Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 8

Can this OR/POV paragraph be fixed?

I'm moving this paragraph here for some work. Although sourced, it appears to construct an original argument and then say "here, this book agrees with me" rather than presenting the opinions of the book's authors as their own. I haven't read the book, so I can't fix it. Can the original editor clean it up a bit, perhaps with quotes?

Others are concerned that changing marriage law to make marriage gender neutral requires editing mothers and fathers out of legal and cultural discourse about the family. Instead one can only refer to children's needs for "parents." Since the vast majority of children are born to and raised by heterosexuals, not homosexuals, making the law unable to affirm children's needs, when possible, to be raised by their own mother and father could lend further support to negative heterosexual trends in single parent childbearing and divorce that pose clear risks to children. This "liberal" position against same-sex marriage is no more concerned about same-sex marriage than about divorce, single-parent childbearing, or other recent family trends.

DanB†DanD 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, the section on divorce rates with this bit

Emergent trends in Massachusetts amount to a stark indictment of those dire claims

seems awfully POV (and even OR) to me. I don't want to touch it myself, because I don't trust my own neutrality on this subject. I'm just putting it out there for someone to take a shot at. The Monster 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph doesn't make sense:

"There are some people, who despite having a moral or religious stance that same-sex marriage is wrong, still feel that it is not their place to take their religious sentiments into the secular realm, and enforce their beliefs on others, who may disagree. So, while these religious people do not approve of homosexual couples, and continue to refuse to recognize their marriages from a religious aspect, they still nevertheless recognize and tolerate their secular marriage."

That sounds like liberal bias. It's wordy and kinda obvious. It needs to be removed. Cueball (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links list: as far as I can see, total cruft!

I've just browsed through the External Links section, and I didn't find a single thing worth keeping. It's largely opinion pieces by non-notable sources, spam, some guy's gallery of photos, links to petitions on either side of the debate (so inappropriate), and one link to a Google-video search on the phrase "marriage equality" (!!!). I'm gonna wait til the end of the night for someone to speak up in defense of their favorite link and then just cut the whole list.

Please keep these guidelines in mind when replying:

• What Wikipedia is not
• External links to be avoided

DanB†DanD 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I added 2 awhile ago which I thought brought more info to the Wiki, especially with regard to the parallels with interracial marriage.

• Bans on interracial marriage, same-sex ‘marriage’ -- parallels? By Michael Foust
• Gay "marriage" By Thomas Sowell

Curious why you removed them? 66.31.222.89 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)66.31.222.89 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)peterp

Since they had been removed I used one of them as a reference for additions to the Parallels with Interacial marriage section, so I am now happy!!! That section was seriously lacking both sides of the issue... 66.31.222.89 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)peterp

We just tried to add Queer Marriage Canada to the links, and received a message about "inappropriate links." We aren't tech-savvy; can someone help add this? The address is www.queermarriage.com, and the name of the link (which currently appears in red in the article) is Queer Marriage Canada. Thanks! Jane Eaton Hamilton 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem isn't that you're being automatically rejected, it's that other editors are coming in and removing it. The problem is that you have an obvious conflict of interest in the site, being its editor, and 'gay marriage in British Columbia' seems to be too limited to be of real use; Wikipedia is a world-wide collaboration. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Forms of address

I've added "limitedgeographicscope" to the Etiquette section. I doubt that Messieurs or Mesdames are the preferred terms everywhere. Aleta 08:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Slander of Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus

I find this article slanders Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus, how bias can this article become?--Margrave1206 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Margrave, the article does not say that Sergius and Bacchus were lovers (though the earliest text of their martyrology does use the word "erotai" to describe them)--it says John_Boswell_(historian) claims that they are. The Wikipedia article does nto discuss the Saint's purported relationship: it discusses Boswell's claims. How then can it be slander against the two saints? Justin Eiler 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an "agenda" to me, people are correct this article is bias. There is no need to even speak about these to saints, to even make sick innuendos is outlandish. We know the article is at a slant to support the agenda of the topic. However it seems the editors would do whatever it takes even changing history to make their views seem valid. Where are the facts, where is the truth??? --Margrave1206 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not slander but libel (and it doesn't apply to long dead people). Wikipedia is about reliable sources; you need to establish that John_Boswell_(historian) is not a reliable source for this article or that Adelphopoiesis is not relevant. Have fun. Ttiotsw 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have researched this point. John Boswell was a highly respected professor of history at Yale University. His books were peer reviewed. History, especially ancient history, is always interpretive based on available primary and secondary sources. While the author relies heavily on one's historian's account, there is sufficient scholarly opinion to allow this to stand the neutrality. If you have an alternate theory by a similarly regarded historian, then by all means enrich the diversity of the article with this stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.82.185 (talk) 08:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Biased Link/POV

In the notes section the link http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageSacred.htm seems quite biased, and is not factual but an opinion article on atheism.about.com I would suggest something unbiased be used rather than this person's opinion.70.188.176.183 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Trans/Intersex section cleaned up, find a home for this bit?

So I just went through and tightened the language and pedanted for grammar, and did a little bit of work on the accuracy, though that was not my main focus. Here is a bit from the end of the subsection which is not cited and needs help -- I started doing copyediting and then decided it needed more than that in order to fit. I didn't think it was wise to leave in the article but thought that it might best be put here for some editorial assistance, citation-hunting, etc.

"Transsexuals typically have an easier time entering into opposite-sex marriages than same-sex marriages, although often these marriages come under legal question later in life, when personal interests collide. In one particular case, a genetic son seeking inheritance questioned the marriage of his late father to his step-mother on the grounds that she was a male-to-female transsexual. This continues to document that just because a marriage was provided and considered legal, that it is not in fact legally guaranteed against later legal decisions."A. J. Luxton 12:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39622 Article about a trans-marriage that was invalidated]. I realize it's from WorldNetDaily, and they're not exactly sympathetic to trans issues, but it does underscore the point that it's essentially trivial for a trans person to enter into a marriage and get a license, although the likelihood of that marriage standing up in court is up for debate, and will typically rest along lines similar to homosexual marriage. Typically from what I've seen is that a court discussing if a transsexual in a heterosexual marriage fits their role will find that the marriage is invalid, and anull the marriage, basically in an attempt to apply a DOMA law against the marriage. They typically specifically mention that they do NOT consider the question of if it would then be legal for a trans person to enter into a homosexual marriage, and it's likely that a court likely to anull a trans marriage is likely to do so on either side of the issue.

The common criteria tends to be that many places/judges would still legally regard the trans person as their assigned birth gender and in fact, often times, this can come to issue in intersexual marriages also. Although, since the trans person is now visually identifiable as the opposite gender, attempting to gain a marriage license under the provision that they are of their assigned birth gender is likely to be rejected. Basically, either courts will be lenient and end up allowing any marriage desired by a transperson, or they will be strict, and use DOMA against a trans person in a marriage regardless of the partner. I would say the only place where a judge in a strict setting would be likely to enforce a marriage involving a trans person, is if their partner is an opposite-transition person. Thus, an MTF and an FTM are likely to be able to legally marry regardless of the considerations of the court... well, unless the court just wants to strike down transsexuals getting married just on principle.

Unfortunately, the situation is one where depending on where the couple lives, depends on how likely their marriage is to survive a legal threat. Typically, in order to get the marriage granted in the first place, they will need to be legally recognition of their gender, but that legally recognition is not guarenteed to follow them whereever they move, and the DOMA act is likely to allow states to break those marriages just from moving to them. Basically, marriage as a transsexual is fairly easy to get, but if it's ever legally challenged you typically have quite an uphill battle. I would almost say, the only best solution is to immediately sue your partner in every new state you move to in order to have a court rule on the legallity of your marriage for that particular state.  :( --Puellanivis 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a good change. I did most of the original content, and the lots of "could'a/would'a" is from my tendancy to use the subjunctive a lot more than the typical English speaker. (A result of the effects of other languages that I have learned.) I just changed a few things, mostly in wording. I prefer "counterpart" to "opposite", typically surgery for a transsexual is not really the opposite of each other. Unless they've come up with a way to build a penis from the vagina tissue... I changed the word "legal domain" to "legal jurisdiction", as that's the proper wording. While I'll agree that the US section should be hashed out, I did add some material talking about how the complications are going to vary from state to state as they decide the definition of marriage. Good edits though, you got rid of a lot of my rambling.  :) --Puellanivis 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to keep the section as correct and complete as possible and I'm glad to see that my edits are well-received. --A. J. Luxton 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the First Quebec Same-sex Marriage

This picture is relevent to this article, how can this even be in dispute? --Puellanivis 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is about gay marriage in general. That picture is refering to the first marriage in Canada, which has nothing to do with this article. I am not homophobic and trying to get rid of it like that. I am gay too, so don't think that. But the picture is where it should be on the history article. It doesn't need to be on this one. -Brainboy109 13:52, February 10 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gay, and I was never thinking that you were motivated by homophobia. The thing that I cannot understand is why a picture representative for many same-sex marriages is inapproriate for an article about same-sex marriage. While that picture may be in the history article, that's great. But we can't have a picture of an arbitrary same-sex marriage? Would you feel more inclined to permit the picture as a representation of same-sex marriage, if it just hadn't happened to have been historically relevant? I'm done edit-warring over this, but I still have not changed my position that a picture of a same-sex marriage as a representative image for same-sex marriage is appropriate for this article, and I can't see why just because it has historical significance, it's being rejected. --Puellanivis 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are my points being deleted?

Daniel, please sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~) after every addition. Please stop editing/splitting Puellanivis's posts. Also, since your ip keeps changing, you might want to create a username. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

---

As someone deleted my post, again, I'll re-post it - again. As again I'm discussing the ARTICLE here, it is not off topic and if it's deleted again I'll simply repost. My feelings on the issue are clearly expressed on my page: http://plamdi.com/bing/marriage.htm

Moving on.

Again, I point out this article is biased. Again I say that this is not an unbiased article. Again I point out that this article is spreading misconceptions, and again I remind you that people read Wikipedia and then make up their minds.

Here are numerous, specific, examples of incorrect and/or biased information on the page:

1. The map of the world. I live in Canberra, ACT Australia. While Stanhope attempted to make civil unions legal it was blocked by the federal government on the grounds that it deliberately baited the government into action, yet the map shown on Wikipedia shows we recognize homosexual civil unions - we do not.

2. Debates over terminology: Again, biased. Even though just as many countries have laws prohibiting homosexuality to the point of making it illegal, the page is biased towards countries which have laws recognizing same-sex civil unions, or "same sex marriages". In fact, only a minority of countries recognize "same sex marriage", and as such the Wikipedia page should reflect the fact that most of the world does not recognize Marriage as between two members of the same sex - regardless of beliefs as this is the truth.

3. Controversy - "Gay rights advocates assert that marriage is a civil right" - this is a smoke-screen, I believe Marriage is a fundamental civil right; it doesn't mean I believe that homosexual and incestuous couples should be allowed to marry. "Some who are in favour of same-sex marriage argue that homosexuals contribute as much as heterosexuals to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it, and that discrimination decreases productivity." Well again, this is a smoke-screen. Opinions aren't supposed to be expressed on Wikipedia in articles.

I strongly believe that homosexual couples are a bad thing for society. Read the wording of the article, there's "Gay rights advocates" and "They" for the opponents. The wording fundamentally makes you feel that the "Gay rights advocates" are correct, and "They" are not. Here is an excellent example of this bias: "However, none to date have argued that there should be a legal requirement to have children in a male-female relationship to be recognized as a marriage or that sterile male-female couples should be denied a marriage license." This is there to discredited my side, which is unfair because it's not a good point. Infertile couples can still adopt. Fertile couples may never have children - this is perfectly normal, and no one has ever denied this.

4. Religious arguments: I've never seen a more biased segment.

a. "Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds." Yes, but most do not object purely on religious grounds. It's one thing to object to eating meat religiously and another to object to it morally and socially. Every Christian parliament minister I've seen object to same-sex marriage has clearly objected not just on religious grounds but on moral grounds and most importantly on social grounds. They object to it on the grounds it's unhealthy for our society. I understand that this falls under the "Religious Arguments" section; but I've honestly never seen anyone object to it religiously without objecting socially.

"Conservative and some moderate Christians further claim that same-sex marriage goes against biblical teaching, for example, ... Leviticus 20:13 (which, by literal interpretation, prescribes the death penalty for male-male homosexual contact)" Why is this taken out of context? The words "If a man lies with a man as with a woman" is for both men and women. Here are the verses leading up to Lev 20:13: "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Only men are mentioned here - does this adultery ok for single women? "If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Only men are mentioned here again, does this make it ok for a woman to lie with her mother's husband? "If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them." And again, as you can clearly see Wikipedia has take the quote out of context, it does apply to both gays and to lesbians.

"However, other moderate and liberal Christians" - they're a minority, yet their opinion is presented as being the majority. Very rarely will you find a Biblical scholar to agree with the statements made.

5. "Arguments concerning divorce rates": Amazingly this entire biased section is only on the USA and does not compare globally.

"Over two years have passed now since same sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, and data from all of 2004 and 2005 are now available. Emergent trends in Massachusetts amount to a stark indictment of those dire claims about same-sex marriage having a negative impact on traditional marriages." Could it possibly be any more biased? Why is this US State that recently made same-sex unions legal mentioned and not Scandinavia: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp which has had equal recognition to gay-unions for about a decade.

"Divorce rates in the US have been declining steadily since the early 1980s. Massachusetts has shared in the trend and traditionally has had a divorce rate considerably lower than the national average." That fact alone is not enough to draw a conclusion from, just like the fact that the USA has a higher murder-rate than us is not proof that the death penalty isn't a deterrent (although it is proof that it's not the most significant deterrent).--61.69.3.127 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Daniel

Your points are being deleted because you want to debate the legitimatacy of same sex marriage, rather than the article itself. You compare homosexuals to dogs, then claim you're not using POV. It would also help if you actually had a user account. Czolgolz 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this time actually addressing the article rather than just attempting to argue the grounds of homosexuality. I will address your points now.

It is exactly the same as my previous post, just with two sentences edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

I did not remove your previous post, but rather your first post. Your first post was a persuasive essay and vanity link to your webpage, and a call for people who disagree with homosexuality to speak up on this page. (this is against WP:SOAP) Due to the magic of wiki diffs, I can see what the differences are.... wow, it's like they're completely different posts. Your third post makes a clear distinction between an earlier edit that says "Unbelivable! This makes me sick." stating a clearly biased, and personal opinion, vs "Why are my points being deleted?" Which is a topic of relevance to discuss on this page. It can happen that one or two lines setting the topic of conversation while seeming like an insignificant edit by you, can change it from being objective, to purely subjective. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I merely reproduced my first post as best as I could from memory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.141.159 (talk • contribs).

1. "Incorrect" != "Biased". We have out-dated information that was used to generate the map. This should be easy to correct, as it's simply a dot in a field of the color that would replace it. I think this work could be done with MS Paint.

Perhaps you missed the point that same-sex civil unions were NEVER LEGAL here. It's not out-dated, it's simply wrong. How many other sections are incorrectly coloured? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

I re-assert, wrong does not mean biased. Yes the map is wrong, and we will correct it. Wikipedia relies upon the eyes of many editors to spot these issues, point them out, and then someone resolves them. Again, just because it's wrong, and it was done in expectation that civil-unions would be recognized, does not automatically make it biased. Simply wrong. As I mentioned, the picture should be correctable in MS Paint, and I'll get right on that. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2. The debate about terminology is a domain restricted entirely to regions that recognize them, or have movements attempting to have them recognized. It's a non-issue what the terminology for a same-sex marriage is in say, Iran, because they don't exist, because Homosexuals are sentenced to death for homosexuality.

How about this: same-sex marriage is not recognized in most of the world? – it could even go at the top of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

You raise a fair point, we don't mention that same-sex marriages over much of the world is legally, socially or religiously recognized. I can make those changes when I have some time. Specifically, an article on a controversial topic should address in its intro that there is a controversy about this topic. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

3. No one has asserted in this article that incestuous marriages should be recognized. Opinions do appear in wikipedia articles, they need to be sourced though. The sentence clearly states the source, "same-sex marriage advocates". This opinion is not presented as if it were from wikipedia.

It's not good enough to present some opinions as being valid, and others as being invalid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

I'm confused. This quote from the article: "For example, James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, states that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family and lead to an increase in homosexual couples." represents much of the conservative point of view. We do not say that this is wrong, we simply state what he is saying. This is opinion, and is not backed up by statistical fact. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement: "However, none to date have argued that there should be a legal requirement to have children in a male-female relationship to be recognized as a marriage or that sterile male-female couples should be denied a marriage license." is based on the position, that many places are asserting that homosexuals cannot reproduce, and thus should not be allowed to marry, however they are not requiring reproduction from hetrosexual couples to be married. Thus, we're setting a double standard that heterosexual couples are given a special allowance in cases where they are unable to reproduce. This is not an attack on "your" position, but rather a statement regarding the logical nature of restriction of holding only one side to a expectation of reproduction.

Let me show you how that logic can be applied to incestious couples: Some people are against incest because genetic deformaties in children are more likely, however they are not requiring other couples being prevented from having disabled children. 61.69.3.191 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Daniel

"that many places are asserting that homosexuals cannot reproduce, and thus should not be allowed to marry" I suppose you can show me who these people are that are using this as their sole argument? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

How about a court case? The legal document from the Supreme Court of Washington in Heather ANDERSEN, v. KING COUNTY v. State of Washington v. Senator Val Stevens. Nos. 75934-1, 75956-1. February 24, 2004. In their reply to Amici Curiae briefs, exists the following text showing that in the case of Morison v. Sadler that the key purpose for marriage was to encourage responsible childbirths, where heterosexual couples are expected to have children in wedlock:

However, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized a significant difference between same-sex and opposite sex couples when it upheld Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage in Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (2005). The "key difference" is that "most opposite-sex couples become parents, through sexual intercourse, and how all same-sex couples must become parents, through adoption or assisted reproduction." Morrison, 821 N.E.2d at 24. This difference relates directly to the state's interest in supporting opposite sex marriage. Through marriage the state "encourages opposite-sex couples who, by definition, are the only type of couples that can reproduce on their own by engaging in sex with little or no contemplation of the consequences that might result, i.e. a child, to procreate responsibly." Id. at 25. The "institution of opposite-sex *9 marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly." The recognition of same-sex marriage would not further this interest in heterosexual "responsible procreation." Id. According to the court "the legislative classification of extending marriage benefits to opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples is reasonably related to a clearly identifiable, inherent characteristic that distinguishes the two classes: the ability or inability to procreate by 'natural' means." Id. The court concluded by observing that "orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism.... The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other." Id. at 25-26.

4. a. Try getting the view point of people from Iran. Just because you're in an environment that doesn't object to it purely on religious grounds, is not a fault of the position, or argument. N.B. that religious doctrine can lead someone to making assertions that are not necessarily warranted, that nonetheless are religiously motivated. Kosher says that pork is unclean, regardless of the fact that pork is significantly more difficult to ensure that it is safe than beef, and chicken. These social, and health reasons are mitigatable conditions, that are pre-empted by the religious position that they are unclean.

Pigs are at the bottom of the food chain, as are shellfish. Today eating reheated pork is more risky than eating reheated beef or chicken. You point seems negligent. Again, either show me who these people are that argue that governments shouldn't recognize same-sex marriage solely on religion or remove the segment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

That's what I'm saying. The health risk is mitigatable, and the likelihood of pork being dangerous to eat is no more than animals that are kosher.

That simply isn't true. I eat pork because I'm not Jewish - but it's still a more dangerous meat than other choices. One of my neighbours got food poisoning from reheated pork once - something it is more at risk of than beef or chicken.

Furthermore certain shellfish (also prohibited in the old testiment) are still dangerous to eat unless they're farmed - Oysters for example, as toxins and contaminents stay in their systems. Catching your own Oysters would still pose significant health risks. This is different from, say flathead or tuna which are quite safe to eat after catching yourself (so long as they're not from Sydney harbour anyway). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.141.159 (talk • contribs).

Yet, still Jews who remain Kosher even today will make a religious argument that pork is unclean, and that evidence can be backed up by evidence of a time when pork was unsafe to eat.

And it still causes more food posing then beef and chicken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.141.159 (talk • contribs).

If all of the positions as to why same-sex marriage should not be allowed are based on religious ideas, then that idea itself must be based on religious ideals. It is the common belief of proponents for same-sex marriage that those who oppose it generally are not entirely aware of all of the facts involved, and are naturally biased from their religous views.

That's just nonesense. It's proponents for same-sex marriage who are generally not aware of all the facts involved. For instance the "rights" for funerals, tax, healthcare, hospital teatment - etc are all a mute point (at least in Australia) - as Marriage doesn't have any exsclusive rights. Adoption is another one - while many proponents will deliberatly use children as pawns for politcal gain, it's simply unfair to put adult's rights ahead of children's rights - there are studies that show it's fundementally essential to have both a mother and a father, and foster care is about serving children's best interests not adults - this again does not prevent families from leaving their homosexual relatives custody of their children in the even of their deaths. And I should note that almost every person I have personally talked about this with, and is in support of same-sex marrage, has agreed with me that it's in the best interests of children that only married hetereosexual couples should be eligible to be foster parents. It has nothing to do with bias, hate or fear.

There's the idea that homosexual relationships are similiar to heterosexual relationships - again on a fundemental level it can be shown this simply isn't true. Every study I've looked at, surveying the gay comunities across Australia clearly shows that the relationships are not as long lasting, monogomous, or fulfilling. Census data from 2001 (as mentioned on my site) shows that about 1.2% of the adult population identified themselves as homosexual (with an additional number equal to this identifying as bisexual) - and yet only 0.46% of relationships were homosexual relationships. The numbers don't add up, and mathematics can't lie.

Furthermore, it's shown that STI's are far more prevalient amung gays. In fact, a homosexual man in Australia is roughly 1000 times more likely to contract HIV than a straight man.

They're a tiny minority, just like other sexual-deviants. While many pro-gay&lesbian organizations continually try to make themselves look big, every individual survey more-or-less corrolates to the census findings that only 2.35% of Australians are either homosexual, or bisexual. To put this in proportion, roughly 5.6% of our adult population are problem gamblers, betting more than they can afford to loose. Many people who become anorexic die anorexic - in their 70's, 80's, and 90's - still convinced it's a fundemental part of their being. Just because people are homosexual until the day they die doesn't show that it's a healthy human attribute. I very good friend of mine has clinical depression - again this is somthing that affects a minority of people, yet depression rates are really quite high. It feeds on itself, and he's 30 now I do believe it's probable that he'll die 74 or 97 and still be clinically depressed.

I resent the claim that most heterosexists are undecuated or not aware of the full facts. Just like depression and anorexia, homosexuality is a conditions which leads to negative behaviour, and abuse of the body. Just like people who are anorexic or depressed, homosexuals have a much shorter life expectency - if it was healthy they should live just as long.

I put it to you that these so called "proponents for same-sex marriage" are the ones who bury their heads in the sand and are not aware of all the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.141.159 (talk • contribs).

Hello, Daniel, let me preface this by asking you to read the note I placed at the top of this section. This conversation is getting big so it's very difficult to follow what's happening when you split up other people's statements and when you don't sign your posts.

In your newest response you make four hefty claims that I feel are untrue. You say "there are studies that show it's fundementally essential to have both a mother and a father", you say "[gay] relationships are not as long lasting, monogomous, or fulfilling", you say "STI's are far more prevalent among gays. In fact, a homosexual man in Australia is roughly 1000 times more likely to contract HIV than a straight man.", you say "pro-gay&lesbian organizations continually try to make themselves look big". Do you have any links to back up these claims? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have sources.

1. Children have a fundemental need for both a mother and a father:

I can answer this personally as well as professionally. As someone who has grown up without a father since 10 years old I have felt this gap personally (he died at 48, and my mother has not remarried). I have also had a friend who has felt this gap personally growing up with a lesbian mother.

Using children as pawns for political gain is evil. Let me rimind you that the USA used children as pawns for the no-fault divorce law, claiming that it would be better for children if divorce was normalized. Homosexual parents can be better parents then abusive heterosexual parents, but they cannot fulfill both needs of a mother and father for a child, here's just one source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/family_matters/you_dad.shtml - "When dads spend time talking with their sons about worries, school work and social lives, their boys grow up with greater confidence and motivation." - "Boys and girls whose fathers are involved in their education when they are age seven have higher educational attainment by age 20. (The Impact of Parental Involvement on Children’s Education, Department for Education and Skills 2003)"

2. Homosexual relationships are not as long lasting, monogomous, or fulfilling.

3. The size of homosexual people in the population:

http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/9/B/288/

4. STI's are more prevalent among sexually active homosexual men:

There are far better sources than this; but it's good nonetheless: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hiv-infection-rate-rises-to-epidemic-levels-in-gay-community/2006/11/25/1164341446659.html

And my main source: http://nchsr.arts.unsw.edu.au/publications_gay.html --210.9.142.146 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Daniel

"1. Children have a fundemental need for both a mother and a father"

The article seems reasonable enough but what is not stated is whether the effect was the same for children who simply had two parents (rather than one).

"2. Homosexual relationships are not as long-lasting, monogomous, or fulfilling."

Are you joking with this stuff? My partner and I had our civil partnership ceremony in June 2006, and I can promise you it is certainly more fulfilling than marrying a woman would have been. We are monogamous, although whether a couple is monogamous or not isn't really relevant to the debate, and as for long-lasting, well, we're working on that one.

I can accept a personal distaste for homosexuality per se but what is hard to stomach is unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as fact. Psicorps 18:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I admit it isn't an ideal source, but all I was after was to show that one of the parents (father or mother) is needed fundementally by the child - these needs can be compramised by the other parent, but they can never be fully replaced. Just like you can't replace your right arm with your left one, it's only a compramise. At any rate, I would hope you can agree with my belief that adoption is about children's rights and not adults. I'm not advocating taking children from same-sex couples and single parents, but I am against them (singles and same-sex couples) being foster parents.

2. I see you're unwilling to even consider the point, and that you've taken what I said out of context. What I originally said was "Every study I've looked at, surveying the gay comunities across Australia clearly shows that the relationships are not as long lasting, monogomous, or fulfilling." Unfortunatly, the scope of this goes way beyond a Wiki talk page, however I can tell you that I do not bury my head in the sand and that I've looked at many many reputible sources. This is an excellent source with over a decade of information in perodic studies all over Australia and is a fanstastic source that demonstrates this: http://nchsr.arts.unsw.edu.au/publications_gay.html --210.11.147.160 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Daniel

1. As psicorps already stated, you found a source that said that a "Dad" is needed, but you're jumping to conclusions: something that WP:OR specifically disallows. 2. Ok, I see you haven't found a source yet. 3. According to your source, the number of homosexual/bisexual people in the Australian population is much bigger than 2.35%. You said that the number was equal to 2.35%. Furthermore, your source didn't try to state anything like "pro-gay&lesbian organizations continually try to make themselves look big". 4. I didn't see "1000" anywhere in your source. In fact your source didn't say anything about heterosexual vs. homosexual STI rates. I haven't poked holes in any of your sources; however, none of the sources covered any of your four points. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I will consider changing the wording to say that indicates that many reasons either either directly or indirectly based on a religious bias. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

4. b. sorry about the lack of context there, but the position is that literally the Bible only accounts for male-male sexual interaction. Women are generally generally qualified from a number of things strictly because the society at the time regarded females as not sigificant enough to merit mention in that case. I mean, in extreme patriarchy, women can be put to death pretty much for any reason that the "owner" likes. You didn't have to say that a woman would be put to death for those things, because, hey, her husband/father could do it anytime he wanted to anyways. Regardless of that you do have a valid grievance that this section is biased and this statement is more of a "haha! zing!" rather than a concerted and meaningful comment. And, no Wikipedia does not need to take the quote out of context.

4.c. This is not presented as being the majority opinion. It's given equal treatement as the other two, in fact, by layout, it is presented 3rd of a list of values, which by natural priority represents it as a dimunitive position.

Even though it isn't an equal position. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

It's not an equal position because fewer people believe in it?

It's not an equal position because it contradicts scripture. It's like saying that Jesus didn't tell the rich young man parabole to illustrate the third commandment (idolatry). It's not an equal Christian position to deliberatly contradict God's law. Need I remind you that male prostitutes were literally referred to as "dogs". It's not about whether it is the majority or the minority position, the position of sticking your head in the sand is never equal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.141.159 (talk • contribs).

You do realize that the Bible isn't 100% correct, right? Those liberal Christians that are accepting of homosexual people indicate that many things of the Bible speak about things that we should not do, and yet Christians continue to do them. The Bible also contains statements that directly contradict reality. Yet Christians still believe them as a matter of course. Where is the introspection and the evaluation of the Bible, to evaluate what information is valid and not? We really haven't done much of that at all except for when they established the original canonical books. Self-evaluation is important in any reasonable belief system. --Puellanivis 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not an incorrect out-dated book, if I've had a nicked for everytime I've heard that argument which hasn't been backed up, I'd be a very rich man. We'll go back to pork being unclean. There's no reason given in the Bible as to why this was, I'm sure at the time it would have seemed like God just arbitarily chose it to be unclean - and why not? It was riligious law not moral law so maybe that's exactly what God did. It's not important, what's important is that the Jews followed it - but this lead to even bigger problems.

Jews today believe that this Jesus us Christians recignize as the Son of Man was just a man. Therefore they still follow old Jewish customs. You ask why Christians don't follow them? Well here's your answer:

Matt 23:23-24 (Jesus said) "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Clearly defining a line between moral law and religious law. Your point is negligent on the fact that before Christians, Jews would follow their religious law but break the moral law. Now, if you have evidence that Christians are not just ignoring Jewish religious law, but also moral law set out in the Bible then you'd actually have a good point. --210.11.147.160 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Daniel

You've restated my position as something that you've easily attacked before. You say that I say that it's an "incorrect out-dated book", what I actually said was "You do realize that the Bible isn't 100% correct, right?" Now, I'll admit that I was baiting you and that you took it. Did you know that human males have the same number of ribs as human females? In fact, outside of the influence of the Old Testaments, people have never even heard of such a silly notion as that. From the Lutheran Bible, 1st Moses (Genesis) 2:21-22 "Da ließ Gott der HERR einen tiefen Schlaf fallen auf den Menschen, und er schlief ein. Und er nahm eine seiner Rippen und schloss die Stelle mit Fleisch. Und Gott der HERR baute eine Frau aus der Rippe, die er von dem Menschen nahm, und brachte sie zu ihm." Christians will typically believe the Bible fundamentally over reality. It happened with geocentric universes and the persecution of Gallileo for being right, and the continued persecution of people who would suggest that the universe is significantly older than 6,000 years by creationists.

It does not surprised me at all, that one would take the contents of the Bible and use verses specifically to attack somethings, or even defend grave civil, and moral rights, such as the use of 1st Moses 9,27: "Gott breite Jafet aus und lasse ihn wohnen in den Zelten Sems und Kanaan sei sein Knecht!" to condone slavery, as the sons of Ham (Canaan) were typically viewed to have populated Africa, and Japhites were believed to have populated Europe. (Japhetic, Semetic, Hamitic). Lastly, I will point out the response that Jesus gave when he was confronted by the pharasis regarding if they should pay taxes: "Give unto Caesar, what is Caesar's". Taxes were a secular practice that was forced upon the Jews, and they were expected to uphold it as a secular law. In the same way, same-sex marriage provides a secular contract, that in the United States does bring significant benefits that do not come automatically like they do in other more socialized countries. And as a secular concept, the church is neither required to recognize it, nor obligated to permit it. Not everyone lives under the same religious biases that you have, and unlike the Jews, Christians have typically had extensive diffiulty in understanding that their religious laws do not apply to those who do not believe in them. As evidenced by the significant amount of disgusting practices during the Catholizing of the Americas, and of course, the Spanish Inquisition.

I leave you with the simplest evidence at all that the Bible cannot be infallable. To be infallable it must be correct in every way, and even the single existence of a counter-example breaks that infallability. The proven fact that men and women have the same number of ribs provides this counter-example. Yet, in the western culture, we hardly ever hear about this... --Puellanivis 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a very good counter-example, IMO. I mean, you could have chosen the verse in the Bible which refers to a mountain high enough to see all of Earth. Of course, in the case of the rib-cage, showing people have the same number of ribs doesn't show that Adam and Eve is wrong; as it would only mean ADAM, and no other man lost one rib. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.3.205 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Uh... I'm sorry hun, but that logic doesn't fit with reality. Minority opinions are entirely just as valid and equal as majority opinions, and it is the determination of the United States Government that the needs of the few should not be outweighed by the wants of the many. Living in a democracy, we've perscribed that certain things are determined by a majority of people, but we recognize in the courts that some laws, despite being approved by a majority can violate the civil rights of a minority, and are thus wrong, and are struck down. Of course, the majority pushing for this change may typically see this as a form of "activist judgeship", but in truth, it's just the judges making sure that the majority doesn't just tromple the minority, just because it can. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

5. There's a tag for this. It says that the material is locally scoped, and does not represent a global perspective. I will add that in.

If you have information from a source, for instance, Scandanavia, then then add that information. It should be noted that you will receive criticism about it though, because there are things other than Homosexual marriage which can be causing this. Specifically I am aware of a sociology study that examined the prevalence of sex during a first date in Denmark. The study asked the question "Would you sleep with a guy on the first date?" The response was generally, "Yes, why else would I agree to go out with him on a date?" Also, the rates of parenthood is comparable to unwed couples because Europe is has very effective sexual education on preventing pregnancy. A married couple is unlikely to have a child unless they intend to have a child. I think you would find the same relative statistics among US citizens and Australian citizens, that the most common source of unexpected pregnancies is in unwed couples. Holding Europe's sucess with preventing unwanted pregnancies as a mark against homosexual marriage, well, that's what we call a statistical correlation, which is not necessary a cause and effect.

I think you missed the point: on the declining vale that Marriage has in Scandinavia. No one assets this is solely caused by same-sex civil unions, but many see it as playing a significant role. How about the UAS-style no-fault divorce has that had an effect? You bet! Last year the NSW government said that AIDS rates in the gay-community in Sydney was comparable to some African countries, claiming it could be as high as about 20% and some African countries are at 20%. This is an example of homosexuality being the main or only significant common denominator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

The article that you linked to specifically says it is a cause. "A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood." (emphasis mine) It proposes no other links to this cause. Oddly, the article also refutes a scientific study, with "Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to." I would think that if statistics on marriage were not applicable, they would provide no evidence either way. You can't really say that statistics on marriage like... say something different. Sure you can take them out of context, and make the claim that the person proposing those statistics is saying one thing, when they're only asserting a simple thing. Divorce rates in Scandanavia are going down, and the number of marriages is going up. I'm sorry, but even if things were going bad in the '90s, the evidence is that things are getting better now. But then this is the problem with citing a biased article as your support. It's far easier for us to attack your sources that are biased than you if you cite both sides of the argument. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In the same way the article that is currently there is promoting the fact that Massachusetts has a lower than USA-average divorce rate; concluding that it's had no impact. Here's a double-standard - in fact it even says "Emergent trends in Massachusetts amount to a stark indictment of those dire claims about same-sex marriage having a negative impact on traditional marriages." Even though they're only looking at 2 years of information, and even though it was already at a lower than USA-average divorce rate to begin with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.140.160 (talk • contribs).

The claims were that same-sex marriage would have an impact on traditional marriages. In order to show that it is not the case that same-sex marriage would have an impact on traditional marriage, you need merely show that traditional marriage is going along fine despite same-sex marriage.

If the divorce rate was dropping, and it has continued to drop at the same rate before, I would say that this disproves the strong assertion that same-sex marriage would have any impact at all upon traditional marriages. It's a logically validated proof. --Puellanivis 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. Assumptions are not proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.9.141.159 (talk • contribs).

Now, to address why I deleted your first comments. Because they were not specific to the article, and contained no constructive criticism. It is very rare that a post would get deleted from a Talk page, as it's considered bad form. But your post was merely an essay that is appropriate for your personal blog, but not in a discussion of this article. --Puellanivis 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The divorce section already states that it does not represent a worldwide view. This point of criticism becomes simply one of "no one's bothered to write the worldwide data" not that Wikipedia itself necessarily has a problem with bias. We seem to already be aware of most of the issues that he addresses... why not create an account and actually contribute, rather than just tell us how we are wrong. --Puellanivis 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OR tag on transgendered section

I slapped an {{original research}} tag on the transgender section--it appears to be highly speculative, and its primary claim (concerning the ability of transgendered individuals, or persons with difficult-to-determine gender, to marry), are unsourced. Are there any documented cases where someone with a medical condition making determination of gender difficult, was prevented from marrying? Are there any cases where someone legally entered into a male/female marriage, underwent a sex change, and then had their marriage challenged and/or annulled by a third party? Is this particular analysis found outside of Wikipedia?

FWIW, I support the right of same-sex couples to marry; my criticism is intended to bring the article in line with current policy. Right now, this section appears to be deletion-fodder.

--EngineerScotty 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is generically sourced. I do know of a specific case where a FTM/F were married, and when the F became a Christian, she decided that transsexuality was wrong, and sought a divorce/annullment with her husband. The court did annull the marriage, stating that Florida agrees "with the Kansas, Ohio, and Texas courts in their understanding of the common meaning of male and female … to refer to immutable traits determined at birth." where the marriage was voided/annuled "ab initio" (from the beginning). [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39622] The source I know about it is a very conservative-biased source, and I would prefer to find a less biased source before the information was put into the article.

The material concerning definition of male and female is essentially a reproduction of work I have seen in other places.

Actually, most of the section already seems to be fairly clean and non-OR, as it references/links to other articles that reference sources to support their positions.

I reworked some of the wording in the "legal limbo" land to state specifically how it could happen. As Florida, Kansas, Ohio, and Texas already found in court that the birth gender overrides all, you're essentially screwed if someone actually cares to object to what would appear to be a homosexual marriage to someone unaware of one of the partner's transsexual status. Plus, you're not going to get anything arguing that it's different from a regular homosexual marriage because they can procreate, because typically the transsexual will not be able to procreate. --Puellanivis 03:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of countries

I changed the number of countries where same sex marriage is available to six. These are Netherlands, USA, Canada, Spain, South Africa and Belgium. The restriction of same sex marriage to one state in the USA doesn't change the fact that same sex marriage is available in the USA. Ordinary Person 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect the page?

What are the feelings towards semi-protecting the page? We naturally see a heavy traffic of vandalism, and the majority of it appears to be simply from anonymous editors. This naturally isn't expected to cure vandalism, but any sort of a reduction may be worth it. --Puellanivis 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the page needs protection. I admit to being biased here, my personal threshold for editing other's work is very high. The topic is important, relevant as defined by the goals of this encyclopedia and deserving of critical analysis and improvement. It is not possible to reconcile the Christianist viewpoint on homosexuality with human rights. This being the case, perhaps people opposed to human rights for homosexuals might be willing to author their own entry detailing their position on the topic. This article could then include a reference to their position and their article a reference to this one.Panthera germanicus 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason for a semi-protect is not to prevent opposing viewpoints from being presented on this page. In fact the only protection that allows us to keep people will religious views that homosexuality is wrong from editing this page would make us unable to edit the page, and such protection is only ever offered in the case of a strong edit war where people are repeatedly reverting the article back and forth.

Semi-protection is intended solely to deal with rampant anonymous vandalism. Not to stifle conversation. Not to mention that forking this article so that critics of same-sex marriage can present their opinion unopposed and apart from proponents of same-sex marriage is called a POV Fork, and is inappropriate on wikipedia. Both sides need to work on this article to present a fair unbiased representation of both sides of the arguement. Again, someone coming here and adding that Christian morals state that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore same-sex marriage should not be tolerated is not commiting vandalism. But coming here and blanking the page and replacing it with "FAGS ARE TEH STOOPID!" is vandalism. I am not in any way attempting to block out reasonable editors from posting their assertions regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I am however simply attempting to avoid the vast amounts of anonymous vandalism just looking to act out against homosexuals in a non-productive manner. --Puellanivis 20:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly have to agree that we should semi-protect this page. It's very irritating to have to constantly revert edits done by people who have clearly been kicked out of their hostels for the night. A lot of people go to a lot of trouble to make these articles what they are and I'm racked off that... well, you get the idea. --Psicorps 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Though not an editor of this article, I have been watching it and am inclined to agree that semi-protection is worth requesting (let the admins decide whether the make it). People should not be restricted from editing the article based on their viewpoint, as long as their contributions are of an encyclopedic nature and not vandalism.croll 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to semi-protect to cut down the vandalism. Aleta 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Semi-protect to keep out the vandals. Publicus 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well Savagepine 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request today to semi-protect. Publicus 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Who does one see about a semi-protect? I'd like one for the Walter Dean Myers page. Czolgolz 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You can put in a request here, the admins review it and decide based on edit history, etc. Publicus 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Massachusetts?

There is no reference to the gay marriage law in Massachusetts. Does someone want to add a few sentences? scotteaux 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just the first reference, there are many others...

Same-sex marriages are also recognised in Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts (for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws).

--Puellanivis 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence of this article seems to me to be both redundant and incorrect. It reads "Same-sex marriage is a term for a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family."

• governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage — All marriages are at least governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized. Same-sex marriages are not different in this respect.
• live together as a family — Not all married people live together as a family. Some are separated, some live in different cities. Same-sex couples are no more or less likely to live together as a family than opposite-sex couples.

This leaves "Same-sex marriage is a term for a marriage between people of the same sex." which sounds trivial and self-evident but is correct. –Shoaler (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The "or" there is not an "and". Not all marriages are recognized in one of those three areas. In Massachusetts, it's governmentally recognized, but many people refuse to still recognize it socially, and religiously. Meanwhile, there is absolutely nothing stopping a couple from being religiously married, no matter any conditions. But that doesn't mean that it would be socially or even legally recognized. The precondition that a marriage must be at least governmentally, socially or religiously recognized is a piece of common knowledge that may not be immediately apparent to the reader of the article. I do not think it should change. --Puellanivis 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: Sex Ed

Homosexual Sexual Education is another part of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage. Sex Ed is its own controversy, but debate surrounding the inclusion of sexual orientation links it to this topic. Currently the argument rages as to whether homosexuality should be included in sex ed, as seen at Fox News, The Nation, NY Times, Washington Times, and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17490 World Net Daily]. While proponents of same-sex marriage argue that homosexuality and sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (perhaps seeing it as obvious), opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it should be excluded (perhaps seeing it as odious). At issue in this article: the argument for exclusion would lose its standing if same-sex marriage ever became fully accepted (or at least fully mandated). Thus, one more reason to disallow same-sex marriage (for its opponents) is to preserve the exclusion of homosexual sex ed.—Red Baron 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Joie de Vivre 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Core tension issue

Hi, I’m digging around for information on human bonding and I see the page protect and lengthy archive for this page; could someone quickly summarize what the inherent tension behind all the discussion and debate is about? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, only, a deep-rooted societal bigotry that runs deeper than racism; one of the most base discrimination which has nearly always existed in the course of human history- homophobia. Also, some people are using religion as a hate group and a clarion-call. This is a controversial topic- I'm bisexual and I love freedom so I am obviously NPOV on the topic, but that's my opinion. Basicaly, this debate inspires such vitriol and acid from both sides that it's not at all surprising. HunterBlackLuna 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Germany?

Germany allows same-sex marriages,it should be added into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.4.73 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

 Not really, it has 'registered partnerships' 69.140.19.116 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Religious Arguments Section

Just a few thoughts... the "Religious Arguments" section doesn't really contain any religious arguments...just secular arguments made by religious people...something should be corrected here, whether it's the title of the section or its content.

Pianoman123 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Civil Unions

Do we have a cite for the long list of states that will have civil unions starting in 2008? There are two lists, and it seems that there's a typo or something.

Theygoboom13 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

No mention of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands? Isn't it somewhat relavant, or am I wrong? 04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"International same-sex marriage recognized". What does it mean? --212.247.27.32 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Aha, now I understand. --212.247.27.32 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)