Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 7

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)
replies: text:  Regarding the argument that the Bible only deals with the issue of same-sex sexual relations, but never mentions same-sex marriage, I Corinthians 6:15-17 should be consulted. The Bible never explicitly deals with the "marriage ceremony" as we know it, because in Bible times, it wasn't the ceremony (or familial gathering) that constituted and conusmmated the marriage covenant, but rather the sexual act itself. In the above referenced passage, Paul's argument is that a Christian should not engage in sex with a prostitute because in doing so, they become "one flesh" - i.e. married.The emergent 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that. Unsourced minority arguments don't belong, especially if they have that 'desperate' feeling to them. --Andrew Delong 08:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpertation of bible wording 

message: Has any attention been given to adoption as a form of gay marriage? Is this something that would belong here? Haiduc 11:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "gay adoption" as a "form" of marriage is stretching the definition. Citing a source using this way of speaking would make me more comfortable about going there.  FYI there is a separate  article called Adoption by same-sex couples. We could do a couple words and a seealso to that article. Yes? no? maybeso? MPS 21:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoption as a form of gay marriage? 

message: Hi, I've been cleaning external links on wedding related pages.  There are some external links on this page that seem to fall outside wikipedia's external links guidlines.  Namely the Television interview about Same Sex marriage (links to search results should not generally be included), and Same-sex Marriage at Wikia (sites with lots of advertizing should be avoided).  Are these links very pertinent to the encyclopedic nature of the article?  And if so, are there alternatives that would be more in keeping with the guidelines?  Thanks --SiobhanHansa 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I’m concerned that this article seems to have several instances of weasel words. For example, towards the beginning we see “Many people feel that civil unions…” This clearly needs some specific citation. Who are these “many people?” Andacar 04:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: George Lakoff describes here how the term "gay marriage" was introduced by Frank Luntz to frame the issue. If I had more time on my hand I would therefore go through WP and re-frame (or reclaim) the original term, which Google finds 1340 times. Paniscus 19:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting the term "gay marriage" 

message: "Religious institutions oppose homosexual unions because of the elimination of inherent differences between men and women that maximize the potential for sacrificial love in a relationship. Due to the difference between the sexes, much tension is encountered in heterosexual relationships and marriage. Homosexual unions eliminate this tension and the associated communication barriers."
: Could we have a citation on this?  I haven't heard this argument advanced at all, and it smacks of someone putting their personal observations on the battle of the sexes up. Wikipedia:No_original_research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.194.176.63 (talk • contribs) .
Yes, I think this definitely needs a citation, and we may want to remove it and put it "on hold" until one can be found.  While it is true that some religions view sexual complementarity and family life as key issues in the SSM debate, that is but one line of reasoning among many.  It's not accurate to say that this is the only argument religious institutions and people are putting forth.
Also, the phrase "religious institutions," is very unclear...there are many different religions are involved in the SSM debate.
Pianoman123 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are all good reasons to remove it until a cite is provided. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sacrificial love" =

message: Propose deleting the info on Germany from this article and moving it to the main article Status of same-sex marriage. That's where other countries are covered. RickDC 00:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing it to the Talkpage. I have no strong opinion on the matter myself, it just seemed like a good idea to look for some consensus. I won't revert again since you have a logical reason for it :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of same-sex marriage

message: SOUTH AFRICA LEGALIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE
Can someone please for the love of god add this country to the list of countries that have equal marriages? NOV, 14
why do people keep deleting South Africa as one of the countries that legalized same sex marriage?
:Same-sex marriage is not yet legal in South Africa.  The bill to do so has been passed by the National Assembly, the lower house of the South African parliament, but it still needs to be approved by the National Council of Provinces (the upper house) and then signed into law by the president.  Apparently these last two steps are considered a formality, but they are still required to happen before the bill becomes enacted law.  This is similar to what happened in Canada in 2005 -- the House of Commons passed the bill to allow same-sex marriages on June 28, and most outlets in the international media proclaimed that same-sex marriage was legal in Canada, but it did not become legal until almost a month later, when it was passed by the Senate on July 19 and given Royal Assent on July 20.  --thirty-seven 04:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah. Similarly, both houses of the California Legislature passed a gay marriage bill, but the republican governor subsequently pocket vetoed it. You just have to wait until the law has been executed. samwaltz 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the National Council passed the bill yesterday, so all this is left is for the President to sign it.  --thirty-seven 00:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which he has done by now. Updates a few of the articles, though I likely missed some parts which should have been updated, too. —Nightsta[User:Nightstallion|llion]] (?) 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''SOUTH AFRICA LEGALIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE''

message: Same-sex couples redirects to this page. Although related topics, a couple is not analogous to marriage. They  should be separate articles. -Emiellaiendiay 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is a (very stubby) Same-sex couple article I changed the redirect to point to that.  The Same-sex couple article is basically just a definition at the moment (and one that just about equates it to same-sex marriage).  Could use some good editors.... --Siobhan Hansa 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same-sex couples

message: I think these photos on this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.83.194 (talk • contribs) 13:01, November 15, 2006
:Not sure which pictures you are refering too, they all look good to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to imagine that was a serious suggestion. The only photo in the article is amusingly inoffensive. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Editors may be interested in the article on gay rights which appeared in The Economist magazine Dec 2nd 2006. It is titled "Until death do us part". It contains a table showing:
*Gay marriage legalised: Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, US (Massachusetts)
*Same rights as for married heterosexuals, but in civil unions or partnerships: Britain, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, US (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont)
*Civil unions or partnerships with lesser rights: Argentina (1 state), Czech Rep., France, Germany (3 states), Hong Kong, Iceland, Luxembourg, US (Hawaii, Maine)
You may know all this already but I thought it might be handy to have it froma verifiable source. Ciao Andeggs 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was published in Economist volume 381 number 8506. In the issue the week following (8507) a correction was published saying that Hong Kong does not allow any civil partnership between gays. Andeggs 09:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economist article 

message: I believe something could be mentioned about the economic impact of gay marriage from a tourism perspective. For example, Vancouver and Halifax Canada have had numerous gay cruise ships arrive to get married in Canada. This is just one example but clearly the overall effect economically of gay marriage in an increase in tourism. Canking 10:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, now if only New Orleans can get it legalized (LOL). That city (I'm from there, born and raised twenty three years!) needs all the economic help it can get right now.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism 

message: If the wiki links point to “Conservative Christianity” and “Liberal Christianity”, I think it’s only fair and more neutral to use those terms rather than “Fundamentalist” (with all the baggage that term is intended to carry), and “Modern Christian” which implies that all other Christians who don’t subscribe to the liberal argument are not modern.
Other terms like “argue” which implies “dispute” and “note” which implies “generally accepted observation”, were changed to “claim” or “state” to simply imply a POV.
Mactographer 10:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning my edits: 

message: I think it's pretty POV to state in the intro that marriage is legally rather than sacramentally defined. At the very least, we need a source for the supposed definition. DanB†DanD 06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've selectively quoted that line and in doing so, I believe you've parsed it incorrectly.  I believe the intent is to say "same sex marriage is defined..." based on the fact that union in that phrase is an aliased link to marriage (which doesn't necessarily help either).  Centering the article on legal recognition of the relationship is  the most pragmatic approach, particularly since that's what all the political fighting is about. Opening it up to the ceremonial or religious concept of a committed relationship just muddies the waters and invites even messier edit/content warring. SSM in the religious realm had been practiced by the MCC for a couple of decades before the issue reached the legislative arena without all drama seen now. I'm curious as to what you think an alternative NPOV definition might be.  AUTiger ʃ talk/work 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get involved in a revert war over something so small so I won't remove the citation tag after the first sentence until there is a bit more consensus but I have to agree with Autiger.  I too am curious as to what an alternative NPOV definition would be, especially since the whole concept of same-sex marriage today revolves around legal rights.  Also, I find it interesting that while nothing else in the intro is sourced either, you've selected this particular sentence for a citation needed.  I'm a grad student and, as such, am accustomed to writing a lot.  I am of the opinion that sourcing in Wikipedia articles should be done in pretty much the same way as in an academic paper meaning that you source things that would require sourcing if you were writing a paper for an academic journal or class, otherwise no source is required.  If that is the appropriate policy then this would not need sourcing.  But, I am open to other opinions so perhaps we should hear a few more voices on the matter before making any final decisions. --The Way 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marriage has historically been both religiously and legally defined, and much of the same-sex marriage controversy has involved disputes over the use of the sacrament of marriage in one or another denomination. For many people (as the article goes on to mention later down) marriage is fundamentally a religious sacrament which the government has no business defining or regulating. DanB†DanD 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Someone has apparently slapped an online dictionary source on this sentence without troubling to read what the dictionary says--it does not support the legalistic definition on which I placed the fact-tag. Rather than removing the citation, I have changed the article so that it matches the source. However, I don't think dictionaries are good sources at all for overviews of general concepts, nor do I think the definition this dictionary gives is a good one -- it appears to apply to longterm roommates or to same-sex siblings or parents and children in a two-person living arrangement. DanB†DanD 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, defining a same-sex marriage as a "family" is not particularly enlightening.  Families can be all sorts of things. –Shoaler (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage "is defined as" a LEGAL union?