Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 6

message: The map on the page is incorrect.  California does not recognize same-sex unions."Only an unmarried male and an unmarried female may marry in California."  I don't know who's supposed to change that, but yeah.
Minidoxigirli 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Same sex union" does not only mean marriage, marriage is one type of union.   California has domestic partnerships, that is another type of union.   That is why the map is this way. - Trysha (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay.  Thanks for clearing that up.
Minidoxigirli 21:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map?

message: This comment is not vandalism, I swear.  I wanted to suggest taht a heading with the aforementioned title be added.  There is a growing numbers of gays who have voiced their opposition to the marraige issue.  The section could say something ilke. (It would be cited of course. )
Arguments against same sex marriage from openly gay individuals differ sharply from the standard religious and social concerns.  This group disagrees on the basis that a fight for gay marriage in some way mirrors the orthodox American values expounded by religious conservatives.  They view marriage is an unnecessary convention and contend the gay rights movement was founded on the right to live an unconventional life.
--Young Lucky 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are arguments roughly along those lines, but it should be kept in mind that these people usually aren't arguing against legalizing marriage for gay people if they want to get married, they're arguing that they shouldn't want to get married.  -Smahoney 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments from Other Gays

message: why is this article longer then the regular wedding article? Doesnt that seem a little lop-sided? Also, how come there is no reference whatsoever to the economical point of view in this argument? If homosexual marriages are reconginised  legally, wont there be higher medical costs for the government and employers? Many, american workers get spouse coverage wouldnt this have to be applied to homosexual unions as well if it passes? Not the mention the tax breaks that hetrosexual couples enjoy, would this appply to homosexual marriages as well? By law a spouse can not testify against there partner, would this apply to homosexual couples? Traditionaly during divorce hearings the mother gets primary custody, how will this be modified for homosexual divorces? In NY state a 16 year old can marry another 16 year old with parent permission. If it passes will this be allowed for homosexual couples?
The Isiah 03:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic arguments

message: This sentence, "Homosexuality itself has always been a minority practice, so social recognition of such unions has been irregular at best." is not correct to the best of my understanding, since homosexual relations were anything but a minority practice in at least a few major cultures (Japan, Greece, Turkey). Unless the statement can be sourced I suggest it be permenently deleted. Haiduc 15:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If 40% of the population participates in behvaior it is still "minority". It is commonly accepted that homosexuality comprises less than half of society, and probably more like 10%. I would suggest that if you can come up with a reference that suggests any culture or society has had more than 50% homosexual relationships, then the statement should be removed. Otherwise, leave it in. Rexmorgan 03:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Ancient Greece it was more or less the norm for men to have relationships with adolescent boys (though I don't have a source for this to hand; you can google for something maybe). Cadr 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As I noted, it would be best to find a source to verify; otherwise leave as-is for now. Rexmorgan 19:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the relevant articles.  There are sources galore.  Exploding Boy 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I say delete it. There are plenty of references to cultures where homosexuality was (or currently is) a popular practice. Wikipedia's homosexuality article has a few good examples. grendale 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This all depends on what one means by homosexuality. As Smahoney points out, there are different kinds of homosexualities. In our own culture, if we were honest and included adolescent experimentation, you would probably reach a majority. So we are not discussing "homosexuality itself" but rather a variant. Gibbsale 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't refering to adolescent experimentation, which is clearly a psychological item and does not belong in the same catagory as homosexuality. I was refering to the fact, in that some societies, homosexual relationships (strictly male, as far as I know) were viewed as a responsibility or rite of passage. See [Homosexuality in Japan] as an example. In a more modern sense, I suppose that the practice (or occurance) of homosexuality may not be as prominent, though this is still a debated matter. We would have to take into consideration the occurance of bisexuality, as well. Regardless, the questionable statement would be hard to support in the first place, given social stigma has made it difficult to collect fair data on the statistical occurance (or practice) of homosexuality. I stand behind my original vote to remove it. grendale 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Highly questionable statement

message: StuffOfInterest states in the audit trail (Atlant appeared to accidently overwrite my comments)
It's possible, and if so, please accept my apologies! My browser acted weirdly several times in a row as I attempted to open just the section, and I ended up opening the entire talk page (although your comments definitely weren't there in my edit window). Then again, it might have been just an edit collision, announced or unannounced by the Wikimedia software; these things happen.
But I assure you it was not deliberate. Sorry!
Atlant 18:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured as much which is why I listed is as an accident.  No harm, I just pulled it back from the history. --StuffOfInterest 18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental overwriting 

message: The term civil marriage simply means a marriage according to the state. There may be states/countries/etc that allow civil marriages to include unions between members of the same sex. However, all couples who have a marriage license from the state have a "civil marriage". 
It would be proper to frame a comment "advocates for same sex marriages wish to include those marriages under civil marriage law" but in no way would it be proper to say "same sex marriage" = "civil marriage". 
What about civil unions? That is a term given by some people to create a separate legal status than civil marriages to same sex couples. DanielZimmerman 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Civil unions are not marriage. It's that simple. Ardenn 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I agree. But we have to maintain  NPOV when we write these articles. So when presenting the fact that civil unions are not marriages, we need to explain why they are not and the issues surrounding that in a factual way. Perhaps my last statement was not clear as to why I was pointing out that you couldnt put "civil unions" as another term that stood for same sex marriages. If I was unclear then I appologize. DanielZimmerman 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil mariage does not equal Same sex marriage.  

message: It seems that "debates over terminology" could be combined with "controversy into a much better worded description. Indeed, the debates over what these unions are called are a big part of the controversy. 
Many portions of the "debates" section are unverified. In fact, this article could probably be made much shorter and MUCH much better.
If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I will work on combining the two above sections. DanielZimmerman 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we combine 2 sections? 

message: why is there a custom/non-default ToC implemented? the default/normal would look much better. -Grick(talk to me!) 04:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  table of contents 

message: The article is too long, and many of the large sections should be broken off into their own articles. Ardenn 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under WP:BOLD, I went and split them off. You can see them at History of same-sex unions and Status of same-sex marriage. Ardenn 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section(s) split

message: Does the Bible ever mention the marriage is strickly between a men and a woman? I'm not pro-gay or against gay marriage. I just wonder is any knowns about it.
:It is just assumed, I think. Homosexual partnerships are not new in history, and have certainly been institutionalized in the past, but the Abrahamic faiths neither recognized or tolerated those pairings. However, there is no language equivalent to say the anti-gay marriage amendments (i.e., "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman and no other substantially similar union shall..." etc.). That being said, the Bible does not assume monogamous heterosexual marriage, so polygamy is not condemned in any Abrahamic faith. So a man and a woman...and a couple more women, maybe (the real important part seems to be only ONE man). Gibbsale 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in Christianity, Elders are supposed to be "above reproach... the husband of but one wife" (1 Timothy 3.2-7) . See greek exegesis here. In Judaism too, I belive rabbis have ruled against monogamy... google turns up this MPS 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the off article-topic question; I'm very curious:  What about one woman married to two men?  Is that allowed by your interpretations?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Timothy is unhelpful, because it is a discussion of religious leaders, and not laity. I would also add that the eschatological context of early Christianity places considerable doubt on what beliefs held by the modern Christian churches were actually held by the community of believers in its formative years. The debate over polygamy was not settled by the time Augustine wrote. I think it is fairly safe to say that there is no per se Christian or New Testament position on polygamy. As far as marriage between two or more men and one woman, this is a very infrequent phenomenon and I think almost nonexistent in the region that produced the Abrahamic faiths, but I am uncertain. Gibbsale 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."  I would assume that generally forbids all homosexual relationships. Topher0128 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess it depends on your intepretation of this statement. You could say prohibits bisexuality since a gay man would never want to lie with mankind as with womankind, they want to like with mankind as mankind. Alternative, you could say that since it is not possible for a homosexual couple to have vaginal intercourse/coutis, a man can never lie with a woman as a man and therefore it's irrelevant. In any case, this would only refer to same sex marriages between men. Same sex marriages between woman are not relevant. Nil Einne 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for male-male homosexual conduct. Even though I think this kind of teaching is barbaric, I do believe that ALL of the Bible needs to be taught if people want to call it inerrant. Leviticus 20:13 states unequivocally that "if a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." I have quoted this passage, in the correct context mind you, dozens of times in the "same sex marriage" article, and every time I do someone reverts it back. Can I just ask anyone who might be offended by this passage not to ignore it. Part of promoting wider acceptance of same-sex couples is exposing the opponents for what they really are. All I am doing is putting the Bible's hateful message out in the open for people to see. I am not in any way condoning the death penalty for gays.
*I understand that you're simply trying to put the bible passage in there to show what gay marriage opponents might be basing some of their "rationale" on, but others erronously are taking it as some sort of defense of this position.  They might need to examine their own beliefs about the validity of religious belief if they can't stand to see something from a 2,000-year-old book that offends their moral sensibilities (imagine that... a bunch of ancients weren't open and accepting of different people), but that's their problem.  What you could do as a good faith measure is to register an accoount, and only re-add this passage from that account.  Many Wikipedians, myself included, have an inherent mistrust of someone who's not willing to put their name (their screen name no less) behind a contribution.  Think about it.--Hraefen Talk 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible reference with regard of marriage 

message: The intro section says that same-sex civil unions are legal in New York State, and yet the map halfway down the page (Image:Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG) shows that same-sex civil unions are NOT legal in New York State.  Which is correct?  --zandperl 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The law in NY state is unclear...I think it is best to remove the language that says same-sex civil unions are recognized. The NY Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) has taken a case on the marriage question, and NY City and one other county recognize gay marriages, but I do not think it is fair to say that NY recognizes those unions. Gibbsale 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: Sweden should be added to the list of countries that is debating complete same-sex marriage to replace partnerships in the next year, and probably the other Nordic countries as well.  I don't know of any other countries where it is being debated but I'm sure there are probably some, someone could do some research (i'm too lazy right now, haha)
::In some ways, the "debate" section is misleading; same-sex marriage is being debated in legislatures as diverse as Taiwan and Brazil, but this article seems limited to the debates in Europe and the Anglosphere. Gibbsale 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate about marriage

message: I was thinking of creating a page with a timeline devoted to SS marriage/civil union proposals which had been adopted by legislative bodies, but later vetoed by the executive/judicial. (California marriage , Australian Capital Territory - civil unions [], Czech Republic - civil unions , etc.). Thoughts? Style guidelines? Is it already on Wikipedia and I've missed it? samwaltz 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defeated Proposals

message: In the first sentence, I believe that sex is a more appropriate term than gender.  Sex refers to biological classification whereas, according to the article on sex, "The somewhat similar term gender has more to do with identity than biology." The laws which permit or deny same-sex marriage are decided based upon the physical and biological classification of the participants, not on their identity. –Shoaler (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the first line of the article on gender states, "The word gender describes the state of being male, female, or neither." CovenantD 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think either term works adequately, but sex is a little more precise. On the other hand, Same-sex marriage is the union of two people who are of the same sex does come off sounding a bit redundant.--Birdmessenger 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex vs. gender

message: I recentally scanned a Bible with an eye towards seeing what the Bible's stand on same-sex marriage was. I was suprised to see that the Bible (KJV) does not prohibit marriage or sex between two women. Also, marriage between two men is not prohibihed, just sex. Can someone find a way to insert this into the article? I cannot seem to find where this should go. Auric 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to check the Gospels this afternoon and there is no explicit prohibition on same-sex marriage, Jesus refers to a husband and a wife, but this is only because he was asked a question using those terms. Jesus refers to marriage as "the two become one flesh". Dysprosia 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it doesn't. One interpretation of the oft-quoted Leviticus verse rules out same-sex sexual interaction, but says nothing against same-sex marriage. The Sodom and Gomorrah thing doesn't say anything about marriage either -- one interpretation deals with sexual promiscuity and immorality, another interpretation looks at S and G as dealing with hospitality. Regardless, there's nothing explicit against same-sex marriage as far as I know. Dysprosia 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not speaking of the New Testament, but the Hebrew Scriptures say very little at all about marriage in general. Marriage was an evolving institution in ancient Israel while the books of the Pentateuch were being composed and edited. Consequently, views on marriage are not to be found explicitly. Same-sex sexual behavior among men is explicitly condemned in Leviticus; marriage is nowhere mentioned. Lesbianism is nowhere mentioned either. 66.108.4.183 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpertation of bible wording 

message: Should Slovenia be listed as the latest country allowing marriage nationwide?  See  (also: , , ).  This is confounding, but I'm going to guess their point was the arguable one that if guests are restricted, it's not full marriage.  If that's the distinction they're trying to draw, it's an arguable one. Fireplace 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that's not the point; if it's not called "marriage", it *CAN'T* be same-sex marriage. Slovenia's laws allow a mid-level form of domestic partnership/civil union, but not nearly as many rights as Denmark or Sweden give. —Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, if they aren't called marriages.  But the news stories above explicitly say things like "Slovenia has passed a law legalizing same-sex marriages but put restrictions on the ceremony."  Is there contradictory evidence that they don't call it marriage? Fireplace 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've heard, the institution as introduced in Slovenia received little support from our GLBT siblings there and is quite resented.  I think the line above that quotes the restriction on ceremonies of these institutions highlights the inadequacy of this institution.  POV, there is NO reason why people should be restricted in the manner in which they get hitched. Enzedbrit 20:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but is it marriage?  The news stories above say yes, several editors say no. Fireplace 13:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Slovenia should definitely be removed, unless the Scandinavian countries and perhaps some others are also added, but that would also be innacurate.  Slovenia's "marriage" with the restriction that it must be located in a state office, cannot be called a true marriage anymore than the Scandinavian type of civil unions.  Just because the news story reports it as a marriage doesn't mean that it is, the media often oversimplifies things like that.  Registered partnership in Sweden is often referred to as marriage, but technically is not, however it grants more rights than the Slovenian law, including adoption, and the only exception is the lack of a legal right to a church wedding (I think to appease the churches but I've never understand why it hasn't been changed yet).  I think it is misleading to include Slovenia, it gives a false impression that the Slovenian government deserves credit for recognizing same-sex couples as fully equal members of society, something that it didn't do. Of course they deserve credit for creating civil unions, but not marriage.  The fact that it has to occur in an office with no guests doesn't seem to indicate that the government embraces same-sex couples as fully as they do heterosexual ones. Any country could claim to have equal marriage when they really only have civil unions, by this logic.  Only when they give full equal rights to all their citizens should it be called marriage.  Hbhiggens 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if, by that standard, we shouldn't count same-sex marriages as "marriages" because they aren't given federal marriage rights.  Instead, I think the standard of inclusion should primarily be whether the legislation calls it "marriage".  Differentiation (such as the ceremonies in Slovenia or federal rights in the US) should be discussed immediately afterwards, either in the main body or in a footnote (I did the latter on Slovenia). Fireplace 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since Slovenia and and pretty much the entire world does not use the English word "marriage" in their laws, deciding whether their laws define a "marriage" is almost always based on rules which we make up — which is original research. IMHO, the only way we can avoid WP:OR is to list countries for which there is any form of same-sex civil union and describe what the laws provide or prohibit. But I don't think it is possible to say that it is a marriage or isn't a marriage. –Shoaler (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is -- in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, it is the very same legal institution for both homosexual and heterosexual couples, whereas everywhere else, it's a distinct institution. It's that easy. —Nightstallion (?) 10:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovenia 

message: This page has become too liberal in its classification to list the partnership benefits, etc., available to citizens in Australian states other than Tasmania as being equal on some ground to marriage.  They are not.  Tasmania offers the only thing in Australia close to a civil union.  The other states do not.  Offering next of kin benefits or IVF treatment doesn't mean that those states are progressive enough for same-sex couples and GLBT people.  At best, if one wishes to include the other states, and other countries/dependencies where similar benefits are offered in these limited amounts, then a new subheading should be created I feel. Enzedbrit 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia

message: :However, some point out that the argument for gay marriage itself is not a matter of financial benefit. Were this the case, the gay community would only need to advocate civil union, which has identical financial and/or legal beneifits. However, if the argument for gay marriage concerns a civil right for a consenting adult "couple" to marry, then it is difficult to maintain that this argument does not apply to any consenting adult "group" or, for that matter, to consenting brothers or sisters
While this issue arises in most countries, I think it is most relevant in the US. For example, in many other countries such as New Zealand and the UK, most gay rights activists as far as I can tell do believe they should ultimately be allowed to marry but generally feel new laws allowing same-sex civil unions or civil partnerships with equal rights as opposite-sex marriages are sufficient for now and are more concerned with other issues. The US appears to be one of the only countries where there is an extremely strong voice for gay marriage. I suspect this has more to do with the federal nature of the US as well as the tendincy for significant changes to be made in court. If they are granted marriage by right, then all federal and state entities would presemuably be required to offer all benefits and recognitions given to opposite-sex marriages. On the other hand, ensuring that all such benefits and recognition is applied to civil unions is seen as more difficult. While I don't have a reference for my suggestion, I'm sure someone else has considered this before Nil Einne 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 

message: The argument that barring same-sex marriage violates the Separation of Church and State needs balancing; especially, because opponents view the Mormon polygamy cases as being applicable as a legal precedent for allowing religiously motivated arguments against same-sex marriage. In those cases, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Mormon's efforts to redefine the common-law definition of marriage because Christianity didn't allow for it.
"In its 1890 case of The Mormon Church v. The United States, the Court wrote in its majority opinion, 'The organization of our community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization, which Christianity has produced in the Western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to our [Christian] civilization is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of our government.'
Similar points were made in the 1890 Davis v. Beeson case where the court said outlawing bigamy and polygamy was constitutional because they were 'crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian nations.' Consequently, polygamy was not outlawed because of secular concerns over how polygamy would adversely affect children but only because they were offensive to Christianity.
In practice, the founders’ intent to keep government away from mandating popular adherence on matters of theology did not extend to the expression of Christian sentiments by public officials, nor through statutes aimed at preserving public morality. The 1890s polygamy cases should be considered precedent for our current debates over “gay rights,” abortion, euthanasia, etc., because the court acknowledged that Christian morality was part of our common law. (And, of course, those cases have never been overturned.)" 
--146.145.70.147 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation of Church and State argument

message: The removal of counterarguments in the section regarding pro-homosexual religious arguments reveals 
a discomfort with the fact clear refutations for those arguments exist. Perhaps a simple solution would be to strike that section and establish a separate article where a balanced viewpoint discussing the pros and cons could be weighed out.
The article as it currently stands is hopelessly slanted in a Critical Theory POV.
--146.145.70.200 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer in this case, as in every case, is to attribute specific arguments to specific persons by explicitely citing every one of them.  If it seems that the arguments for same-sex marriage are stronger or more convincing, maybe that suggests something about the issue.  Additionally, based on virtually identical "arguments" here and elsewhere, I'm guessing that you are User:Pravknight.  If so, you need to start signing in before making edits, or identifying yourself when you forget.  And, additionally, if so, as I said on Talk:Homophobia: do not just say "blah blah blah this article is POV" if you actually want to get it changed. Instead, copy sentences or paragraphs from the article and say EXACTLY what your problem is (and no, "this is POV" wont cut it). If you just want to whine, get lost. -Smahoney 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you're prepared to actually address what has been said by others, there isn't much point of participating on talk pages.  -Smahoney 22:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro/Con arguments needed

message: === Religious arguments ===
"Conservative and some moderate Christians further state that same-sex marriage goes against biblical teaching, for example, Genesis 19:5 (behavior which allegedly contributed to the destruction of ancient cities Sodom and Gomorrah). This story was the source of the word sodomy. Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 (which, by literal interpretation, prescribes the death penalty for male-male homosexual contact), and in the New Testament of the Bible,  First Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27. 
::I believe simply citing the biblical passages, and not fleshing out the counter arguments to the pro-same-sex marriage arguments serves to trivialize the conservative side of the debate. There are ample citations countering the Liberal perspectives on cultural,historical and textual concerns. Only, providing the Liberal perspective give the impression the Conservatives are simply quaint, old-fashioned and don't have any idea about what the Bible really means. That's at least the feeling I get where the counterarguments aren't stated. Keep in mind, the "fundamentalist" perspective on homosexuality still is the majority view in global Christianity, and the involvement of the Global South in the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church over homosexuality bears this out. Two-thirds of the biblical arguments in this section are in favor of same-sex marriage. 
::My editor always tells me when I have to cover a controversial issue for my newspaper to attempt to devote an equal number of paragraphs to both sides.
::Liberals would be lucky to comprise 10 percent of the 2.3 billion Christians worldwide. If people want to talk about minority positions on a global basis here on Wikipedia, the pro- arguments would represent the views of a trivial number of professing Christians.
However, other moderate and liberal Christians have the view that these passages are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts and aren't applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic rape and inhospitability. They see the passages in Leviticus as part of the Holiness code and strictly reserved to the Jewish people of that time. Most of this Holiness code has been ignored and abandoned by contemporary Christians (e.g., prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork). 
::There need to be counterarguments here. I suggest splitting it up into sections where each could be better explained in a point/counterpoint fashion. Convincing counterarguments are out there, an I view this as POV pushing. I don't mind putting the Gay Theology arguments out there, just as long as they are rebutted.
For liberal Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Greco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and not intended to address modern homosexuality.
The meaning of the Greek words arsenokoités and malakos (translated simply as "homosexuals" in most post-19th century versions; as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version of the Bible) used in Corinthians 6:8-10 has been a hotly contested matter. Conservative Christians and some moderates view the passage as specificially referring to homosexuals.
::This last sentence is vague. Whose definition of homosexual is being used here? Besides, very convincing arguments exist showing that Dr. John Boswell, one of the originators of this thesis went out on a limb here because the argument is built upon 4th century B.C.-vintage Attic Greek, not 1st century A.D. Koine Greek.
  &  
However, liberal and some moderate Christians see these passages obscure in meaning and do not believe that these passages refer to homosexuality, since the word "homosexual" wasn't coined until 1892 . They find that the view that these words refer to homosexuality is a contemporary interpretive bias that wasn't intended by the original author(s) of the text. 
:Again, not one counterargument is presented, and there are many.
A fundamental concern of opponents is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack against religious institutions, limit their constitutional right to free speech, force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and that established churches would be eventually bankrupted by lawsuits brought against them. 
Some churches and denominations, as listed previously in this article, perform same-sex weddings. Members of these groups may believe that since the major scientific organizations state that there is no evidence one can voluntarily decide sexual orientation, all people regardless of sexuality should be able to marry the person they love and that to deny them is immoral. They also may view laws banning same-sex marriage as a violation of their religious freedom and an unfair favorship by a government of other religious groups.
Proponents claim that since marriages are conducted by the power invested in the celebrant by the state, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law.
:There are varying interpretations of what the term "separation of church and state" mean, ranging from the French concept of laicite to a more moderate institutional separation that permits Christianity to serve as a civil religion.
:There are more arguments and nuances here that could be explored. That's why I feel a separate, complete article is warranted.
--Pravknight 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to do that.  I'll take a look when I get a chance and see if I can come up with some specific arguments and references.  If I don't get to it soon enough, I'm sure someone else will.  -Smahoney 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine, but I don't really see why it is relevant.  Remember, there is no cabal - what other editors do has no necessary relation to what I or anyone else does.  -Smahoney 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, as I tried to point out above, I hadn't actually had a chance to look through your whole post.  Have you considered contributing to Religion and homosexuality or a related article?  -Smahoney 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested dropping the religion section completely, and running a separate article before everyone seemed to get in a tizzy fit over it.
It's just not balanced. I suggest dropping it completely, and linking to another article.--Pravknight 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, articles are spun off when the content of a section of an article gets too long, so if you've got stuff to add, that might be a good way to work it.  I'd suggest, though, if there is an uproar, that you post suggested changes to the talk page before posting them to an article and ask for editors to come in and make changes and suggestions.  This method has worked well in the past in contentious articles.  -Smahoney 05:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced arguments in religion section

message: "Conservative and some moderate Christians further state that same-sex marriage goes against biblical teaching, for example, Genesis 19:5 (behavior which allegedly contributed to the destruction of ancient cities Sodom and Gomorrah). This story was the source of the word sodomy. Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 (which, by literal interpretation, prescribes the death penalty for male-male homosexual contact), and in the New Testament of the Bible,  First Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27. 
::I believe simply citing the biblical passages, and not fleshing out the counter arguments to the pro-same-sex marriage arguments serves to trivialize the conservative side of the debate. There are ample citations countering the Liberal perspectives on cultural,historical and textual concerns. Only, providing the Liberal perspective give the impression the Conservatives are simply quaint, old-fashioned and don't have any idea about what the Bible really means. That's at least the feeling I get where the counterarguments aren't stated. Keep in mind, the "fundamentalist" perspective on homosexuality still is the majority view in global Christianity, and the involvement of the Global South in the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church over homosexuality bears this out. Two-thirds of the biblical arguments in this section are in favor of same-sex marriage. 
::My editor always tells me when I have to cover a controversial issue for my newspaper to attempt to devote an equal number of paragraphs to both sides.
::Liberals would be lucky to comprise 10 percent of the 2.3 billion Christians worldwide. If people want to talk about minority positions on a global basis here on Wikipedia, the pro- arguments would represent the views of a trivial number of professing Christians.
However, other moderate and liberal Christians have the view that these passages are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts and aren't applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic rape and inhospitability. They see the passages in Leviticus as part of the Holiness code and strictly reserved to the Jewish people of that time. Most of this Holiness code has been ignored and abandoned by contemporary Christians (e.g., prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork). 
::There need to be counterarguments here. I suggest splitting it up into sections where each could be better explained in a point/counterpoint fashion. Convincing counterarguments are out there, an I view this as POV pushing. I don't mind putting the Gay Theology arguments out there, just as long as they are rebutted.
For liberal Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Greco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and not intended to address modern homosexuality.
The meaning of the Greek words arsenokoités and malakos (translated simply as "homosexuals" in most post-19th century versions; as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version of the Bible) used in Corinthians 6:8-10 has been a hotly contested matter. Conservative Christians and some moderates view the passage as specificially referring to homosexuals.
::This last sentence is vague. Whose definition of homosexual is being used here? Besides, very convincing arguments exist showing that Dr. John Boswell, one of the originators of this thesis went out on a limb here because the argument is built upon 4th century B.C.-vintage Attic Greek, not 1st century A.D. Koine Greek.
  &  
However, liberal and some moderate Christians see these passages obscure in meaning and do not believe that these passages refer to homosexuality, since the word "homosexual" wasn't coined until 1892 . They find that the view that these words refer to homosexuality is a contemporary interpretive bias that wasn't intended by the original author(s) of the text. 
:Again, not one counterargument is presented, and there are many.
A fundamental concern of opponents is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack against religious institutions, limit their constitutional right to free speech, force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and that established churches would be eventually bankrupted by lawsuits brought against them. 
Some churches and denominations, as listed previously in this article, perform same-sex weddings. Members of these groups may believe that since the major scientific organizations state that there is no evidence one can voluntarily decide sexual orientation, all people regardless of sexuality should be able to marry the person they love and that to deny them is immoral. They also may view laws banning same-sex marriage as a violation of their religious freedom and an unfair favorship by a government of other religious groups.
Proponents claim that since marriages are conducted by the power invested in the celebrant by the state, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law.
:There are varying interpretations of what the term "separation of church and state" mean, ranging from the French concept of laicite to a more moderate institutional separation that permits Christianity to serve as a civil religion.
:There are more arguments and nuances here that could be explored. That's why I feel a separate, complete article is warranted.
--Pravknight 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to do that.  I'll take a look when I get a chance and see if I can come up with some specific arguments and references.  If I don't get to it soon enough, I'm sure someone else will.  -Smahoney 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine, but I don't really see why it is relevant.  Remember, there is no cabal - what other editors do has no necessary relation to what I or anyone else does.  -Smahoney 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, as I tried to point out above, I hadn't actually had a chance to look through your whole post.  Have you considered contributing to Religion and homosexuality or a related article?  -Smahoney 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested dropping the religion section completely, and running a separate article before everyone seemed to get in a tizzy fit over it.
It's just not balanced. I suggest dropping it completely, and linking to another article.--Pravknight 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, articles are spun off when the content of a section of an article gets too long, so if you've got stuff to add, that might be a good way to work it.  I'd suggest, though, if there is an uproar, that you post suggested changes to the talk page before posting them to an article and ask for editors to come in and make changes and suggestions.  This method has worked well in the past in contentious articles.  -Smahoney 05:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious arguments 

message: The terms "gay marriage", "straight marriage", and all others implying sexual orientation, although popular with the media, are viewed by some as inaccurate. Same-sex marriage partners may be bisexual and not gay, or opposite-gender marriage partners may be bisexual and not heterosexual. Moreover, they claim that sexual orientation has rarely been a legal or religious qualification for marriage (a gay man could still marry a woman). Rather, the relevant qualification is the characteristic sexes of the parties to the marriage.[citation needed]
:Why is there a citation needed? That's just common sense.
::Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end, even if you don't have an account.
::See Wikipedia:Common knowledge.  -Smahoney 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments over terminology