taking a wife.

Same argument could be made for Heb 13:4 'Marriage is honorable in all'. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We're here to document the debate, not to create it. If 1st Timothy is not being raised commonly in the debate, it is not for us to make the point. WP:OR would be a concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

About the fictional same sex marriage

It should mention along with Family Guy, Queer as Folk, and the others listed that South Park be mentioned. They had an episode in 2005 debated positively and then ends with two male characters married. --Matt723star (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nero

I comprehend your reasons for inserting Nero's pic and I agree with your feelings completely for denying those mine about taking Nero's pic off. My point of view just confirmed that even in 21st Century we still need to lock an article because of vandalism and it's just because of the fact that homosexuality is still associated with promiscuity (I'm so sorry that it is not a 'pride' for me, even in a LBGT Portal) but, for you, it sounded nonsense in another section. In the same point of view, trying to convince that Nero is the worst example for a gay marriage, I forgot to say that there are many other examples for gay people before(!!!) Nero in History, such as the first gay caveman skeleton(!!!) found in April, 2011 (search Telegraph, Daily Mail, Live Science, etc.) and I still insist in the importance of showing people world wide that, in fact, mankind is the same since The Beginning, i.e. PLURAL. If my personal opinion AND WORRIES still bother anyway, so please check facts in History which confirms that Nero is not 'the same-sex marriage ideal' or 'best example' for this article since gay relations were recognized, if not legal, as far back as 7th Century BC Greece and Nero lived later (2nd Century). You can read more at <http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,1904681,00.html> (Please, answer my section 'The U.S. Supreme Court and Nero pic' too.) Thank you for reading and, since the Internet make our words seem a little bit acid (this is not my intention!) I have to make clear that I do respect your opinion. Thank you.10:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nero is very well known and the fact that he had a pseudo-same-sex marriage is relevant to this article. Although he isn't a positive example of SSM, it belongs in the article because the purpose of the article isn't to portray SSM in the best light possible by excluding information. Zaalbar (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How can you say it was a same-sex marriage. 1) Sporus was a child/young teenage boy. 2) He was a replacement for Sabina and was make to look like her, and was called Sabina. 3) He was hardly willing. A lot of information is being left out or changed to fit an agenda. Dlpkbr (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Nero was engaged in perverse mock-marriage displays. Suitable for an entry on theatrics or performance art. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a pseudo-marriage, so it's relevant to the article. Maybe he did it because the boy looked like his former lover, but regardless of that, the boy was male, so that makes it relevant. And accusing other editors of changing or omitting information is not going to make this article better. --DrkFrdric (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so now we are talking about a "pseudo-marriage" (words above) of a man (Nero) who has a pic in a "serious" (my words) article. Let start from the beginning when I proposed this non(!)-pseudo(!!)-topic. We have to read it all if we all want to be taken seriously because all opinions sound incoherent... By the way, if it has to prefer a pseudo-something by Nero for not take his pic off, denying a not-only-earlier-Nero-but-trustful-and-not-a-pseudo information that gay relations were really recognized(!!!) in History (see my source; it was not read nor commented!), it is clear that the reason that mentioned that "the purpose of the article isn't to portray SSM in the best light possible by excluding information" got failed (about "excluding information", imagine if book editors didn't "exclude information" that foment hate without intention or "exclude" eventual editing errors in Math!) All information and sources I have inserted in this topic are being lost throughout this talking. I think it is clear now that, if it has to make a stigmatization about "Nero in perverse mock-marriage displays" (as mentioned above) this article will always be not only a target to vandalism but also a source of world-wide information (of our own responsibility) to foment world-wide prejudice, violence and brutality against world-wide human beings who are, let me mentioned like I did it once above in capital letters, PLURAL world wide! Remember that we are all responsible for the information we propose here and we have to be coherent. That is why I do believe in each and every single editor that can read it now (more than two, please... We have to make it all together!) If we make it clear enough, people will not try to discuss about the best nomenclature for "same-sex-marriage", "equality" and many "or so" nomenclatures anymore. We have to make people comprehend that this article proposes not the best "label" but a coherent - so, trustful - information, even if... Yes, we have to... "exclude information" about a pseudo or a mocking marriage if it has to advertise a perversity of same-sex people (as if perversity picked gender identities... That's what Nero made it sound and we are all echoing it!) We have to propose clear information focused on the fact that countries world wide are making regulations about the right to love originated only from the human condition and its plurality. If people comprehend it (in a way that they can think about our limitations because of ignorance just because we are all ignorant in a point, and that is not offensive), we can be proud of what we are HOW we definitely are, I repeat, PLURAL. So, now we all, hetero, gay, bi-, tri-, tetra-, pan-, poli-, multi-, ubber-, (...) whatever-sexual we are, can talk seriously, please? Thank you for reading and, please, take Nero's pic off and, c'mon, read all my sources (they have other pics). February 2, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.57.91 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Great Britain, NOT the United Kingdom

Plans to legalise same-sex marriage have only been unveiled in England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain), not the United Kingdom (which includes Northern Ireland). Should we amend this? StJaBe (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We should really write about England and Wales separately from Scotland, since the two legislative efforts are separate. I think it's OK to write about them under the "United Kingdom" heading, though, since that is the name of the country. Just like we write about New York and Washington under the "United States" heading, even though most states don't have any recognition or plans to recognize SSM. - htonl (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hetero, gay, bi, tri, tetra... whatever-sexual you (Analytical thinking wanted!)

I had opened a section once which was answered me. I have asked to take Nero's pic off since this association of same-sex marriage to his image of perversity and promiscuity just foments prejudice, and it is normal like German people do not want to associate Hitler's image to their values and Americans do not associate Abraham Lincolns image to a racist, war-mongering, anti-liberty, blood-soaked imperialist liar or anything that does not sound from a free country. I was answered that Nero's pic would not be off of this article just because it was a fact. I have answered showing facts in History before Nero by references and asking for the attention we all have by proving information which does not foment hate and prejudice since I am gay and it is not a proud for me to have my sexual orientation associated to promiscuity (and I said 'I am so sorry if it is good for a LGBT Portal'). But I have had no answer anymore and that old section was deleted without checking my reference in History before Nero, if it was about "fact".

So I opened a new section that was not deleted until now, titled "NERO" but people have just answered me without checking my references. And now people are sounding incoherent as it can be shown below:

1) Mentioning a "pseudo-marriage" (as somebody mentioned above) of a man (Nero) who has a pic in a "serious" (as I have mentioned) article... So, not checking my references again, not taking his pic off and confirming that it is was not a real same-sex marriage but a "pseudo-marriage". Somebody also mentioned "Nero in perverse mock-marriage displays"... I thought this article is to show the importance of the fact that countries world wide are making regulations about the right to love originated only from the human condition and its plurality.

2) Since I have proposed non(!)-pseudo(!!)-sections, if it has to prefer a pseudo-something by Nero for not take his pic off, denying a not-only-earlier-Nero-but-trustful-and-not-a-pseudo information that gay relations were really recognized(!!!) in History (see my references; They were not read nor commented till now!), it is clear that the reason which was gave me just mentioning that "the purpose of the article isn't to portray SSM in the best light possible by excluding information" got failed (and a plus, about "excluding information" like it was a problem, see that it is not a problem at all if book editors didn't "exclude information" that foment hate without intention or not "exclude" eventual editing errors in Math!)

So I ask, please: Remember that this article has been a target to vandalism and it is all of our own responsibility if we foment love or hate. We have to remember that anything that shows Nero and his perversity just contribute to world-wide prejudice, violence and brutality against world-wide gays who are human beings like you and me world wide (by the way, when I write 'I am gay', I mean no perversity, no mocking something or so.)

You do not need to agree with me but see that we are all responsible for the information we propose here and we have to be just coherent. Not answering without checking my references.

We have to make people comprehend that this article proposes not the best "label" but a coherent - so, trustful - information, even if... Yes, we have to... "exclude information" that associates same-sex marriage as a mocking or perverse right (as if perversity picked gender identities or sexual orientation...)

If people comprehend it (in a way that they can think about our limitations because of ignorance just because we are all ignorant in a point, and that is not offensive), we can be proud of what we are HOW we definitely are, I repeat, PLURAL. So, now we all, hetero, gay, bi-, tri-, tetra-, pan-, poli-, multi-, ubber-, whatever-sexual we are, can talk seriously, please? Thank you for reading and, please, take Nero's pic off and, c'mon, read all my references (they have other pics). February 2, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.57.91 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC) 189.25.103.213 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)