Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 9

Huh?

Why does it seem as if that you take the side of homosexual marriage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.234.213.255 (talk • contribs).

Who are you addressing with your question? Who are you expecting to answer?

Atlant 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignore it; did you look at the other contribs? Just nonsense/rants. AUTiger » talk 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am addressing my question to the people who wrote the article about parallels between gay and interracial marriage. First, I don't see them, and second, there are reasons other than prejudice and ignorance to oppose gay marriage, whereas opponents of interracial marriage oppose it based on ignorance and prejudice. In fact, it has been in my experience that those who support same-sex marriage have discriminated against me because my parents were an interracial marriage. --69.234.213.189 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Jknight 98

First, I have no interest in getting into a debate about the arguments SSM here, as it isn't the purpose of this page, but I believe you'll find other supposed "reasons [arguments] other than prejudice and ignorance" usually come down to excuses for people's prejudice and ignorance rather than valid arguments. In fact, many of the opponents of interacial marriage used "tradition" and "religion" as arguments against it as well; read up about miscegenation and the Loving v. Virginia court decision.

Second, your anecdotal experience is certainly contrary to mine; in my experience SSM advocates are generally far-less prejudiced (including towards interracial couples) than the general US population. Regardless, your perception of that discrimination has no bearing as an argument against SSM.

As an aside, if you wish to sign your comments as "Jknight 98" and generally, edit and participate fully in Wikipedia, you should create an account. An account has several benefits. AUTiger » talk 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the miscegantion article and I still don't see parallels.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.234.214.122 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2007, 13:25 (UTC).

That's unfortunate for you, but immaterial to the content of the article. AUTiger » talk 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

?????????

I didn't see the paralells between gay marriage and interracial marriage I'm really confused. --69.234.176.81 01:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Jknight98 The similarites between gay marriage and interracial marriage is an arguement used by those who support gay marriage. That is why it is included. If you wish to debate this point, then you should seek out a political forum.(Wikifan999 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Arguments concerning divorce ==

The Monster took issue with the P.O.V. of this section based upon the wording. I would add that the divorce rate as given may be highly deceptive. Divorce should be measured not only as a percentage of the population but as a percentage of marriages. It would not, for example, surprise me if Massachusetts simply had a lower marriage rate and higher domestic partnership rate than the rest of the country, and hence fewer divorces (but far more "break-ups"). This statement, therefore:

The institution of marriage in Massachusetts since same-sex Marriage was legalized, as measured by the rate of divorce, has not been healthier in at least half a century regardless of dire predictions of Christian Right leaders and Catholic Bishops.

needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I should add it is a curious oversight that the section does not mention the divorce rate of homosexually married couples themselves.

Advocates/Opponents

"Further opponents argue that a change in the definition of marriage to include same gender couples could lead to the breakdown in understanding of what marriage actually is."... Opponents counter that the very definition of traditional marriage itself has changed drastically over time;"

Why would opponents to gay marriage say that a change in marriage would break things down and then other opponents counter that to say that marriage has been changing "drastically over time." I think the last "opponents" is meant to be "advocates of gay marriage." Because that would make a lot more sense. 24.235.71.134 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

US States vs. US

Why are several US states named in in the subgroup "Civil unions and Domestic partnerships"? Meaning, they're mentioned seperately (Maine, New Hampshire etc.), and in the category "some regions" as the country United States. Shouldn't these states be deleted as they technically fall under the United States because the Agrentine states etc. aren't listed seperately either or am I missing some detail? LightPhoenix 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Discriminates" - hardly a NPOV term

With this: "However Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibits the recognition of civil unions/civil partnerships and same-gender marriages and still today, discriminates in 58 Acts by using the term 'member of the opposite sex'.[13]"

"Discriminates" is a loaded word in an allegedly neutral encyclopaedia article. It should be re-written to be neutral. Not from an LGBT POV, nor from a "straight" POV. A neutral one. As it is, it's loaded.

As an aside, if "member of the opposite sex" is a now a discriminatory term, then is there any hope remaining for the English language? Peter1968 01:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gave a quick shot at removing the word 'discriminate' as it did seem to be used in a POV-ish manner. You're welcome to help out in an endeavor to clean such things up. ZueJay (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually do "help out" per se, but this is one subject I'm not comfortable with editing and/or contributing to. It's a little hot for me. Good on you for looking at it, nonetheless. Peter1968 03:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the commas and verbs all messed up? It should be "However, Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibit the recognition of civil unions or civil partnerships and same-gender marriages and, still today, discriminate in 58 Acts by using the term 'member of the opposite sex." A.Z. 07:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's been bowled over as I changed it to read: "However, Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibit the recognition of civil unions, civil partnerships and same-gender marriages; fifty-eight acts in commonwealth law use the phrase 'member of the opposite sex'." How's the grammar on that? Give a shout-out if I've got something bizarre. ZueJay (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good. At least "member of the opposite sex" is no longer discriminatory - which, of course, it never was to begin with. Peter1968 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interview with Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry

Dear all,

As a member of Wikinews I have been granted an interview with Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry and the founder of the modern same-sex marriage movement in the United States. The interview will become part of the same-sex marriage page and Wolfson's page. I am soliciting questions from the Wiki community that you would like to see asked. Only serious questions will be given consideration and posed. This is your opportunity to have issues related to same-sex marriage, or Wolfson, answered. I have set up a subpage for any questions you may have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidShankBone/Evan_Wolfson_interview.

I look forward to any input. Best regards, --David Shankbone 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

• Would it be appropriate to make an external link to the Debatepedia page on the debate over same sex marriage? I'm not seeing an external link section, and I'm concerned there's a reason.Debaterx 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say no not because external links are unwelcome but because that link doesn't really add anything encyclopedic of value to the article. Benjiboi 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is biased towards dominant gay rights discourse in the U.S.

Why, at this particular moment in the history of LGBTQ rights/liberation movements in the U.S., has same-sex marriage become such a cause celebre? What's at stake in this debate? The fact that the current article does not even raise such questions is, for me, cause for great concern. I'd like to know if there are others who share my concern and whether this article is the proper place to address them.

I don't think it's unfair to say that this article perpetuates a wide-spread liberal bias in the U.S. by omitting dissident LGBTQ voices on the topic. It tends to assume that all LGBTQ people are "for" same-sex marriage, thus perpetuating stereotypes that all LGBTQ people are somehow alike, and in turn contributes to the delegitimation of alternative forms of sexual and social relation. See Michael Warner's _The Trouble with Normal_ (Harvard University Press, 1999) for a peer-reviewed introduction to these issues.

At a minimum, I think the article needs to address the question of WHO is arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage and why. In so doing, it needs to acknowledge that there are LGBTQ activists/academics/leaders who oppose gay marriage on political and philosophical grounds and that "gay rights advocates" do not speak for all LGBTQ individuals or causes in the U.S. Ideally, it should also link to separate articles on topics such as the history of feminist/queer critiques of marriage and liberal politics in the U.S. But now I'm just getting greedy. :D

Jeff King 69.76.88.77 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is arguing for legalization of same-sex marriage and why? Those of us who believe in full, equal standing under the law because all citizens are supposed to have such a right. The real question should be: Who is arguing against full, equal standing under the law, and why? Allowing those people who wish to share in the hundreds of rights, responsibilities, priviledges and protections that come with legal marriage will not, in any way, interfere with the same rights, responsibilities, priviledges and protections of others, nor would it obligate those who do not want to get married to do so. TechBear 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Those arguments are to some extent touched upon in the controversies section. But Jeff King was simply pointing out that the article does not currently represent all significant positions in the debate - In particular those who think that marriage itself is problematic and extending it to same-sex couples extends an institution that is damaging, and discourages those people from finding better aternatives for their lives. (I think I've paraphrased you reasonably Jeff, please correct if I'm wrong). Of course this would be easier to do if Jeff would provide some reliable sources that could be used to build up the content :-) -- SiobhanHansa 11:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Such arguments are against marriage itself and not specifically same-sex marriage; they would properly belong in that article, not this one. And anyway, Jeff's post was very clearly in the context of marriage being claimed as a right by gay people. My opinion FWIW is that the arguments made by some GLBT activists against marriage are not sufficiently relevant to merit further comment in this article. TechBear 12:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where the arguments and discourse are focused on the extension of marriage rights to same sex couples they are as relevant as the other arguments in the controversies section. As to significance - like I said sources are required. From those significance and appropriate weight can be determined. I tend to think such an opinion is a minor but notable one (but then I have generally lived in cities that tend to have vocal and radical GLBT movements, so that may not reflect the broader perspective). I just didn't think your initial response to Jeff's posting was geared towards discussing how to improve the article. Maybe I'm missing some history, but responding to a suggestion about covering a different point of view with what I saw as rhetoric did not seem appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 13:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I have recently reviewed Warner's arguments in The Trouble with Normal and I have taken a stab at representing this minority, dissident view within the gay community. I have done so in a few lines under the "social arguments" and "controversies" section. My aim was to present a few basic points advanced by what's left of the left in LGBT activism today. Although the arguments are against marriage, they speak to concerns raised within the gay community regarding the effects of the gay marriage movement upon topics of historical concern in LGBT politics more broadly. I hope my contribution enriches the article by ever so slightly widening the scope of its discussion.Dpmath (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing "Equal Marriage"

In the first paragraph, I asked for citation on how the term "equal marrage" is used as a synonym for gay marrage. It's not that I disagree with it, but rather the exact opposite. You see, homophobic assholes piss me off, and I want to be able to look them in the eye and say "There's a reason they call it 'equal marriage,'" and when they ask me for sources, I can give it to them, because let's face it, Wikipedia is not the most credible source in the world (for example, my college allows Wikipedia as a starting point, but we have to cite the citations that Wikipedia gives, not wikipedia itself). - Dstebbins

Nice idea, but unless you are going to demand references for all of the terms, I don't think it will wash. For what it is worth, I have been using the term "equal marriage" for more than a decade, and other marriage activists of my aquaintance also use the term frequently. TechBear 04:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Taiwanese same-sex marriage

The current version of the article has a photo at the top whose caption implies that Taiwan has same-sex marriage. But in the sidebar, Taiwan is listed under "recognition debated", and the article Same-sex marriage in Taiwan says that Taiwan does not have any form of same-sex unions. So either that article is out of date, or the caption on the photo in this article is wrong. --Mathew5000 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I will remove the photo. --Mathew5000 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The photo's inclusion in the article shouldn't depend on the legal status of same-sex marriage in the location where it was snapped. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Mathew5000. The article is about legal same sex marriage; legal same sex marriage does not exist in Taiwan; therefore, the photo is not appropriate as it provides misleading information. We just need to find a photo of a legal same sex marriage, that's all. Seeing as we have one US state and several countries to chose from, a better photo should not be difficult to find. TechBear (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

From the lead: "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." The two women are married socially at the very least. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall I upload my wedding photo, from the Netherlands? Jeffpw (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I think that would be the ideal solution, as you can provide the licensing Wikipedia requires. Looking at the history, the previous photo has been the subject of some (occasionally legitimate) controversy; replacing it with a photo of a legal marriage eliminates the legitimate controversy entirely. If I might offer a suggestion, I think the one of you two kissing would cause the most bigot heads to explode; second best would be one of you two signing your license.

Binksternet, my understanding is that the couple in the previous photo do not meet those requirements (interpreting "socially recognized marriage" as being recognized by society at large rather than one's personal community, for example a common law marriage.) Merely having a wedding ceremony does not make for a marriage. TechBear (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I look like a prat (I was scared to death), but it illustrates the article well. Jeffpw (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! And thanks. TechBear (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congrats indeed! Newtman (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race but it seems to me that the Taiwanese image could still be used in the article. The article doesn't mention (yet) how activism has been used to try and change laws or at least raise awareness of the issue. How marriage ceremonies have been held publicly even when the locality doesn't recognize them. The Taiwanese couple could show up in such a section. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This Article Needs Help

There is a great deal of relevant information that is missing from this article which would help to make it both more complete and more neutral. In the "Current Status" section, there is no mention at all of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or of the more than 40 states that have passed Defense of Marriage Acts and/or state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one woman and one man. However, there is detailed information on the states that have solemnized or recognized same-sex marriages. In addition, the term "marriage equality" is used. It seems to me that this term strongly implies that the institution of marriage is currently unequal, and that same-sex marriage should be legalized. People may agree or disagree with that proposition, and that is exactly what the same-sex marriage debate is about. This article should not take sides on that debate, and this type of language is just inappropriate regardless of one's position on this issue.

In the "Controversy" section, the summary regarding the views of same-sex marriage opponents is given shorter shrift than the section on same-sex marriage proponents. Also, the tone and tenor of the discussion tends to be one-sided. For example, this section tends to set forth (not always accurately, in my view) the anti-same-sex-marriage position, and to then attempt to refute that position with pro-same-sex-marriage arguments. Many of the arguments mentioned in this section (for example, the third paragraph under religious arguments) lack any citations whatsoever. In the section on social arguments, there is a short mention of the argument that homosexuality is genetic and/or innate, and no opposing viewpoint is offered. This is a hugely important and hotly disputed issue in the same-sex-marriage debate, and to include only one side is unacceptable, particularly when there is a wealth of online information available on this question.

If I were teaching a student on any level -- from high school to law school -- and they wished to write a report on same-sex marriage, I would have no choice but to instruct that student not to utilize this article, in its current form, as a neutral information source.

74.76.121.29 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that adamantly about it, do something about it. Wikipedia is a community of editors, not a group of editors that takes research requests. As long as your edits are helpful and non-disruptive, I'm sure your contribution will be appreciated. Newtman (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to contribute, provided that my helpful, non-disruptive edits don't mysteriously disappear after I make them (as has happened in the past)...

24.97.136.210 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to set up an account with Wikipedia. It is free and gives you access to articles that might have been semi-protected. Edits made by an IP address tend to get more scrutiny and are more likely to get reverted. Also, keep in mind that the Wikipedia has a number of policies designed to keep articles fair and unbiased such as neutral point of view, avoiding original research and citing the articles with verifiable, reliable sources. As long as you keep within these guidelines, you should do well. Welcome aboard! TechBear (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You also have more privacy when you register an account. Although unregistered users are often described as "anonymous", the IP number is traceable. If you register an account then the general public will not know your IP number. In that sense, registered users can be more anonymous than unregistered users. You do not even need to provide an email address when you create an account. Also, with repect to your remark that your edits "mysteriously disappear", you can click on the tab marked "history" at the top of each article to see the article's revision history, which tells you when changes were made to the article and (in the edit summary) why. --Mathew5000 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)