Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 5

message: In the section "Publicly noted same-sex unions" also Benjamin_Netanyahu is listed, but his page does mentions a marriage with his third wife. Is that vandalism? Nova77 01:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netanyahu same-sex marriage? 

message: User:24.63.45.74 is claiming that "Sodomy" marriage is a code word (figure of speech) commonly used by opponents of same-sex marriage.  As a US resident who's followed this subject for years, I've never heard this term.  Can anyone provide a link please.  It may be a non-US term.--ghost 30 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)
::I've not come across this in the UK either. I suspect that it was just the editor in question's idea of a way to denigrate the concept, rather than an attempt to document actual usage. rossb 30 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)
===Sodomy marriage === 
sodomy marriage is a real term used by opponents. It is preferred to gay marriage because it shows what the marrriage is really about. It is like saying pro abortion instead of pro choice.--24.63.45.74 (talk • contribs) (Talk | contribs) 30 June 2005  17:47
:Following the link, and the Anon user's statement, indicates that this a Code word.  Since it's use is POV, and it's intent is to inflame, it's inappropriate for the main article.--ghost 2 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
:211 google hits is not evidence of notability, it could be considered quite the opposite in fact.~~~~ 17:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sodomy" marriage

message: sodomy marriage is a real term used by opponents. It is preferred to gay marriage because it shows what the marrriage is really about. It is like saying pro abortion instead of pro choice.--24.63.45.74 (talk • contribs) (Talk | contribs) 30 June 2005  17:47
:Following the link, and the Anon user's statement, indicates that this a Code word.  Since it's use is POV, and it's intent is to inflame, it's inappropriate for the main article.--ghost 2 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
:211 google hits is not evidence of notability, it could be considered quite the opposite in fact.~~~~ 17:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sodomy marriage 

message: Why is the "this was a featured article but was removed because ..." at the top filled with redlinks? ~~~~ 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: I removed the split tag since this article covers one coherent topic and creating a disambiguation page really makes little sense.  There is a need, however, for other articles on more specific elements of same-sex marriage (such as in particular countries, its history, its controversy, etc.).  This article could then be shorter as more detailed information would go into the daughter articles. Please see the NEEDS BREAK UP section above.  -Acjelen 04:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Tag 

message: Sorry to delve a bit off topic, but I would like to bring your attention to an active poll in the George W. Bush talk page.
*Talk:George W. Bush#Sentence Poll - Poll/survey on whether or not the fact that Bush is the "first Republican to appoint an openly gay man" to his administration is appropriate for his article. Pro says it is a relevant fact that shows Bush is making strides toward inclusiveness, con says given the hundreds, even thousands of appointments a president makes, one is insignificant. Lengthy discussion is above the poll.
If you have an opinion on this matter, please feel free voice it by voting. Thanks! Sdauson 15:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: George W. Bush Poll

message: The north America map (showing Massachusetts and California shaded) appears to assume that if courts have not considered it then the default is "civil unions". I know for a fact that Viriginia Law does not recognize even Civil Marriage. Several Other US states are the same way, so I would suggest that whoever added this graphic should revise it to reflect the actual state of US civil union laws MPS 20:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Unions Assumed in the North America Map

message: The caption doesn't show VA recognizing CUs. The color captioned for CUs is the color that CA, NJ etc are colored (kinda pinkish shade). VA is colored the more purple shade that is not captioned as anything (indicating to me at least that it does not have SSM, CU or anything else.) NickGorton 18:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: as a color blind person, I have problems reading map colorization and did not distinguish pink and purple. The legend should have an "unkonwn" category for whatever color Virginia is or the graphic is misleading. MPS 21:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shades of Pink/Purple 

message: I added intro content that says that SSM is controversial. Not sure if it's worded right but I think it should be upfront that not everyone agrees that there are arguments for and against it. The dialectic structure/tone of the entire article doesn't make sense unless you understand SSM as a controversial topic. MPS 18:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy intro

message: I think legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States is a good idea because it is like discrimination if it is illegal. This is because that would mean homosexuals would not be allowed to get married happily. posted by User:Flarn2005
:::Would you mind explaining why you placed an NPOV tag on this article?  Exploding Boy 16:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
:::: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Posting what you think about SSM is not what the discussion board is for  MPS 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legalization 

message: Can anyone substantiate this claim?? In a 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. My impression was that they struck down the Texas Sodomy Law because it prohibited sodomy to homosexuals but not heterosexuals. Thus, it singled out homosexuals and violated Equal protection. I am totally open to being contradicted if someone could insert a quote from the opinion that actually says that there is a right to private consensual sexual conduct. MPS 23:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawrence V texas

message: I restored this deleted addition, but I will give some background information on the politics, to explain why people are so irritated~, and why it might be deleted again.
:Certain couples are excluded from same-sex marriage, by a combination of nationality and income. The restriction also applies to traditional marriage: a resident of the Netherlands who has an income of less than 120% of the national minimum wage, may not marry a ‘non-western foreigner’. If one partner is a non-western foreigner, then both partners must be over 21, and the non-western partner must pass an examination in basic Dutch, which can only be taken outside the Netherlands. Source: official press release of the Netherlands Cabinet announcing the measures, .
The reason for the irritation is that the gay/lesbian organisations in the Netherlands, which of course supported same-sex unions, did not call for the retraction of the law when the subsequent restrictions came into force. Should they? Of course it would be difficult for them to campaign for cancellation of same-sex unions, after having campaigned for them for years, but as it stands they now have a situation where some people may enter into such unions, and others may not, by reason of nationality and income, or indeed because they can't learn Dutch. The double standard is embarrassing, since ethics suggest you should not accept emancipation at the price of discrimination. EU citizens are exempt from all this, which is another inequality in the process.Ruzmanci 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this fall under the NPOV policy, and do you have a source to back it up in English? This is English Wikipedia. The source you provided looks amateurish like anyone could do it on their word processor. -- Spinboy 21:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me, after reading it, it's not really relevant, as it applies to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. -- Spinboy 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't origional research. -- Spinboy 21:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor banned from Dutch same-sex marriage 

message: Would someone please update the page in light of http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-08-nygaymarriageruling_x.htm? Alienus 00:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update to NY state ruling

message: 216.164.193.8, do you have a citation for the stuff about what unspecified philosophers think?  Sounds libertarian, but I can't tell who in specific you're referring to. Alienus 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs citation

message: See here for news on Latvia - 't seems they've just banned it. Way to go, Baltics. </sarcasm>.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latvia 

message: The article is still pretty ungainly despite some attempts over the summer to reorganize it.  I think it would be a good idea to start by replacing the sections on "Canada", "United States" and "Australia" with just the links to Same-sex marriage in Canada, Same-sex marriage in the United States, and Same-sex marriage in Australia.  Summarizing the content of those articles in this one creates extra maintenance headaches and I don't see the compelling benefit to doing so. Tim Pierce 12:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs shortening! 

message: I inserted the following under societal objections:  The dissent by Justice Martha Sossman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court[1] that mandated gay marriage for that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of Precautionary Principle.
I linked the dissent to my personal blog because a link to the full decision that I found did not have an index, so finding the section referenced would have been difficult. I welcome any comments  Arodb 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Judicial decision dissent

message: I rewrote several words in the following phrase in an attempt to resolve a dispute: "They also see same-sex and male-female arrangements as inherently unequal, pointing out that nothing less than perpetuation of humanity itself relies fully on the latter and not at all on the former, and trying to "equalize" such arrangements through force of law will only create gross social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature."
I added "perpetuation of" to lend a biological objectiveness to "Pointing out", which I restored, rather than "asserted."  That only men and women can perpetuate the species is still true as of this writing.  There is enough that is controversial in this subject that we must preserve that which is factual, and then build on it. 
I removed the following because it is so broad as to be meaningless.  
Some countries and states have judicial rulings that set precedence for same-sex marriage. However, popular majorities in some jurisdictions, continue to assert that the traditional concept of marriage cannot exist outside of a heterosexual relationship. To them, the male-female relationship has unique capacities and qualities that marriage was meant to recognize and foster that are not adequately acknowledged by the above definition. Arodb 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal and change

message: "Canada is currently the only country offering same-sex marriage equally with other marriages, with no residency requirements or stipulation that the marriage is exempted from recognition when outside national borders."
I removed this sentence as it is not correct: at least in the Netherlands opposite-sex and same-sex marriage are the same institution: the Dutch code of law reads: "A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex". The reason that foreigners can't marry in the Netherlands so easily, is that you need to be living in the Netherlands or have the Dutch nationality to marry. It doesn't matter if you are marrying an opposite partner or a same-sex partner, the rule stands for both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorin (talk • contribs) 
As for foreign recognition: that has little to do with the country permitted same-sex marriages. When other countries don't recognize the marriages, it won't make a difference if the marriage was contracted in Canada or the Netherlands. When a same-sex couple travels abroad, its marriage may not be valid there, but it still valid in the Netherlands. Thorin 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the only difference is that Canada doesn't have a residency or citizenship requirement; any two people can get married here, regardless of citizenship or place of residence (whether the marriage they contract will be recognised in their home country is another story). Exploding Boy 21:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the sentence is correct. The situation in Canada is unique in that foreigners can go there and get married to another of the same sex, and the marriage is legal there. Wuzzy 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right, foreigners can get married in Canada. But my point is that in the first sentence, it's implied that only in Canada opposite-sex and same-sex marriage are -equal-. Both forms of marriage are just as equal in The Netherlands, but there you need to be a resident to get married. But that doesn't make it less equal: you need it for both forms of marriage.Thorin 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: only same institution in Canada?

message: This article is clearly biased against people who do not support same-sex marriage, because the article does not give equal discussion to both sides of the debate, and discredits claims made by pro-family advocates, and same-sex marriage supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blissmeister (talk • contribs)  00:17, February 1, 2006
:Then fix it. Peyna 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed your changes and they look very good so far.  I didn't check to make sure that all of the removed info was covered in the sub-articles, but the changes definitely improved this article.  Thanks. Peyna 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless there is someone who believes the article currently suffers from excessive POV and is willing to state where that excess is, I don't see why we should have a POV tag.  Is user:Anonymous editor willing to do this?  If not, out it goes. Alienus 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous editor says that he reposted the tag only because it had been removed without reasons. Wuzzy 22:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, what if I remove it for the simple reason that the article is now balanced?  In fact, let's find out. Alienus 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Policy Violation

message: I edited the introduction because i argue that some people only called same sex marriages as "marriages."  Theres no need to say if its a "gay marriages" o "same gender marriages" or what not.
Thats what I added 
"Some just referred same sex marriages as marriages." 69.199.183.64 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if same-sex marriages are just marriages then we can delete this article and just use the marriage article for same sex marriages too.  That's what I'd like to see.  --Her girlfriend  00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same Sex Marriages are simply called Marriages

message: Some  have made the parallel that equality in marriage would lead to an inability to ban certain kinds of sex, such as sodomy, even if it applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In the United States Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court said that banning contraception violated "the right of marital privacy." In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), it extended the same privacy rights to unmarried people. 
As the argument goes, if marriage is extended to homosexuals, then "the right of marital privacy" would mandate that sodomy must be permitted even if the state wishes to prohibit it for health reasons. Some claim that this argument is now moot due to the 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas.
::This is moot, not "some claim". The court in Lawrence v. Texas made it clear that homosexuals had privacy rights regardless of martial status or even if it applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The probable reason for this confusion is that one justice, O'Connor, ruled that the only reason it violated the Constitution was due to the fact it only applied to homosexuals; however the court's vote was 6 declaring it in violation and 3 to uphold. This means that since the other 5 justices (a majority) declared that it was unconstitutional even if it applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals - it is unconstitutional. The above statement belongs on the court case not same-sex marriage, since the Supreme Court has ruled it has nothing to do with it. 144.35.254.12 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sodomy

message: I'd rather see more polls added (along with more information, for all the polls, about sample groups), than just delete them.  This could be a useful section, and I'd be willing to work with whoever if they want to help make it one.  -Seth Mahoney 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  So let's replace the polls we've got with something a little broader.  I'll do a little research as soon as I've got a spare minute.  -Seth Mahoney 00:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To poll or not to poll?

message: I'm moderately impaired when it comes to distinguishing colors, and I have a terrible time in telling the states/provinces apart where civil unions are recognized and no same-sex arrangements are recognized on the North America map.  Perhaps someone might make it a bit more, ummm, ADA-compliant, and less, ummm, fashionable, with its oh-so-subtle colors (is that fuschia and tawny that the map-maker is using there?  or is it ecru and egg-shell?  either way, it's not helpful). Blondlieut 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-controversial Topic, Really

message: Arguments about legal rationality is a POV section. It seems like a section specifically designed to counter-argue arguments against same-sex marriage. I would remove the section entirely if it were up to me. The presence of both sides of a POV argument is not NPOV, but the absence of both sides. Of course, that's just my POV on POV- so around and around we go! Seriously though, it should be deleted or drastically altered. Angrynight 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the legal rationalisty arguement section specifically lays out a common anti SSM position. I am not sure that I have heard the term  "legal rationality argument" but uunderstand that POV is not uncommon. I added reference to Senator Rick Santorum since Santorum argued about applying the right to privacy to other forms of marriage that cannot be prohibited. MPS 21:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Commonality of POV is not an excuse, it is all the more reason to reassess the legitimacy of the section, perhaps the entire article (though most of it seems perfectly fine to me). More importantly for every "Counter-Argument" there is yet another argument to counter it. This is not the place for the argument to take a run around. The format itself is unfair towards one side since same-sex marriage proponents get the last word. I.e. the opponents' arguments are quickly discarded. This is structural POV. Also you make the point of the title being badly written. I have found that most POV-pushers are rather hasty in their edits and often produce such garbled sections. This is all the more reason to evaluate it. Santorum has his place as a notable person who has involved himself on the issue, I fail to see how it relates to the issue at hand. (Seriously, I don't know what you mean ^_^ ) Angrynight 01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Section is POV 

message: Why was the "See Also" list reverted?  All of them I added were applicable to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.253 (talk • contribs) 
* All the articles were exclusively related to the US. This is a world article. There is a separate article for the US. Wuzzy 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" topics? 

message: I understand that most all the material in the article is both valuable and useful to prevent pov and present a thorough primer on the topic, but its encyclopedic nature necessitates a more laconic approach. With all do respect to Alienus who reverted my edits, I have decided to make the changes in smaller increments, but I rebuke the latest revert as the change simply shortened the wording of the article and removed the American-centric view which properly belongs in the United States article. I ask you, Alienus, to explain your decision to revert my edits with something more substantial than "lets take it back a notch." SSouthern 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you broke up your edits into smaller chunks, I was able to evaluate the pieces independently.  While I wasn't necessarily thrilled with each of your changes, I left all but one intact.  The one I did feel a need to revert had text removed that really shouldn't be.  I was particularly bothered by the removal of the link to History of Civil Marriage in the U.S. Alienus 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the article 

message: Hiyas, I had reverted one of Wayfarer43's edits as he/she seemed to be blindly going through the article changing the wording without edit summaries.  This is his/her rationale for the edits (from User talk:Wayfarers43):
:I will be happy to summarize my edits. There are numerous sentences/paragraphs in the article that slant a pro-same-sex marriage bias, such as "That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships is well-established" without any supporting facts. ("Celebrated" is a subjective term, again with no corrobative information).
:In addition, much of this entire entry is slanted against Judeo-Christian tradition, by "burying" opposition to the idea of same-sex marriage views later in the sections or ignoring them altogether. The section on religious arguments , for example, reads "James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, argues that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family as interpreted by "his brand of Christianity" and lead to an increase in homosexual couples [21]. The use of "his brand" is inflammatory and, although not shared by the writer of the article, is shared by many Christian families.
:Another example--"a fundamental concern of some people is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack via lawsuits against religions to force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and additionally that established churches could be bankrupted by these types of lawsuits." The use of " some people" is not clear--in addition, organized denominations are clearly concerned about the limits on free speech that have accompanied the changes to the marriage laws in Canada, in addition to changes in other countries concerning the age of consent. I will be happy to support with related articles and news reports. Wayfarers43 17:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayfarers43's edits