Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 8

message: I'm moving this paragraph here for some work. Although sourced, it appears to construct an original argument and then say "here, this book agrees with me" rather than presenting the opinions of the book's authors as their own. I haven't read the book, so I can't fix it. Can the original editor clean it up a bit, perhaps with quotes?
: Others are concerned that changing marriage law to make marriage gender neutral requires editing mothers and fathers out of legal and cultural discourse about the family. Instead one can only refer to children's needs for "parents." Since the vast majority of children are born to and raised by heterosexuals, not homosexuals, making the law unable to affirm children's needs, when possible, to be raised by their own mother and father could lend further support to negative heterosexual trends in single parent childbearing and divorce that pose clear risks to children. This "liberal" position against same-sex marriage is no more concerned about same-sex marriage than about divorce, single-parent childbearing, or other recent family trends.See, for example, Don Browning and Elizabeth Marquardt, “What About the Children? Liberal Cautions on Same-Sex Marriage,” The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Markets and Morals,  Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, Editors (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 2006)
DanB†DanD 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emergent trends in Massachusetts amount to a stark indictment of those dire claims
seems awfully POV (and even OR) to me.  I don't want to touch it myself, because I don't trust my own neutrality on this subject.  I'm just putting it out there for someone to take a shot at. The Monster 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can this OR/POV paragraph be fixed?

message: I've just browsed through the External Links section, and I didn't find a single thing worth keeping. It's largely opinion pieces by non-notable sources, spam, some guy's gallery of photos, links to petitions on either side of the debate (so inappropriate), and one link to a Google-video search on the phrase "marriage equality" (!!!). I'm gonna wait til the end of the night for someone to speak up in defense of their favorite link and then just cut the whole list.
Please keep these guidelines in mind when replying:
* What Wikipedia is not
* External links to be avoided 
DanB†DanD 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem isn't that you're being automatically rejected, it's that other editors are coming in and removing it. The problem is that you have an obvious conflict of interest in the site, being its editor, and 'gay marriage in British Columbia' seems to be too limited to be of real use; Wikipedia is a world-wide collaboration. Veinor (talk to me) 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links list: as far as I can see, total cruft!

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

message: I find this article slanders Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus, how bias can this article become?--Margrave1206 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Margrave, the article does not say that Sergius and Bacchus were lovers (though the earliest text of their martyrology does use the word "erotai" to describe them)--it says John_Boswell_(historian) claims that they are. The Wikipedia article does nto discuss the Saint's purported relationship: it discusses Boswell's claims. How then can it be slander against the two saints? Justin Eiler 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like an "agenda" to me, people are correct this article is bias. There is no need to even speak about these to saints, to even make sick innuendos is outlandish. We know the article is at a slant to support the agenda of the topic. However it seems the editors would do whatever it takes even changing history to make their views seem valid. Where are the facts, where is the truth??? --Margrave1206 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not slander but libel (and it doesn't apply to long dead people). Wikipedia is about reliable sources; you need to establish that John_Boswell_(historian) is not a reliable source for this article or that Adelphopoiesis is not relevant. Have fun. Ttiotsw 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slander  of Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus 

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

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

message: The lead sentence of this article seems to me to be both redundant and incorrect.  It reads "Same-sex marriage is a term for a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family."
*governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage — All marriages are at least governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized.  Same-sex marriages are not different in this respect.
*live together as a family — Not all married people live together as a family.  Some are separated, some live in different cities.  Same-sex couples are no more or less likely to live together as a family than opposite-sex couples.
This leaves "Same-sex marriage is a term for a marriage between people of the same sex." which sounds trivial and self-evident but is correct. –Shoaler (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "or" there is not an "and".  Not all marriages are recognized in one of those three areas.  In Massachusetts, it's governmentally recognized, but many people refuse to still recognize it socially, and religiously.  Meanwhile, there is absolutely nothing stopping a couple from being religiously married, no matter any conditions.  But that doesn't mean that it would be socially or even legally recognized.  The precondition that a marriage must be at least governmentally, socially or religiously recognized is a piece of common knowledge that may not be immediately apparent to the reader of the article.  I do not think it should change. --Puellanivis 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: Homosexual Sexual Education is another part of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage.  Sex Ed is its own controversy, but debate surrounding the inclusion of sexual orientation links it to this topic.  Currently the argument rages as to whether homosexuality should be included in sex ed, as seen at Fox News, The Nation, NY Times, Washington Times, and World Net Daily.  While proponents of same-sex marriage argue that homosexuality and sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (perhaps seeing it as obvious), opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it should be excluded (perhaps seeing it as odious).   At issue in this article: the argument for exclusion would lose its standing if same-sex marriage ever became fully accepted (or at least fully mandated).  Thus, one more reason to disallow same-sex marriage (for its opponents) is to preserve the exclusion of homosexual sex ed.—Red Baron 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the article?  Joie de Vivre 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy: Sex Ed

message: Hi, I’m digging around for information on human bonding and I see the page protect and lengthy archive for this page; could someone quickly summarize what the inherent tension behind all the discussion and debate is about?  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, only, a deep-rooted societal bigotry that runs deeper than racism; one of the most base discrimination which has nearly always existed in the course of human history- homophobia. Also, some people are using religion as a hate group and a clarion-call. This is a controversial topic- I'm bisexual and I love freedom so I am obviously NPOV on the topic, but that's my opinion. Basicaly, this debate inspires such vitriol and acid from both sides that it's not at all surprising. HunterBlackLuna 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Core tension issue

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

message: Just a few thoughts... the "Religious Arguments" section doesn't really contain any religious arguments...just secular arguments made by religious people...something should be corrected here, whether it's the title of the section or its content.
Pianoman123 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Arguments Section 

message: Do we have a cite for the long list of states that will have civil unions starting in 2008? There are two lists, and it seems that there's a typo or something.
 Theygoboom13 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Unions 

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

message: "International same-sex marriage recognized". What does it mean? --212.247.27.32 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?