Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel

message: The article currently states that "all marriages performed inside Israel are religious marriages."  However, the Religion in Israel article indicates that as many as 37% of Israelis are atheist or agnostic.  It seems strange that a country with such a high number of non-religious folk would have no provision for secular marriages.  Can someone provide a citation for the claim that all Israeli marriages are religious? —Psychonaut 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such is the dichotomy of Israeli society. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secular marriage

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-VkydBHsU  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.1.213 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Same sex marriage between Jews not allowed in Israel

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Same-sex marriage in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://365gay.com/Newscon07/09/091007israel.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Library of Congress has attempted to analyze marriage law in Israel.. It's complicated. See the sections on "Overseas Marriages as a Circumvention of Religious Law Impediments" and "Gay Couples’ Partnerships". John Nagle (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library of Congress analysis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042153/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/36810/three_in_five_israelis_back_same_sex_marriage/ to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/36810/three_in_five_israelis_back_same_sex_marriage/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170113030524/http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Poll-76-percent-of-Jewish-Israelis-support-same-sex-marriage-or-civil-unions-455653 to http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Poll-76-percent-of-Jewish-Israelis-support-same-sex-marriage-or-civil-unions-455653
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In July of 2018, a new surrogacy bill was introduced to the Knesset (Israel’s legislative committee) proposing to expand the definition on who is eligible for surrogacy as a route to parenthood. Up until this point, the only people to which surrogacy was an option was “a man and a woman who are a couple”. The new legislation opened the option of surrogacy up to single women and women unable to become pregnant, but denied single fathers, and by extension gay couples, this same right. This denial of rights sparked action from the LGBT community in Israel and even a widespread protest where thousands of Israeli citizens walked out of their workplace to express their disapproval of the decision. 
The issue of having children for same-sex couples is especially hot within Israeli society due to the large cultural emphasis on the importance of family. Currently, an aim of the LGBTQ community within Israeli is to expand people’s definition of “family” beyond a heterosexual marriage with children. While the denial of the proposed surrogacy law was undeniably a setback toward this goal, the LGBT community remains optimistic about gaining equality through parenthood. Recent statistics tell us that “between 89.6% and 98.8% of social workers deem any living arrangement involving children to count as a family”.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merhawk (talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrogacy/Adoption Options for Same-Sex Couples  

message: === caveat === 
Please forgive me if this comment [section] is in the wrong place.  
For example, if it belongs 
:(a) with the comments in some existing section of this "Talk:" page 
:... OR, 
:(b) somewhere else, such as: on the "Talk:" page for the template ""). 
This comment [section] is intended to be about [only] the combining of multiple situations in one sentence. 
That sentence (which is quoted below, and discussed below) could potentially lead to some reader confusion or misunderstanding. 
=== Background === 
That sentence (in which multiple kinds of situations are mentioned) came to my attention thanks to a hyperlink from an entry (in the "Common-law marriage" sub-section of the template "") that just says "Israel" (well, the entry is just displayed as "Israel"); but that entry links to (or, it points to) the article about "Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel". 
::That entry in that template also seems to have a little "Note" (no. "6") that can be seen only by "expanding" the "Notes" section of the template "". 
::In that "Notes" section, once it has been "expanded", Note no. 6 says:6. Cohabitation. Registered foreign marriages confer limited rights. Marriage recognized in Tel Aviv.
=== The potentially confusing sentence === 
As of the "Latest revision as of 19:30, 31 January 2021" version of the article, the last sentence of the lede says:Cohabitating same-sex and inter-faith couples in Tel Aviv may register as married in that city.[2]
=== What's the problem? Ambiguity or potential for misunderstanding === 
To some extent, the author or editor who wrote or revised this sentence, may have been relying upon the idea that, since the sentence is part of an article that has the title or "subject" of "Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel", the reader will already know (or, will  be able to figure out) what the sentence quoted above (under "the potentially confusing sentence") means. 
If so, then that might be considered a departure from the custom of careful use of language to avoid ambiguity and to prevent misunderstanding. 
For example, relying on the reader to know 
# whether the mentioning of "inter-faith couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that includes a couple who are married (e.g. via a wedding that took place somewhere else); and 
# whether the mentioning of "inter-faith couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that excludes a couple who did not get married [somewhere else] and who do not want to get married, [at this time ... or maybe "ever"], but who would prefer to have some sort of "civil union" or something like that; and 
# whether the phrase the words "may register as married" could be interpreted as implying that (in certain cases, at least), a couple has the option to register as a cohabitating couple (as in a "civil union" or something like that) ... perhaps without being an "inter-faith couple" and/or without being a same-sex couple; and 
# whether the mentioning of "inter-faith couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that includes a couple who are not the same sex (but they also are an "inter-faith couple"); and  / or 
# whether the mentioning of "Cohabitating same-sex [...] couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that includes a couple who are the same sex, and who want to live together, but who would prefer -- (for some reason .. but that "reason", if any, is outside the scope of this "Talk:" page section) -- to have some sort of "civil union" arrangement, as opposed to what is usually called a "marriage". 
... might be considered to be less than rigorously careful use of language. 
Reasonable persons might differ regarding whether (and how much) to rely upon the assumption that the reader will know -- and will keep in mind (not forget) -- and will realize the implications of the fact that 
* a certain sentence is part of an article that has the title or "subject" of "Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel". 
In my opinion it would be advisable (in most cases) to use language carefully, (and to state explicitly what is meant, rather than implying it from the context or the reader's "background knowledge") ... in order to minimize (or at least to "reduce") the probability of misunderstanding. YMMV. 
=== Any comments? === 
Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining multiple situations in one sentence  

message: Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any comments? 

message: not sure what the relevance is to this map of arab countries that don't allow gay marrige, it really seems like pink washing. Loudstrawberry (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete map of same sex marrige in Asia  

message: I think I broke the thread accidentally by trying to copy in markdown that apparently doesn't render properly. Maybe a new primary thread... 
I propose we have a proper table of benefits. The table can list various benefits enjoyed by married couples and whether they're not enjoyed, partially enjoyed, or fully enjoyed, by same-sex married couples.  Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Table of Benefits 

message: Utah's online access was a response to Covid. It's entirely possible that some day they may decide to end that program, just as several other US states have. (Those other states had only offered online weddings to residents.) If this happens, will that mean an end to SSM in Israel without leaving the country, or are other jurisdictions now an option? — kwami (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just Utah?