Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Same-sex marriage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Sullivan removal

This bit was just removed:

In August 1989, The New Republic published an article by Andrew Sullivan advocating same-sex marriage.^[1] In October 1989, Denmark became...

I do not particularly object to taking out the Sullivan mention. One journalist/commentator writing an article indeed seems less important than actual legal changes and the like. However, the editor taking it out suggested that it made a false insinuation of connection between American editorial and Denmark legal changes. If that is the main concern, we could choose to retain the Sullivan but avoid the connection simply by rewording as "[Sullivan wrote]. During the same year, in October, Denmark became ...". LotLE×talk 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

3O

Hi everyone, I'm willing to offer a 3O here, but it will take me a little while to read through everything!! It would be nice if someone was willing to itemise the key issues in the meanwhilst. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've just had a squiz at Arguments concerning children and the family - and this seems like a good place to start. My initial concern is twofold; i) the first sentence uses 'kids' instead of 'children' (this is an encyclopaedia after all), but worse it is actually unintelligible; "Some opponents of same-sex marriages claim that kids orphan or not do best with both a mother and a father[93][94], and that therefore the state should encourage the traditional family structure by discouraging others" - such a sentence can't be good for anyone! ii) The entire section is virtually unintelligible because of so many arguments being presented, with too little structure, and too many attempts to make arguments with these arguments.

So I suggest making two sub-sections within this one section "Pro same-sex parenting views" and "Anti same-sex parenting views". There could be a third section to capture lit reviews or meta-analyses. Under no circumstances should we be attempting to draw conclusions for the reader or presenting anything other than a NPOV. Our job is to collate well sourced information, not to create information. If there are conclusions from WP:RS then these should be covered in the appropriate section and referenced accordingly. Does that sound like a way forward on this one? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are proposing sub-subsections that get too far away from the topic of the article; these are tertiary items. Same-sex parenting is a topic for its own page. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with the suggestion, the section would indeed look at lot better. The only problem so I learnt the bad way is that this a highly explosive topic. Loving parents try to protect their children at all cost, and take offense even to the supposition social study researches have to be impartial, they take that all children must do the same and take it as a fact and demand the research be present as such even if that destroys a neutral point of view, On the other side religious sentiment with no experience of social issues outside their convictions really believe that they are entitled to dictate to society where children do better, an unsubstantiated position, also taken a fact. When I try to fix the article, I am attacked as insensitive to sexual minorities and their children or I am attacked from the other side as holding an agenda and not caring about the welfare of children. Therefore, until there is some help, I can't subdivide the pro and against section alone. Nevertheless, having asked for a third opinion, this is the minor change I tried to make to improve the section from:

The scientific research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents. Research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. To: There is no evidence to suggest that gay and lesbian parents are less fit or less capable than heterosexual parents. neutral view so readers can conclude for themselves whether more research is needed or whether this is good to substantiate their position. Research has not documented any relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. again neutral, if readers want to conclude the lack of evidence to date is because no evidence will ever be found that is reasonable but still an opinion, if readers unreasonably believes more research will eventually vindicate his position that is his opinion. That is why I believe mine is a neutral point of view and actually the same way the research quotes the conclusions from the facts. Should we reflect the research faithfully and hold a neutral point of view? or should present the opinion of editors as fact?

gorillasapiens sapiens  (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi NG and GS. I think you may have a good point about strict relevance to the page NG, but maybe we could get it right here, then move or merge later if that's the consensus view. I don't think there's much point just ducking the issue/s here because they'll just turn up again elsewhere! And I suspect the problems have more to do with use of RS's than actual content, so if we can iron them out on this sub-issue, the resolution should shed some light on the other ones too. I think we could get considerable progress here if people provide, on this page, some quotes from the sources they are citing. We can't just plop sentences like "The scientific research has consistently shown...", "Research has documented...", "There is no evidence to suggest...", "Research has not documented...". This is WP:OR. What we need to do is present what scientific research *actually* said, what the evidence *actually* is, not make sweeping claims about what *we* believe the research has said or demonstrated.

So what are the relevant quotes from the RS's on these points? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that getting it "right" here and then merging it (and it seems obvious to me that it would be merged into LGBT parenting; there may be arguably some same-sex parenting that doesn't qualify as LGBT, say mom and grandma raising the kids, but that doesn't seem to be what's being discussed anyway) will just be a waste of building consensus, as the material would then have to achieve consensus on another page. These are microclimates we have here at Wikipedia! It would probably be better to merge-then-polish rather than polish-then-merge... -then-polish-again. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to you doing so NG, but I note that there's been a lot of energy expended on the topic here already, so I'm not sure if your suggestion will be equally well received by others. I still believe fixing it wont be that hard and will shed light on the broader concerns here anyway, but merge away if you feel strongly about it. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal effect on same sex couples

This very brief section was made so vague as to be almost contentless, but it was inaccurate with respect to the USA. I added a brief and sketchy gesture toward a correction, but I don't know whether other countries may have similar second-class marriages for LGBT. In the absence of more specifics, why not just cut the section?

Dybryd (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see that DOMA is discussed immediately below, under "economic effects" -- of course, these economic effects are due to a difference in legal effect! Dybryd (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason the section was written was to counteract the idea that gay marriage is different or that is was a special right. I'd like to thank you for improving the section on legal effect of marriage. It is true the federal gov doesnt recognize, and that has a huge legal repercussion. The info you added makes the section at lot more relevant and informative, thanks againgorillasapiens (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Permanant Semi-Protection for Article

This article has been subject to a high level of vandalism and bad faith editing. Perhaps a permanant semi-protection would be in order. It also helps control the relentless edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.98.87 (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Albania considering recognition

Albania's government is currently considering a measure to allow same sex marriage. http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/21397/

Although the headline of the article states that Albania is going to recognize, the Albanian Parliament has not yet passed the proposed legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.232.149 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

USA map

There is no map of recognition of same sex unions in America. There used to be but someone deleted it. We need to bring it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.80.217 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a map at Same-sex marriage in the United States.Dosbears (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro is biased

The intro lists more specific and more fleshed out arguments in favor of gay marriage without giving the same level of depth to the opposing arguments (even including homophobia as a reason - I wonder if "selfishness" could be put as another supporting argument). I changed it to make it more neutral but some random person claimed the intro was based on a "consensus." I see no evidence for this; even if there is a consensus, it is the wrong one. TheFix63 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as wrong' consensus. Consensus is general agreement amongst editors.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where has consensus been established here? Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Really long comment warning! I apologize in advance! I just reviewed the two possible versions of the intro that are being discussed, which, for convenience sake, I'll call Version One and Version Two.

Version One "...Proponents of same-sex marriages often base their position on universal human rights, individual liberty, equality under the law, the right of personal autonomy to make personal intimate decisions without unwarranted government intrusion, and on the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, concluding that being able to enter into civil marriage should be a civil right irrespective of the genders of the participants. Those who oppose same-sex marriages often base their opposition on the perceived societal impact of same-sex marriages, concerns about indirect consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, tradition, and/or homophobia."

Version Two "...Proponents of same-sex marriages often base their position on universal human rights, equality under the law, and the right of personal autonomy to make personal intimate decisions without unwarranted government intrusion. Those who oppose same-sex marriages often base their opposition on the perceived societal impact of same-sex marriages, concerns about indirect consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, and tradition."

Having read the two versions, I find version two to be more neutral for a couple of reasons:

1) I highly doubt people who oppose same-sex marriage "base their opposition on" homophobia. People do not regularly admit to being homophobic, even if they are, so I doubt they would say: "I oppose gay marriage because I fear/hate gay people", even if that was their true internal reason. Homophobia may be one of the reasons behind opposition to same-sex marriage, but it opponents do generally not "base their opposition on" homophobia. See the difference in phrasing?

2) If, as the rest of the introduction suggests, this article covers same-sex marriage internationally, lines about "the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" seem rather U.S.-biased. Not all countries have this to be an inalienable right, do they?

3) In version one, isn't "individual liberty" the same thing as "the right of personal autonomy to make personal intimate decisions without unwarranted government intrusion"? Why say it twice in the intro? Later in the article, there is room to fully flesh out all aspects of both sides of the argument, but in the lead section, let's keep things brief and avoid redundancy.

I don't like edit wars, and I don't want to be involved in one here. I just fail to see where on this talk page, a discussion has reached consensus establishing Version One as the best, official, perfect version. Reverting new edits so that one version stays on top does not equal consensus. Having just noticed the massive archive section on this talk page, I now see that perhaps (I have yet to find it still) consensus was reached earlier and then archived away. Still, my reasons for supporting version two remain unaltered. What do others think about this? Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Risingfromashes. Also, daedalus reverted my previous edit for "vandalism"; there is no way that was vandalism, and I fail to see how anyone can think that. TheFix63 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask that you give a good reason for removing that it is considered it should be a civil right. I realize, in respect to part of it referring to the US, that that may not be included, but I see no reason to get rid of the civil right reference.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The theme of "civil rights" is already expressed by universal human rights and individual liberty, rights for which government intervention is unwarranted. Human rights and individual liberty already overlap somewhat; putting three manifestations of essentially the same concept is overkill. TheFix63 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. I'm fine with it then, although I would prefer a bit more input, mainly from Dayewalker as he reverted as well.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Per your input, I am going to change the intro to version 2. If Dayewalker objects, then this is the place to do it, but for the time being, until and unless he does, I'm going to make the change. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I like this change at all. It needs a lot more than a day and a half of discussion to make such a major alteration. Please revert it until a more general consensus can be reached. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What specifically do you dislike about this version of the text? Maybe we can find a happy medium. I am not trying to make a "major alteration", just giving my input in an attempt to resolve what seemed to be turning into an edit war. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But you did make a major alteration, which is why I am asking to revert it until a wider consensus is reached. All I'm saying is you moved to fast; this is a contentious article, and is best served by slow deliberation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Per your objection, I have, for the time being, reverted to the earlier version. That being said, I still feel that version 2 takes a more balanced, neutral approach to the issue. Please elaborate on what you dislike about version two, so that we can make it better. I am trying to seek consensus; just remember, consensus can change. If you have no concerns, and no one else does, I see no reason why we should not eventually make the change. If you do have concerns about version two, please share. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This was not a major alteration. As already explained, the substantive information has barely changed if at all. Since jpgordon can't give reasons for his position, this should be reverted back to version 2. 24.13.213.117 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This intro is very poorly done. What excusable reason is ther for including an entire paragraph on peoples reasons for their views? This should be in the "controversy" section.76.102.68.34 (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Because "homophobia" is listed, to make it fair I added the following sentence, with a sourced article about the Bradley effect: Proponents of same-sex marriage may also form thier views based on how they are viewed by others.76.102.68.34 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that's labeling someone as a "proponent" when all they did was lie to a pollster that they'd vote for something. It's hard to see how that qualifies as a proponent; it is not actually argung in favor of something. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

a) There is no source for "homophobia" (given we all know that it is a true reason)

b) We all know that there are people who are for or against any given issue because of social pressures (eg. being called homophobic).

I don't care what side you're on, but you have to admit it's biased to include "homophobia" without a source, while the arguement for the proponents read like the Declaration of Independence.76.102.68.34 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And something needs to be done about this rambling repetitive mess: "universal human rights, individual liberty, equality under the law, the right of personal autonomy to make personal intimate decisions without unwarranted government intrusion, and on the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, concluding that being able to enter into civil marriage should be a civil right irrespective of the genders of the participants." Is that not the same thing stated 6 times in a row?76.102.68.34 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Except that's labeling someone as a "proponent" when all they did was lie to a pollster that they'd vote for something. It's hard to see how that qualifies as a proponent; it is not actually argung in favor of something." But the sentence didn't say that the Bradley Effect was an "arguement," only that it was a factor in shaping peoples views.

Main Entry: pro·po·nent Pronunciation: \prə-ˈpō-nənt, ˈprō-ˌ\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin proponent-, proponens, present participle of proponere Date: 1588

one who argues in favor of something : advocate

Main Entry: 1ad·vo·cate Pronunciation: \ˈad-və-kət, -ˌkāt\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English advocat, from Anglo-French, from Latin advocatus, from past participle of advocare to summon, from ad- + vocare to call, from voc-, vox voice — more at voice Date: 14th century 1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court 2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal 3 : one that supports or promotes the interests of another

"Proponent" is a synonym for "advocate." "Advocate" can mean "one who maintains a cause"

If you tell a pollster that you are in favor of something, are you not now an "advocate?" Whether you are lying or not does not change anything.76.102.68.34 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, if you answer a pollster's question, that does not make you an advocate, much less a proponent. You are not telling anyone else to believe something, not making an argument. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Still, there is something wrong with including "homophobia," while omitting other self-interest motivations such as "I'm gay and would like to get married someday" or "I have gay friends that won't like me anymore if I say I'm against this," or "the girl I'm dating will think I'm homophobic if I say I'm against same-sex marriage," or "I'm gay and maybe my parents will finally accept me if same-sex marriage is legal" etc.76.102.68.34 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

We need more opinions on the subject matter so a wider consensus can be reached, as three editors is not consensus.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The "inalienable rights" bit is too American, and even without that phrase in the American Declaration of Independence, the phrase is unprovable. Who says marriage is a right for anyone at all? It's a religious, social and civil institution, and as such, is regulated in every culture.

The bit about homophobia driving the opponents is unprovable as well, though it is likely a factor. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, wait a sec. "Who says" is the proponents. We can quite easily source proponents saying exactly "inalienable rights". Wikipedia is not asserting any such rights exist; Wikipedia is citing people asserting such rights exist. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The part about homophobia should stay in the intro. Some people just hate gays or have an irrational fear that same-sex marriage is going to affect them negatively. They just don't want to see them have the same rights and it may not have anything to with religion or "natural laws". Tony877 (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I also agree with the other point that the other sentence is "too American" and a bit redundant. However, I think the proposed "version 2" is a bit too stripped-down.Dosbears (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see version 2 with the homophobia added. Tony877 (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am playing around with version 2 to see if homophobia can be listed as a reason for opposition without making it sound like opponents themselves claim it as a reason for opposition, i.e. "I oppose same-sex marriage because I am homophobic." Maybe people who are homophobic readily admit it as their reason for opposing same-sex marriage, I don't know. Here's what I came up with though, as a spin-off of version 2 which includes homophobia. I'm not sure it's any better. What do you all think?

Version 3

"...Proponents of same-sex marriages often base their position on universal human rights, equality under the law, and the right of personal autonomy to make personal intimate decisions without unwarranted government intrusion. The opposition of those against same-sex marriage is often based on concerns regarding direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, tradition, and/or homophobia."

I wish there was a better way to say "and/or", but it really seems to be a case-by-case situation. As you can see, I merged the clauses "perceived societal impact of same-sex marriages" and "concerns about indirect consequences of same-sex marriages" as, to me, they seem to be saying the same thing. However, if people prefer these clauses the original way, that's fine too; I was just playing. Like I said, I don't know if Version 3 is any better than Version 2, which I have been supporting, but it does, per what seems to be a common concern, include homophobia. What do you all think? Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I like version 3. I think that would be a good change. Tony877 (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of "The opposition of those against" I'd like to make it easier to read by using "The position of those against" or "The stance of those against". Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include unconcious or unstated bases, saying that it "arises from" or "is motivated by" would be preferable to "is based on". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia must be removed. Unless you're going to dismiss the legal, religious, and civil definition of marriage for thousands upon thousands of human history as irrational, it has no place in the description. Some gay people probably don't care about the arguments for and against gay marriage, either, because it just benefits them. Should we include "selfishness" as a supporting argument? TheFix63 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If we find sufficient reliable sourcing, it stays in; our personal opinions are just irrelevant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Noting an irrational motivator does not require dismissing other motivators; that there are motivations that one might deem rational does not mean that those are the reasons driving all participants. The whole section is undersourced, though. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you wouldn't be opposed to adding selfishness as a supporting argument, then. TheFix63 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Selfishness" would be hard to find as an argument, but self-interest as a motivator? Sure, if you can source it. Although it seems to me that it would be at least as easy to source that for the other side (I've seen enough "If gay 'marriage' is okayed, then homosexuality will be mainstreamed and I'll lok like a bigot for not being okay with it" type of arguments to know that it's out there.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is some sort of rational explanation for everything that happens in history, and you've just discovered this, you have fundamentally changed the discipline. Or it could be that denying gay men and lesbians marriage rights is irrational and homophobic, and politicians around the world know it, which is why they're scrambling to amend their constitutions so the issue cannot be examined rationally in the courts, where it has been found irrational many times. —the Homosexualist (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Selfishness on who's part? What exactly are you talking about? Tony877 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Selfishness and self-interest, basically the same concept, is a non-starter reason to advocate one point or another. Every side of the debate, every person who considers marriage, can be shown to be involved in self interest. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a strong difference between self-interest (taking into account one's own interest) and selfishness (taking into account one's interest to the exclusion of the interests of others). It's the difference between "I want some ice cream" and "I want your ice cream". To pretend self interest is not involved is to miss the primary reason for many things that happen in this world. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the wiki article "Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others." That certainly would apply here. Regardless of that, do you agree that the description of the gay marriage proponents' position is repetitive, overkill and imbalanced compared to the description of the opposition? TheFix63 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The description of the proponents is overkill, and the paragraph is unbalanced.

I posted this above: There is something wrong with including "homophobia," while omitting other self-interest motivations such as "I'm gay and would like to get married someday" or "I have gay friends that won't like me anymore if I say I'm against this," or "the girl I'm dating will think I'm homophobic if I say I'm against same-sex marriage," or "I'm gay and maybe my parents will finally accept me if same-sex marriage is legal" etc.76.102.68.34 (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

Just to be clear, the ONLY reason I'm not reverting you again is because you pointed out that the link is dead. If someone calls themselves a homophobe then says that's their reason for opposing gay marriage then that's good enough. What better way to source something then a direct quote from a person? Blog or not, if it came out of their mouth that's pretty sufficient in my eyes. Tony877 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The link in the source may be dead, but the full essay can be found here, on the website of its author. Having said that, the essay claims his homophobia is driven by his lack of support for gay marriage... which is the inverse of what we're looking to support. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, he is playing with words. He is saying "yes, I am afraid of what the gay lifestyle will do to America, so call me homophobic." He is not using the word in the usual context.76.102.68.34 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done arguing. Do whatever the hell you all want. Go ahead and put "gays are horrible and going to hell and that's the real truth because 'god' told me so". Go on, you know you want to. I won't stop you. This is the main fault of Wikipedia. Crazy people editing pages they have no business being anywhere near. I'm done with all of it. Tony877 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's all the bullies' fault and you're absolutely right, they're wrong and they're mean and they're crazy and they're nasty. Seriously, get a grip and don't let the door hit you on the way out. TheFix63 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL.. wow you two need to take a break, seriously. Whatever you two are arguing about, you both need to realize that whatever Wikipedia says will not change one's opinion about homosexuality, so let's just get a grip and talk civilly, okay? Also, let's try to not jump to conclusions about one's editing. Argue about what they are saying not what the person's idea or position they're pushing. :) So, what's the problem? Tdinatale (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to same-sex marriage from LGBT people

Would it be worth including more information about opposition to same sex marriage from the 'post-modernist'/'liberationist' wing of the gay rights movement? The people who claim that marriage is an inherently bad institution that traps people in long-term social mores with each other instead of letting them be free and open? See Davina Cooper and Janet Halley here as a clear example. The Squicks (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems a very ignored position here, probably cos it doesn't fit into a culture war "us against them" mind-set. At least something should be included about this though, as i certainly know people that think marriage equality would be best achieved by abolishing any governmental recognition of what should be a personal union, rather that increasing the number of people who are eligible for it.Yob Mod 23:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the folks who want to privatize marriage (and there are growing swaths of that in the libertarian realm) are not, in doing so, taking a side on the same-sex marriage issue; they are taking an issue with governmental involvement in marriage. As such, that would seem to be outside the scope of this article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an excellent idea. Start with Richard Kim of The Nation - he's the king of that crowd. I interviewed gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson, and we discussed anti-marriage gays here. -->David Shankbone 23:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, good idea, I have come across LGBT criticism at conferences, but can't recall names or papers. The idea is that it is the antithesis of that anti-establishment thread gay liberation to normalise gay and lesbian people into a kind of queer heterosexual. Mish (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument against that, which should be presented, is that it forces upon an entire community one segment of that community's desire to remain fringe just for the act of being gay (as opposed to being fringe for your art, thoughts, etc.) I'm not sure who writes on that topic, but it's an aspect. The other is the "too many resources going to marriage" Richard Kim argument. -->David Shankbone 23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a significant % of the gay community? Otherwise it'd seem just ... blah. Tdinatale (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As per this discussion, I added the following to the intro: "the goal of normalizing homosexual relationships." I cited two academic journals, as well as The Trouble with Normal. IMO, this balances out the inclusion of homophobia. As I have said all along, homophobia is clearly a factor, its just that something must be included on the other side to balance it out if it stays.Ragazz (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The debate in the community is not easy to document (what would count as WP:RS?), however, the debate within academia is easier to document, and can reflect the concerns voiced within the community (as the academy, community, politics and activism tend not to be clearly demarcated). Several hits on scholar: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; I didn't go through the 10,000+ sources returned under scholar. Mish (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much of a controversy, particularly after Proposition 8. It's basically just a handful of fringe intellectuals who got to bang a gong disingenuously with some fancy names. It went nowhere, and Proposition 8 squelched any serious consideration. Now it's just fringe, but if there are enough good sources, might be worth a mention (not section). -->David Shankbone 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And it seems to me that we'd have to be careful in how we present even that; the arguments were less "gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married" and much more "gay couples shouldn't want to get married", it seems to me. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see some issues with the lead...

The conflict between the views of "marriage" as a religious rite or a government-endorsed civil right with state benefits has been cause for other types of marriage-like institutions to be introduced by some national and state governments. For instance, a multitude of countries have adopted civil unions, civil partnerships and domestic partnerships for LGBT couples; whereas only a handful have granted such couples what they call marriage. Such statuses are viewed variously as being an effective grant of marriage for same-sex couples (seen both positively and negatively) or as the enshrinement of a second-class status for same-sex couples to prevent giving them full legitimacy.

The conflict between the views of "marriage" as a religious rite or a government-endorsed civil right These two things are not mutually exclusive. Many gay Christians, gay Jews, and so on who take their commitments as sacred religious rites as well as something that they see as a civil right.

For instance, a multitude of countries The framing here seems a bit leading. Rather than calling it a 'multitude' and starting the sentence like that, why not say something like Several countries have?

whereas only a handful have This seems also a bit biased. Why "only"? Why should we describe it as "a handful"? Why not say something neutral like whereas some have?

The Squicks (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the more vocal opponents to same-sex marriage base their arguments solely on religious grounds. This despite the fact that marriage exists only when the couple files the appropriate civil documents with the appropriate civil authorities; religious ritual or ceremony is legally irrelevant and no legally recognized marriage is created soley on the grounds of a religious ritual or ceremony. While I agree that the line can be cleaned up, it really does come down to a conflict between those who see legal marriage as a religious matter and those who see it as a civil matter. I agree with your disagreement over the other two points; those should be rephrased. TechBear (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TechBear. The way I originally wrote the paragraph needed work when I pressed save. I think the semantic issue is the primary issue, and it's unique aspect as--the only?--shared government/religious institution in countries where there is separation of church/state. Regarding "multitude" I was trying to figure a way to address all the nuances in levels of adoptions in many countries (check out the infobox). There are so many degrees of adoption of different types, in so many countries/states, that I don't think several covers it. But there's something better than multitude; just isn't springing to mind. -->David Shankbone 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

POV Language in Introduction

Listing homophobia as a policy argument against SSM is blatant POV. That term should be removed. I am mentioning this on the talk page and will give it a few days to see if there is consensus. I fail to see any reason why there wouldn't be consensus on something as clear and obvious as this is. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide balanced, objective, and accurate reference material, not to use the encyclopedia as a vehicle for maligning the perspectives of those who disagree with one's views on a hot-button issue. Although I happen to oppose SSM, I would have the same objection if loaded language was used on Wikipedia to describe the views of same-sex couples and/or those who support SSM. It's completely uncalled-for. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're saying -- are you saying that there is no such thing as homophobia? Or are you saying that there is such a thing, but it isn't an influence on people's view of same-sex marriage? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"are you saying that there is no such thing as homophobia?." That was not constructive. I say the word goes. WP:SOAP 76.102.68.34 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of trying to understand what the complaint is is "not constructive". It would seem to me to be central to having a clear discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nat. If there's a reason for not listing homophobia as a motivator of opponents to SSM, it's only the lack of a cite.Dosbears (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Nat. If "homophobia" is going to be removed, I would like to see a more cogent explanation than, "I don't like the word, therefore it is POV." TechBear (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything listed as a "basis" for the supporters is a rational arguement, not an irrational feeling or a predjudice. Should we start listing all the irrational feelings and predjudices of the proponents?Ragazz (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are those irrationalities the basis for their support for legalization of same-sex marriage? If not, they would have no place here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

208.105.149.80 makes a good arguement.76.102.68.34 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not listed as a motivator. "Those who oppose same-sex marriages often base their opposition on [...] homophobia." If homophobia should be included then it should read "Critics of the traditional marriage movement accuse them of homophobia." I say the whole paragraph gets moved to Controversy.76.102.68.34 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What one's opposition is based on sure sounds like a motivator to me. Note that the phrase is not what the argument is based on. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is about the controversy over marriage equality. Maybe the title should be changed.Dosbears (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We're already discussing this the the section two sections above this one, the RFC section. I see no reason to split discussion.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Daedalus. I missed that. I will add my comment to that section.208.105.149.80 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"What one's opposition is based on sure sounds like a motivator to me. Note that the phrase is not what the argument is based on." The wording is ambiguous. You shouldn't have to defend it. The sentence reads "base their opposition on." We can argue this all day; get an unbiased source or get rid of it.Ragazz (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, as shown in the section two sections above this one, is to include homophobia, so, if we could please stop unecessarily splitting things, this current section is just making things more difficult.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So what was the final vote count? lol Ragazz (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess you haven't been here long. Go have a thorough read of WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a vote, but a discussion.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to retain homophobia. What are you even talking about? There is a consensus, however, to remove the repetition in the description of proponents' views. Which daedalus and his ilk have conveniently left unaddressed in his evaluation of the consensus. By the way, someone who claimed my efforts to make the intro less POV were "vandalism" shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place. TheFix63 (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove citations that support the sentence, simply because you don't want "homophobia" included. Al Sharpton criticizing homophobia as a motivator for black opposition to gay marriage is exactly the sort of citation being asked for. Same for the New York Times editorial board citing appeals to homophobia by George W. Bush on the campaign trail. You don't have to agree with their assessments, nor do I. WP:V is a policy, and the sentence now is supported in that regard with four citations. -->David Shankbone 23:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the New York Times editorial board and Barney Frank aren't the citations being asked for. That's like citing Focus on the Family to say that proponents of gay marriage want to ruin American society and destroy tradition. You need neutral sources rather than subjective opinions. TheFix63 (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Who took this sentence out? "Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, and/or religious issue in many western nations." It was here yesterday... I think the entire second paragraph should be move to Controversy, and replaced by that sentence. Anyone with me?Ragazz (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep any of the second paragraph. It is speculative with no citation given.--Yankee2009 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)— Yankee2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well you weren't here for the entire discussion, now where you, or were you? That aside, I just re-added the sources back in. Only the first one was an opinion piece, but I removed it, and it is now sourced by several reliable sources.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you making a major change without seeking a talk page consensus, as you did for the other changes, daedalus? Barney Frank, a homosexual himself, calling Justice Scalia a homophobe because of a legal opinion he wrote (which had nothing to do with the wisdom of the policy as a normative) is not "reliable." Al Sharpton making a blanket statement that opponents of gay marriage are "homophobes," without any backing, is not "reliable." LaDoris Cordell, a homosexual himself, calling blacks homophobes for no reason other than that they support prop 8 is not "reliable." And the EU study proves nothing about homophobia, merely opposition to gay marriage. The fact of the matter is this: you've posted supporters of gay marriage calling their opponents homophobes as though it's clear-cut. It's biased and deserves no place in the intro. Unless you have proof with a even semblance of objectivity - not anecdotes - that opponents of gay marriage commonly base their arguments on homophobia, this is like "citing Focus on the Family to say that proponents of gay marriage want to ruin American society and destroy tradition." --TheFix63 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure somebody has stuck that in somewhere or other. Not the point, if WP:RS have said that one of the reasons people oppose is homophobia, we can include it. It says nothing about opposition not based on homophobia. So I'd question why you are removing well sourced material, and support its inclusion. If you have an issue with it, take to society in an RfC and see what other uninvolved editors think, rather than edit-warring. Mish (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Fix63, the entire premise of your argument is that homophobia is not a reason why some people are against gay marriage. Otherwise, no citation would be necessary just like we don't have to cite that "bigotry was widespread in the South" during the Jim Crow era. Your arguments sound ridiculous. Scalia comparing homosexuality to murder is prima facie homophobia and just because a powerful Congressman calls him out on it is gay himself doesn't negate that both the Congressman AND the outlet it was reported in are WP:RS. The New York Times editorial board speaks on behalf of the paper, one of the most reliable sources we use. Al Sharpton is undoubtedly one of the most powerful African-American leaders, and if he is saying a community he leads is homophobic with gay marriage and rights, he's an RS unto himself. The European Union study is plain in its language, and is a government study that also internationalizes the articles sources. You are removing all of this to argue that homophobia is not a reason why some people are against gay marriage, and you almost fail WP:DISRUPT for such ridiculousness and your revert warring. -->David Shankbone 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Shankbone- Isn't is safe to surmise that some (or many) same-sex marriage proponents are motivated by their friends or loved ones being gay?Ragazz (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and there's evidence to support that assertion, and the gay marriage crowd often cites that as a reason, so I have no problem with including it. -- >David Shankbone 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is marriage equality listed as a synonym in the intro? That seems like very loaded language.Ragazz (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is legitimately a term used to describe the inclusion of same-sex couples in marriage. One may argue that they are using loaded language, but it is not neutral to ignore the terms that are being used. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

I'm noting in this discussion that we have too many editors who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For instance, removing WP:RS cites to a sentence they want removed, just to keep a CITE tag on it to then say "no sources!" Use of advocacy groups as WP:RS, such as the ACP. And, advocating removal of the current second paragraph in the lead. It would be helpful for these editors to look over how this site operates before I take it to the Village Pump to get more seasoned eyes here. Just to address the lead section, per our WP:LEAD guideline:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

So no, removal of the second paragraph won't be happening, and if anything, the lead to this article is limp and uninformative, and should be expanded, per our guidelines and policies, in particular, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:LEAD et al. -->David Shankbone 20:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, for some, homophobia is a factor even if for many it isn't. And sources reflect this, undoubtedly, without the adding step of saying "all people against same-sex marriage are homophobes". Which is here nor there.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This (argument) is rediculous. The sentence just says that one possible reason for opposition to same ex marriage is homophobia. This cannot be disputed in good faith - no one can seriously believe that no one in the whole world doesn't oppose SSM due to homophobia, and we only need one reliable source that says so. With multiple reliable sources, reverting to a cite needed tag is clearly not constructive, and simply an effort to impose editors POV instead of reporting on reality.Yob Mod 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I somewhat share TheFix63's concerns about citing things such as statements by politicians, editorial commentary, and articles in LGBT related productions in such a controversial issue. I would prefer to stick to something such as mainstream news articles, scholarly articles, books, and so on. I added two scholarly books as citations. The Squicks (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

no one can seriously believe that no one in the whole world doesn't oppose SSM due to homophobia

There actually are people who do believe that. A good example would be, say, Mark Steyn who has written "The invention of of a phony-baloney "phobia" was a way of casting opposition to the gay political agenda as a kind of mental illness: don't worry, you're not really against same-sex marriage; with a bit of treatment and some medication, you'll soon be feeling okay." The Squicks (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you and I (as well as most people who have actually studied the subject) regard these kinds of comments as guff. But my point is that there are people who think this, it's just that that is a fringe view. The Squicks (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Squicks. Your points are all valid and well-taken, but we have to always imbue what we do here with an element of WP:Common sense. David Duke claims that he's not a racist. Michael Richards falsely claimed he is a Jew. There's all sorts of wackness out there, and a lot of this discussion gets caught up in false controversies, such as "you can't prove that homophobia is a reason people don't want gay marriage". Now to me, homophobia is when someone doesn't like gay people because gays are gross, unnatural, disgusting, perverted. The things they do in the bedroom turns their stomachs when they think about it. The idea of being next to one in a bathroom urinal is enough to make them use a stall. In some countries, they think they should be put to death (and do). That's homophobia to me, in various forms. But I understand some think that "homophobia" doesn't exist. "Homoism" didn't have the cachet of "racism" or "sexism" when the powers that be handed it down to define all that muck above.

Regarding politicians and the like for sources: it's a political issue. There's no way around that. What we've been wasting our time here is just trying to provide evidence to the silly challenge does anyone not like gay marriage because they are homophobic? A black lesbian who surely knows black reactions to her lesbianism is one way. A black leader like Sharpton addressing a black crowd about a black issue is good enough for the mainstream media as a source, it's good enough for us. If you look further up the page, the source silliness was getting to where they were trying to find blog posts that essentially read "I am a gay hater, and thus I hate gay marriage". Certainly good for a laugh, but when it gets to that point we know we no longer have a serious academic discussion. -->David Shankbone 00:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider the following article: Racial segregation in the United States. There is no mention of racism in the introduction, or any reasoning for or against segregation for that matter. How is this article any different?

Or take this article: Environmental protection The controversy of the topic is kept to one sentence in length, as I have suggested here: "There is not a full agreement on the extent of the environmental impact of human activity and protection measures are occasionally criticized." Some people hate hippies and liberals and are opposed to the EPA because Rush tells them so. People believe that man inherited the planet from God for the purpose of exploiting it. Still, this is not included in the introduction.Ragazz (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Gun politics and Affirmative action Ragazz (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Best example: Abortion

The legality, prevalence, and cultural views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations often involving the opposing pro-life and pro-choice worldwide social movements.

That's it. No list of reasons whatsoever. That's what the Controversy section is for.Ragazz (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Protection is a stub-class article, and shouldn't be used to support whittling down a former WP:Featured Article (this one) to go against our style and structure guidelines. The EP article is worthless, wholly unsourced, and essentially a mishmash of garbage. Racial segregation in the United States is on its face an article about racism, which is why it is categorized under Category:History of racism in the United States (this page contains no such similar category because nobody should argue that Same-sex marriage is on its face a Category:Homophobia topic). -->David Shankbone 13:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I still suggest that a detailed list of the arguements be left for an introduction to the controversy section, although it looks like noone cares. My example for this is the abortion article, which doesn't give arguements in the introduction. This is an article about SSM, and although it is a controversial topic, there should be more to the article then just controversy. IMO Ragazz (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do the sources back up the claim made? The entire paragraph may or may not be true,but it is an opinion. Why not change often to may be based on, or say according to (source) opposition to same sex marriage is often based on etc,etc? I have no doubt homophobia exists but to say it is often a reason is speculation and not a verified fact.--Yankee2009 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from common sense, there are enough reliable sources out there stating that plain old not liking gay people because they are gay is a reason they are against allowing gay marriage (as well as civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) Additionally, the EU study cited in Reuters infers that being against gay marriage is a sign of homophobia unto itself. It won't be difficult to produce other European reliable sources. This is an international article, not the American one. The current wording takes into account international perceptions as well. I say that all in addition to the common sense reason. Some people just don't like gay people, and aren't for them having any rights, least marriage. It's now been sourced both to scholarly works and reliable news sources. -->David Shankbone 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection to the paragraph . I am staying neutral for now.--Yankee2009 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The right to personal autonomy is already covered under human rights, clearly. Personal autonomy essentially means self-ownership, which is a fundamental civil right that therefore is a human right. Additionally, equality before the law is also covered by human rights; look at the lede for human rights, it's explicitly in there. This is just more needless repetition and 'glossening' of the pro-gay marriage side. I also want to make a final note that daedalus has no problem letting edits without discussion stand when they support the side of the argument he favors. He is not editing in good faith. TheFix63 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: Historical precedent

Although "tradition" is mentioned in the inro, there is no section for historical precedent. This is a secular concern, and should have its own sub-section in the controversy section. There are ample sources for this arguement being made.Ragazz (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It better be about gay marriage, not marriage in general if you want to have a historical component. This article is strictly about same sex marriage. I know gay marriages were performed sometime in in the Roman Republic. <tommy> (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the common arguements against SSM, and it is well documented. To not include a description of the arguement would go against the spirit of WP:CONTROVERSY Ragazz (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Add it to controversies then. <tommy> (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, argument is spelled without the 'e' - Linestarz (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Correcting people's typos lowers the decorum of the discussion, and I make a *lot* of typos - let's stick to the matters at hand, not other people's typing skills, please. -->David Shankbone 12:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

References RE marriage cases

I'm ~~once again~~ removing a couple references that have been repeatedly linked to California's In Re Marriage Cases decision, currently hanging at the end of: Critics have contended that rulings granting same-sex couples the right to marry such as the California Supreme Court's decision in the In re Marriage Cases overstep the constitutional authority of the judicial branch,

The WSJ reference is talking very specifically about federal-level decisions based on the US Constitution; it's only reference to California is not to the In Re Marriage Cases decision, but to a lawsuit arising from prop 8. In Re Marriage Cases decision was not based primarily on the federal Constitution, but on California's state constitution.
The Public Discourse reference doesn't mention California at all; it is inappropriate for us to designate it as doing so.

I'm not saying that these references can have no place in the larger judicial vs. legislative discussion, but we can't paint them as dealing with the California situation when they do not paint themselves that way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Correcting myself - it was a different article where these references previously appeared. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the remaining reference, while it says the judges were wrong, it does not clearly state that they overstepped their authority. As such, the whole sentence is unsupported, and I'm deleting it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that some mention of this arguement after the court decision gives a context for the feracity of the Prop 8 backlash. You are probably right, they don't explicitly mention the excact court cases. In any case, I like the way the arguements are presented. If there are no major objections I may decide to cite them where appropriate.Ragazz (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have inherent major objections to the pieces (although that may be due in part to not needing to find them - I didn't, for example, look into the Witherspoon Institute to see if they are an WP:RS) Certainly, noting there is a place for noting some of the issues of judicial versus legislative. Having said that, putting that in this article may be going too much into depth on US specifics (something that could be said for other items already in the article); discussion of the appropriate Constitutional reach of the US federal judiciary in interpretation of the term "marriage" may going beyond a reasonable scope here but fit fine into Same-sex marriage in the United States. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ACP

The American College of Pediatricians is not a legitimate generalist pediatrician group that makes findings. They are a fringe advocacy group; they exist only to make statements in these matters. That's made clear in their mission statement. As such, it's inappropriate to include them as a rebuttal to large, genuine general groups that represent their fields. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nat, the ACP is a small, multi-issue organization (see http://www.acpeds.org/?BISKIT=2920801063&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10004) that offers a different perspective than the mainline medical/mental health organization. I very clearly cited to it as a minority perspective. I believe it is inappropriate to label a minority perspective as "fringe" and therefore un-Wikipedia-worthy.

208.105.149.80 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Small indeed; hence, anything other than a very brief mention (which should include their fringe status) would be undue weight. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether you consider it "inappropriate" or not, the Wikipedia standard is that there is such a thing as a WP:FRINGE belief. "Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence". The severe lack of prominence of the ACP would make the relative representation about the size of a period in this article. Yes, yes, they also post some other conservative talking points on their site, but the group was formed specifically as an advocacy against homosexuals forming families. -- Nat Gertler ([[User

This doesn't seem like a very serious source. Better to pull an article off JSTOR or something.Ragazz (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC) talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 06:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Were you responding to me Nat? Maybe you didn't understand me. I agree that the ACP website should not be cited as a reliable source because they are an advocacy group.Ragazz (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, was responding to 208. Not sure how it wound up there in the flow; have adjusted. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36#American_College_of_Pediatricians "According to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/31/beliefs_drive_research_agenda_of_new_think_tanks/ ACP has only one employee, between 150 and 200 members, and it was established in 2001 by 59 charter members (http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10002&art=25&BISKIT=2920801063). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has 60,000 members, in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and many other countries. Members include pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists. More than 34,000 members are board-certified and called Fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP). AAP was established in 1935 (http://www.aap.org/visit/facts.htm). I consider promoting ACP and their members' views (http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=187&BISKIT=2920801063) by citing them on such topics to be against Reliable sources and Undue Weight principles (it multiple signifiance of marginal views roughly 300 times) of Wikipedia, since it is apparently biased. Main, long-established non-activist organizations around the world reach the same conclusion on this issue different to ACP, which is rather ideology based (http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=2920801063&CONTEXT=art&cat=10002&art=83) than scientific (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349)." "The American College of Pediatricians is a political pressure group (astroturf). If it's opinions are notable, they will be referenced in obviously reliable sources. Use those sources. Hipocrite (talk)"

NPOV#Undue weight: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list]: * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

--Destinero (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The ACP is a fringe group who examine issues no as Pediatricians, but as political advocates. They are not a reliable source.

The president's statement was also welcomed at a small organization with an august-sounding name, the American College of Pediatricians. The college, which has a small membership, says on its website that it would be dangerously irresponsible" to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The college was formed just three years ago, after the 75-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics issued its paper.
That pediatric study asserted a considerable body of professional evidence" that there is no difference between children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.
The Family Research Institute and the American College of Pediatrics are part of a rapidly growing trend in which small think tanks, researchers, and publicists who are open about their personal beliefs are providing what they portray as medical information on some of the most controversial issues of the day.
Created as counterpoints to large, well-established medical organizations whose work is subject to rigorous review and who assert no political agenda, the tiny think tanks with names often mimicking those of established medical authorities have sought to dispute the notion of a medical consensus on social issues such as gay rights, the right to die, abortion, and birth control. The Boston Globe

Advocacy groups like the ACP on both the right and left are not reliable sources, as far as we are concerned, and should not be used. -->David Shankbone 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that we can archive this? It seems done with.Ragazz (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep. -->David Shankbone 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to same-sex marriage on "religious grounds"

Opposition to same-sex marriage is often based upon opponents' concerns about direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds

The statement is sourced to this. That article is not really about opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds (e.g. God forbids the state from doing what I see as 'godless acts'). It's about opposition to gay marriage on civil rights grounds (e.g. My freedom of association rights under the Constitution allow me to bar people from my organization). This op-ed by Jonathan Rauch makes a similar point.

I'm not sure how to word it better in the introduction to this page, but its a valid (although subtle distinction to make). At issue is not religion itself, but the civil rights of religious people and religious groups. The Squicks (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever issues there are with the source can be worked out, but the reason should clearly stay.Ragazz (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple "religious grounds" for opposition to same-sex marriage; the source should not be removed, as it addresses one religious concern: infringement upon religious liberties. The morality argument is another. Additional sources backing up other religious concerns should be introduced instead of removing ones that evidence the multidimensional aspect of this opposition. -->David Shankbone 16:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

infringement upon religious liberties

But this is not a "religious concern" in and of itself. And it's not even a matter of "religious liberties" either. It's a matter of "liberties". Full stop. Freedom of Association and the related rights to property and privacy are secular philosophical principles that can be defended by anyone. Rauch's op-ed that I pointed out is a great example, given that Rauch is a Richard Dawkins-style anti-theist without any natural sympathy for religious people but he has a specific philosophical position. The Squicks (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But Rauch isn't arguing to extend those liberties to everyone, just to religious orgs. So that is in a very reasonabe sense "religious liberties". (He also doesn't seem to be pushing them as a philosophic right so much as a practical matter - remove that public outcry, and we'll be able to get past this sticking point in the argument. It's not as though he's saying that religious orgs will be granted a free hand in general, with special dispensation to descriminate against, say, mixed-race couples if that is in conflict with their beliefs.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

>>>>Edit warring

Everyone (not just you, HistoryGuy),

Please... In the words of the Beatles: "We can work it out." Consult the talk page for a consensus before making changes to the lead. Be patient. The page will get locked, if everyone doesn't cooperate.Ragazz (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I think we get the point partly due to the fact that you constantly revert every edit made without explanation, it's kind of a shame you didn't show this same perseverance before you made your proposed changes to the lede. I guess it's best protecting it when it fits your POV :) - anyways, for the sake of the article I've proposed some additions, check them out and let me know what you think -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't blame the rules on me, we all have to follow them. And I'm pretty sure I haven't touched the lead in this article. If I did, it was when I first got here and didn't understand the protocol yet. And currently, the lead does not fit my POV. Again, if you have a problem with my edits, please take it up on one of our talk pages. For the sake of everyone, I doubt anyone wants to see us get into it here. Thanks Ragazz (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, we know, we get it, you don't support SSM and your contributions to wikipedia prove that. Believe me, that's okay, you're certainly not the first. However you are the first in a long line of editors to revert completely legitimate additions to the lede. Let's assume there was a spelling error in the lede, would we have to go through discussion to change that too? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone watching the changes in the lead?

Just an FYI, been a while since Ive edited this page but the bias in recent edits is in itself a detriment to wikipedia. Particular users such as Ragazz have had anti-gay biases that I feel need to be watch, Ill assume it's just of good faith mixed in with misinformation. Let us take good care of this page and watch any edits, and MOST IMPORTANTLY check the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linestarz (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To accuse an editor of being anti-Gay is a VERY serious allegation. Please be civil and assume good faith.Ragazz (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are we arguing? Let's just let the others see the sources you've used and the changes you've made, anyone with a 5th grade education could see the bias, you aren't fooling anyone, sorry - Linestarz (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources that you tried to remove was from an academic journal accessed on JSTOR for The Women's Review of Books. How is that a biased source? You're the only one here who seems to have so much of a problem with me. Except for Tony, that is...Ragazz (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How many of us are in here anyway? And your arguments are deliberately false, you only included one deleted reference that has no application to the SSM article - Linestarz (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not making any sense, I'm done.Ragazz (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
If Ragazz is anti-gay, he is doing an admirable job of tempering his bias; I'm not seeing any edits that are, at a glance, objectionable. They may need refinement, but he seems to be trying to do right. Please assume good faith. -->David Shankbone 12:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ragazz's sources were definitely biased, his edits were slanted (but it's hard not to slant, everyone has a bias one way or another). Let's not get stupid and antsy about this and work together, check out my edits -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nearly impossible to find an in-depth argument on a current controversial topic without using a biased source, though (and these can't be the only such sources used on Wikipedia in this context?). That's why the editor uses neutral language such as "critics have argued," etc. At least the one was a WSJ article, and the other was a well-reasoned secular article on a very neutral-seeming ethics site.Ragazz (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Page break (save you from scrolling forever)

Made lots of changes. Input welcomed <tommy> (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks great Tommy. I'm glad you cleaned it up it was looking pretty bad. Inclusion of the term marriage equality still seems loaded to me though. That's like including pro-choice in the intro of abortion.Ragazz (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE leave the intro alone for now? Tommy did a great job cleaning it up, and aside from a few minor things that can be worked out here on the talk page, I think everyone probably agrees. Stop picking at it!Ragazz (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, stop picking at it! like it's a scab.. ah you're too funny. It's a great metaphor though. I agree, any nit-picking will result in another biased mess again! And Ragazz, "marriage equality" is a phrase that probably should be deleted from this article. <tommy> (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Added one detail about the marriage equality to the supporter's section, because youre right, that is a POV. <tommy> (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Marriage equality" needs to go, period. The article is loaded with enough subtle POV's as it is. TheFix63 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no it does not need to go. It just needs to be worded correctly. Which I did. <tommy> (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriage equality is not an argument, it's simply "what it's also called". That's like removing the nickname "Love" from a biography because that particular person was a bad guy. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's only used by supporters too. Let's not be biased. Say it like it is. "The term marriage equality is a term used by supporters. <tommy> (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, these lede terms are NOT what is used by X or Y, but rather what it's also known as. Google marriage equality and WHAT DO YOU SEE? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not google. We're a non-biased encyclopedia. YES it's called marriage equality- but you're missing the point. AS I HAD it originally, I put "supporters may also refer to SSM as "marriage equality" Why do you keep reverting??? <tommy> (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Because that's like complaining that water (also called H2O) is a biased claim from scientists. It's not an argument people, it's just what it's called, bring a wiki admin and perhaps they could tell you. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As to your H20 example, thats not comparable. H20 is a molecule and a fact, and indisputable. However, using a term like marriage equality and then saying that everyone uses it constitutes a POV. .... How many times have you heard a conservative use the term marriage equality?? ALL I want is to put it in the supporters paragraph... because supporters use the term! I think you'd agree. <tommy> (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

..... okay people, need input .... The fix, anyone else.... <tommy> (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're listing the things people call it, of course we include SSM. Whether or not people are being neutral when they call it that doesn't obviate that people call it that. Should also include "homosexual marriage" (arguably "homosexual 'marriage'"). Having said that, the fact that one side doesn't use a term does not mean that the term itself is not neutral; it may just be that neutrality does not serve the stance of one side. -

I find this sentence to be a little confusing/awkward: "The conflict arises from the term "marriage" being used to include same-sex relationships as well as an often-overlapping government-endorsed civil status with legal benefits."Ragazz (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't write it but I'll try to decipher it, I could see how it could become confusing. The first part (about the conflict in regards to the word) is obvious, there are people who are for SS relationships, however feel their life is threatened if those couples call those relationships a 'marriage'. Second half seems to describe the fear of special rights being attributed to the civil status of gay couples, thus providing 'special' rights currently not endorsed to heterosexual relationships -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How many times have you heard a conservative use the term marriage equality? - well THAT'S the point. Just because most people say LGBT instead of GLBT doesnt mean that the latter should not be included, but that's okay, wikipedia is only as accurate as it's latest batch of editors. Perhaps there'll be a new slew who understand the point of a lede intro. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop changing the lead without a consensus.Ragazz (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Page break 2

Tommy asked me to help mediate this dispute. In general, I think that the edit war here is getting out of hand. Whether you like it or not, marriage equality is just a term. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The job of an encyclopedia is to define and explain terms. I'm not going to say I'm any expert on this subject, but still, marriage equality is just a term. This edit appears accurate and neutral to me.

Also, I see that User:NuclearWarfare has fully protected the page due to edit warring. I endorse his decision entirely. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! And historyguy, I dont understand... yes you agree with me but you want it in the general lead.. come on. You create a POV by perceiving one and im not attacking you its human nature for anyone. It should make you not liek it but when you continue reading, you should say 'oh ok, that makes sense too.' <tommy> (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else wanna comment or are we just gunna keep reverting until there is a liberal or conservative bias?

Why are you thanking him when he just completely contradicting your purpose of reversion? you people have to understand (once again, like I've said hundreds of times) that the bolded terms in the lede are not arguments or POV positions, just terms that people have developed to describe the current article. Whenever you hear 'marriage equality' you know it's for gay marriage, in the end it's nothing but a term and hopefully those of you new to encyclopedias understand that. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, cuz that was my original edit to the right . . . . and he said it was neutral and it was until everyone started going crazy ... and I know the bold are terms!!! I wanted it bolded originally -- I dont understand all you people's opposition I really dont. I feel like I'm running in circles. <tommy> (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think since it denotes the name of the pro-camp, we need to include the name of the anti-camp. Both are clearly rhetorical devices. See suggestion below..Ragazz (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. It's been total anarchy here for the last 20hrs or so. I only wish there was a way to lock the intro only, as that has been where most of the edit warring/disregard for the talk page has taken place. As far as the edit Dylan suggested, under WP:CONTROVERSY if I understand correctly, it should read like this: "Supporters may also use the term marriage equality to denote support for same-sex marriage, while opponents use the term traditional marriage to denote their oppoisition." Any thoughts?Ragazz (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually.. I'm not sure about that... I mean this is about Same-Sex Marriage so... why do we need to know what opponents call it? It doesn't matter. Although you could, without the bolding, put that in the opposition paragraph. <tommy> (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It still comes down to semantics with me. "Marriage equality" is not an excact synonym to "same-sex marriage." Take the opening sentence: "Marriage equality is a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender." It doen't quite make sense, because "marriage equality" includes straight couples too. If you're happy with my proposed balanced sentence above, I don't care if its boldened just as long as everyone here really think it's used as a synonym, not just a related term.Ragazz (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, marriage equality is synonymous with same-sex marriage, unless you know an area where heterosexual marriage is forbidden, otherwise you would be correct. And it is a related term. I know mayor Gavin Newsom uses the term marriage equality. And bolded terms are reserved for the names/synonyms of the title. <tommy> (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The irony is there's no concrete tradition in traditional marriage, I think we should make a sub and discuss that. I hope people aren't correlating traditional marriage with 'one man/one woman' marriages, I think it's time to add a new section, talking about the arguments. Then we'll present laws, age of consent, the oldest known laws of marriages, wife-swapping, dowry, bride prices, etc etc -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

wait wait wait, how do we always get off topic? This is about same-sex marriage-- that's it!! Anything, anything that is not somehow directly related to a same-sex couple in a relationship defined as a marriage in a legal sense should not be in this article, yes? <tommy> (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tommy because we're getting into discussions related to the 'traditional marriage movement', which is nothing more than a play of words with no meaning other than "one man/one woman" unions, unions which have changed thousands of times in history. So what I'm suggesting is if we're going to start saying things like "traditional marriages" it's only fair we educate the readers on what that means, otherwise they'll believe the lie that's constantly posting suggesting that such a definition has never been updated (or changed). Even in lexicography itself words update, we SHOULD elaborate on this -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Iowa Congressman Steve King uses the term "homosexual marriage," as do others obviously. This is actually a direct synonym, whereas "marriage equality" refers to an "issue," or a "movement" and not actual marriages. You must be able to acknowledge that distinction at least?Ragazz (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That'd be fine. we can include that somewhere in this article. We had a similar problem in the marijuana article in terms of what slang terms do we include in the introduction. It was resolved by creating a link at the bottom to the refs. Perhaps we can do the same for this article? <tommy> (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's my point about semantics/usage: "Do you know anyone with a same-sex marriage?" "Do you know anyone with a marriage equality?" A same-sex marriage is a type of marriage. What is "a marriage equality?" I don't like either term, both are loaded, neither is encyclopedic. But unfortunately, it's not up to me.Ragazz (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly are you proposing, removing the article entirely? The problem here is you're not arguing against me, you're arguing against history. You still can not answer my original question I've repeated about 100x:

Tell me Ragazz, what classified a 'union' as marriages in the past? Remember we're dealing with various cultures and dialects.

I'm not trying to be rude, but you simply keep ignoring this question yet insist on having some sort of authority on the current use of words, such as marriage equality and SSM. All I'm asking you is where you're getting your information. It's like I tell my students, whenever you complete an assignment use your opinions if you may, but if you make a claim I want to (at least) see a bibliography. So again, what classified as a union and a marriage, who decided it, have either EVER been updated, and what is the oldest known laws we know of relating to such? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't even know how to respond to that.Ragazz (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the answer that I have posted two times already: As I said, whether they were marriages, would depend on the sources denoting them as such. It's up to the author of the source to qualify historical same-sex unions as marriages.Ragazz (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, starting with the edit war you were in the middle of earlier today, you need to try to be more reasonable. You're not the only one on here with an opinion.Ragazz (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A wikiarticle about same-sex marriage should only be about same-sex marriage. If someone wants to write a wikiarticle about so-called traditional marriages, s/he can feel free to do so and to place a wikilink in the See Also section of this same-sex marriage wikiarticle. As for the term, marriage equality, it, of course, is a rubric for the struggle by gay/homo men and women for marriage rights equal to that of their straight/hetero peers. Thus, while Tommy is right that the term marriage equality is about the gay cause, Ragazz is also correct that it is about making gay marriages the legal equivalent of straight marriages. However, I suspect that the opposition to gay marriage would like to appropriate marriage equality as a way of saying that extending equal civil rights to gays somehow lessens their monopoly rights to (traditional) marriage. Finally, I do not see a reason for placing the name of the opposition cause in the lede of an article on same-sex marriage; such belongs in a wikiarticle on traditional marriage, which opposing editors are free to edit/create. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Page break 3

Why not just state something like:

usually, proponents of same-sex marriage argue on the basis of marriage equality, regardless of the sex/gender of individuals entering marriage, while opponents usually argue on the basis of traditional marriage, which confines marriage to a union between individuals of different sexes? If necessary, establish separate articles on each of these, so that people can find out more there (rather than the redirect/disambig pages that exist right now).

and move on? Mish (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This edit was mine (to the right) ... but no one else apparently likes it because it's too neutral haha... a person with no opinion liked it I'm confused why anyone else wouldn't. ...<tommy> (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Give context; Dylan was looking at that edit as compared to having marriage equality listed as a synonym in the second sentence, and may have been rather ambivalent. Then I suggested my modified sentence: "Supporters may also use the term "marriage equality" to denote support for same-sex marriage, while opponents use the term "traditional marriage" to denote their oppoisition." Nice suggestion, MishMich, but I believe my sentence is more in line with WP:TIGER. IMO both the terms should be identified, but neither adopted in the article, as they are both loaded propaganda terms. IMO bold should be removed from "marriage equality" because it can not grammatically be used in all the same ways as "same-sex marriage" (The terms can't even be used interchangably in the first sentence of the articel! In my limited knowledge of language I assume this is how synonyms are supposed to work) and because it is controversial terminology that is only used by one side of the debate.Ragazz (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And unless I'm retarded, he meant my edit, which is the "Current version as of..." which I had put "Supporters of SSM use the term 'marriage equality'" . . .<tommy> (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but traditional marriage is unrelated to same-sex marriage. You keep trying to put the fierce opposition in the introduction and it's just not needed. It's about SAME sex marriage, not marriage. "Traditional marriage" serves no purpose in this article. <tommy> (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1) You keep ignoring my point about grammar, which is neutral, and 2) "Traditional marriage" is a term encountered often in the debate. It is the name of the opposition, and wouldn't exist as such without the issue. So no, the political term "traditional marriage" does "have to do with" "same-sex marriage".Ragazz (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't! In debate only, yes you're right; but not for the context of an encyclopedia. I don't understand the significance of including the term "traditional marriage." I may warm up to it, but there is no way it should be bolded because this isn't a debate in the intro. I think all conservatism is based upon tradition but thats off topic. I've said this over and over and over, this is an article about same sex marriage --- not a debate! <tommy> (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I never meant to suggest that "traditional marriage" should be bolded, that was a typo-ish mistake.Ragazz (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

K. I think you're trying to put a debate in the introduction here and while I love debates, this is an encyclopedia... we should just keep it to the point. Keep it simple. Stuff on what the oppositions prefers to call it is not necessary for our purposes. It already has their reasons for opposition and a HUGE controversy section; that should be good enough. <tommy> (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's me who, literally, suggested the debate be taken OUT of the intro and put in the controversy section. Remember? Maybe you didn't see those posts. Shankbone shot that down, not me. I don't want "marriage equality" or "traditional marriage" in the lead, but to include one you have to include both, as they are labels used by one camp or the other.Ragazz (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Tommy, per WP:LEAD the arguments for/against need to be included in the intro. Not every argument explained to its fullest nuance--that's for the article to do--but, per WP:LEAD, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies" -->David Shankbone 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you believe that "traditional marriage" should be in the lead? that's the only thing I object to. <tommy> (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in the intro, because this is an article about "same-sex marriage", not "traditional marriage". However, there is a section about the debates over terminology, and all of this can be discussed there. Everyone should please keep in mind this is the international article, not the Same-sex marriage in the United States one. I'd like to see international usage for both "marriage equality" and "traditional marriage" or else we need to specify that these neologisms arise from the American debate (as opposed to the Dutch, Spanish, Israeli, South Africa, etc.) If both terms are used internationally, both can be explained for their significance and where/how/why they are used. -->David Shankbone 18:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

~~Well thank you~~ Thats what I've been ~~saying~~ suggesting. I can accept it someplace else in the article, as you suggested. <tommy> (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the answer that I have posted two times already: As I said, whether they were marriages, would depend on the sources denoting them as such. It's up to the author of the source to qualify historical same-sex unions as marriages.Ragazz (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? "depends on the sources denoting them as such" - what in the hell does this mean? And what basis does an author use to qualify a union as a marriage, what are the logistics involved? What you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry Ragazz, that doesn't make any sense. <tommy> (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem - the opposition believes in traditional marriage, and same sex marriage (to them) is a meaningless concept, because it can't exist. They are not against it, they don't believe it, they believe in doing things the way they have always been done (although that is a problem, because they don't support marrying 12 year-olds, which is also a European tradition). So, the proponents don't believe in traditional marriage, because it is just as meaningless. They believe that rather than doing things the way they have always been done, we should follow equality in marriage. So, how do you include the opposition when they don't acknowledge the possibility of something existing - same-sex marriage? You do that by referring to them by using the terms they use themselves - traditional marriage (it is OK to do that here, I believe, refer to people as they state themselves?). If this is seen as a partisan phrase, then there should be no problem citing such a description as marriage equality for the proponents as well. I agree with David that maybe it should not be in the introductory paragraph of the lead, but further on in the lead where controversies are summarized. OK? Mish

Who said anythign about proponents not believing in "traditional marriage"??? My parents got married (hetero) at a country clerk's office, just because in the future I want that right doesn't mean I dont "believe" in traditional marriage. Yeah, you might be able to put all that... with references in a section under controversies, definitely not the lead. <tommy> (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I just don't get why people who have no idea what they're talking about try to edit an article lol, do these people try to fix their cars without finding out what's wrong with it? When questions like "Where did you get your information?" or "What do you base this off of?" are stumpers then you know there's a problem. But I have learned something important here, if people who are constantly editing this article don't know the underlying meaning of these words then imagine the readers. I think a new section titled "Controversy over the word Marriage" should be created and explain, then sourced. Oh and Ragazz, ignore everything I've said except the questions I've proposed towards you, wouldn't want them dodged again because I (and I'm sure the rest of the historians in the world) are deathly curious at how you arrived to such conclusions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First, why is this discussion in a section about the lead? It makes things very hard to follow. Historyguy1965, if I could have worded my response more clearly, than I'm sorry for the confusion. At this point I'm a bit unclear excactly what your asking. If you want to ask me something, please feel free. If my answer wasn't clear to you, let me know, and I will do my best to explain. Please understand that there are several people in this discussion, with several issues being discussed simultaneously. I have one request, can we please keep it to one question at a time? I think that may have been a part of the miscommunication.Ragazz (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Tdintale. Obviously I didn't make myself clear. The disbelief is that there is something that can be called traditional marriage, as traditionally people have done things differently from the way we have done them the past couple of centuries. Arranged marriages, kinship-cousin-marriages, polygyny, marriage at 12 years old, none of which are now incorporated as 'traditional marriage', but all of which are part of the tradition of marriage - which some argue also includes historical instances of same-sex marriage. Mish (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Good point <tommy> (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Page break 4

HistoryGuy: See "history" sectionRagazz (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

>>Please read>> List of proposed changes for article

I am creating this section with the purpose of organizing the various proposed changes before the page is unbocked. Please leave discusions of individual issues to their corresponding sections of the talk page. This is mainly here for a summary of consensuses that have already been reached. If the change has been discussed with no clear consensus reached, please indicate as such.Ragazz (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here goes, met me know if I have left anything out>>

1) Polygamy/Polyfidelity- There is currently a consensus to include a description of the following agrguments (these are not my arguments, they are/will be sourced):

Same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it will lead in some way to legalized polygamy. If same-sex marriages are legally recognized on egalitarian/libertarian grounds, then it follows polygamy/polyfidelity must be legally recognized for the same reasons. Not doing so would infringe upon the rights of polygamists/polyamorists.

There are sources on both sides that address this issue. There are sources for LGBT groups that support recognition of polyfidelity.

There is currently no consensus on whether to include this arguement in the lead; it has been suggested that this is covered under "tradition." There is currently a consensus to include this arguement/issue in "controversy".

2) Marriage Equality/Traditional Marriage

a) Consensus: Both terms will be identified as names that each side of the debate uses respectively. They will not be used freely in the article to mean "same-sex marriage" and "monogamous opposite-sex marriage."

b) If either term is mentioned in the article, both are to be included for the sake of balance.

c) Consensus not reached?>> These terms will not appear in the lead. It has been suggested that that appear in the controversy section in the context of terminology related to the debate.

3) History

a) There is currently no consensus on whether to remove/add more to the brief description of the history of same-sex marriages before modern times (Nero, etc.).

b)There is currently no consensus on whether to remove/add more to the brief description of the history of other same-sex unions in history.Ragazz (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

My opinions are: 1) Should be included, as it is a real viewpoint, but only needs a brief overview and not in the lead. 2) All notable and verifiable terms should be incuded somewhere, but probably not in the lead for the obviously POV ones. A terminology section detailing who uses which terms and how they may be considered NPOV would be best. 3) At least a brief description should be here, any more can go to a sub-article (I know for instance that Atzec's had arrangments that have been compared to or called SSMs - not important to this article imo, but verifiable and worth including somewhere).Yob Mod 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you're in line with everyone(?) else then.Ragazz (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1.) Agree (that is my impression of the discussion)

2.a) Agree (that is my understanding of the discussion)

2.b) Don't know (not aware of this part of the discussion)

2.c) Disagree - not clear we have a consensus on this.

(I have no problem with these being referred to in the lead, not bolded and not in the first paragraph, but I'm happy for them not to be included if that's the consensus)

3.a) Agree (no consensus)

3.b) Agree (no consensus)

Mish (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Mish, made adjustments, which I think is the most readable way to do this. Does that look better?Ragazz (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is better, consensus not reached, but as there was stronger support not to include, best not to include in lead without clear consensus to include? Mish (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinions are #1 is ridiculous unless you seriously find a good source otherwise it's just nonsense, but if there is a source for it, brief overview, absolutely not in the lead unless this is common, which I'd find hard to believe. #2 Depends on the context, Marriage Equality is not as commonly used; traditional marriage may be used, not in the lead. #3 History of SSM only, not traditional marriage or marriage in general <tommy> (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tommy, if you disagree with my assesment of where consensus was reached, please join the discussion in the corresponding section (polygamy, etc.).Ragazz (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question regarding this proposed list, does the whole 'SSM leads to polygamy argument" equivocate to a "heterosexual marriage leads to incest" as well? Should we include both? I say no, but perhaps Ragazz has a better explanation -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, the only reason for including one and not the other is the availability of reliable sources making the argument (and the straight marriage -> incest would go on the marriage article, not here). -->David Shankbone 18:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clutter, would you guys mind terribly if discussion on individual issues here was kept to their corresponding sections? Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so considering you're making proposed changes and I'm making proposed explanations -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy sources

"I will say that I am against BeyondSameSexMarriage.org being used as evidence of a major LGBT organization supporting polygamy - it's not a group, but a couple of fringe intellectuals who put together a statement. Its fountainhead, Richard Kim of The Nation, doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. I'm happy to discuss this further in a break-off section."

Pehaps, David... But Gloria Steinem does have a Wikipedia page...:[Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.]Ragazz (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? If a group of heterosexuals were against interracial marriages would it be fair to include that in the Marriage article? Is this just one of the stupid indirect ways of discrediting SSM? And who says they're a major LGBT organization? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The goal of BeyondMarriage.org was not to say that it was LGBT people against marriage, but to say too many resources were going into the 'marriage movement' when there were other areas that needed work in the community. It proposed a new vision--that was supportive of marriage--and wanted the LGBT movement to go "Beyond Marriage" and do other stuff. The argument is almost premised on the idea that there is a big Gay Bank somewhere, and too many of its funds are going to marriage, and the stockholders want to invest elsewhere. That was the 'anti-marriage' aspect of it. What precluded that was a separate statement that was full of a lot of broad, inclusive goals about social justice, equality, fighting poverty and all the other things liberals love to support. They got a bunch of people to sign on to it. This statement wasn't anti-gay marriage, nor was polygamy mentioned in the statement the signatories signed. It's a fringe intellectual group that came up with a nebulous, seemingly coalition-building goals, and then used it for the "let's stop talking about marriage" argument. It's intellectually disingenuous. There isn't a place for this on either side, and it helps neither side because the only notable aspect is the signatories to a statement that says a whole lot of nothing but liberal poo-bah talk. However, I have no doubt that you can find sources, such as that Newsweek article, where pro-polyamory/polygamy groups are rooting for gay marriage, though. -->David Shankbone 04:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me you're selective in your 'sources' as to create a biased POV in regards to discredit the idea of marriage equality. I am no doubt aware that there exists (in the millions of gay people around the world) obscure groups that, for whatever reason, are against equal rights for themselves. Also your "pro-polygamous groups rooting for gay marriage" did make me chuckle, personally I just don't see their relevance any more than I see the relevance to Hitler rooting for the cure of cancer. If anything, the silly argument being made would try to discredit the cure of cancer on the basis that Hitler supported it, which of course is a logical fallacy and (dare I say) a silly argument at that. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"It seems to me you're selective in your 'sources' as to create a biased POV in regards to discredit the idea of marriage equality." Was this comment aimed at me, or all people? -->David Shankbone 11:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers . . . To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy? . . . Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner . . .

ie: Gloria Steinem et al believe in legal recognition of polyamorous unions (ie. polygamy)

A professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University says in a major publication that this is the correct interpretation.Ragazz (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick edit, my previous paragraph applies to the above as well -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, Historyguy, noted. David?Ragazz (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There's LGBT people who are into BDSM, and it turns up at conferences and statements and stuff, but that doesn't mean LGBT advocacy is the same as BDSM advocacy. So, just because some LGBT people or groups involved in SSM advocacy also advocate polygamy doesn't mean you can connect the two. That is conspiracy theory, such as found in Homosexual agenda. I have to say that these pushes for promoting this kind of perspective in this article are beggining to strain my ability to assume good faith in this. Mish (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most paedophiles are found in the home, they are heterosexual, they are married, and they are parents. Does this mean we have to insert some kind of comment that traditional marriage advocates advocate child sexual abuse, because that is the location of most CSA? get real. Mish (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to argue sources. I am not willing to argue whether the polygamy argument stays. It's too well documented to leave out. Period. David Shankbone has agreed as well.

Here's an in depth discussion from a legal point of view, from a UCLA law professor. Still think I'm nuts? I haven't read it, but surely the article alone is something.Ragazz (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some opponents' use of this argument should be noted in the article, but I don't agree that this is part of advocacy of SSM, just because some advocates of one are also advocates of the other. That means you can report the position of the opponents, and the rebuttal, but cannot use the article to substantiate the view of the opponents using WP:OR, beyond what they actually say, within the constraints of notability, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. This is an article on SSM, not a WP:SOAPbox for criticism of SSM. OK?

I never said that I wanted to include the argument as an argument for SSM, you misunderstood. The point of the Beyond Marriage source was to be used with Dr. George's claim, to creat context.

George says polygamy is next. He mentions Beyond Marriage, who along with famed gay rights advocate/feminist Gloria Steinem support rights for these polyamorous relationships. This is just an example.Ragazz (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And don't freak out, that's obviously not the exact wording that would be used.Ragazz (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Additions to the lede

Not sure who reprimanded this rule that ALL changes MUST go through discussion but I'll budge, here are my additions, what is wrong with them and why were they reverted?

The edits are shown in bold:

Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, equality under the law, and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships in what supporters deem as Marriage-Equality.^[2]^[3]^[4]

Next edit I made:

Opposition to same-sex marriage is often based upon the inclusion of same-sex couples in the word marriage. Other reasons may include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds^[5], tradition, and/or homophobia.^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] Opponents to same-sex marriage are often part of the Traditional Marriage Movement, seeking to protect the traditions of marriage. ^[11]. Such noted and historical traditions include Monogamy, Polygamy, Endogamy, Exogamy, Arranged marriages, Child marriages, and more.

Explanation given: If the following edit is reverted (or deleted), then all I ask is for an explanation in the talk (see the history section) explaining why certain tradtions are cherry-picked from the past

Thanks -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the above section "List of proposed changes for the article." There is practically a consensus to not include the terms "Marriage Equality" or "Traditional Marriage" in the lead.Ragazz (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the great thing about wikipedia is it constantly changes, why doesn't wikipedia just freeze all articles after reaching a consensus. My point is since we talk about supporters/opponents in the lede, why not include these terms? It's completely unbiased -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, but my understanding was that the majority were against this, I was alone, and there was no consensus - however, it seems I was mistaken, there is no consensus, but it is a fairly even split. I'm happy for this to go in the lead - proponents as marriage equality advocates, opponents as traditional marriage advocates. I see no problem with it, as it is encyclopedic and backed-up in WP:RS. Mish (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care either way, as long as they're both included and identified as political terms. Really though, this issue should have it's own section. I tried to make one. Did someone change it back?Ragazz (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the terms are used, the long list of marriage types is clearly an attempt to paint traditional marriage supporters in a bad light, making them look like idiots or hypocrites. While they may be sources for this, it is certainly an opinion and a mischaracterisation of their goals, so does not belong in the lead. I believe the trad marriage section was removed for being unsourced and OR, if that's the section you meant. IMO, the lead should be simply left as it is until the rest of the article is fixed. If the lead summarised the article like it should, there would no no sourcing arguments for a start.Yob Mod 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ragazz, I'm confused because the "Debate over Terminology" section has always been there. -->David Shankbone 15:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Terminology section was always there, but those trad marriage sentences reverted from the lead were identical to those from the "Arguments about tradtion" deleted section. I was just guessing at that being the section in question, as it is the only one that was removed recently (for being OR/uncited/NPOV: not by me, although i agree with the removal for now).Yob Mod 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, no one has mentioned that SSM is a feminist issue. Shouldn't that be in the "reasons" in the lead too?[7][8] If we're going to say "people are agains't SSM because they are homophobic," isn't it fair to say "people support SSM because it is a feminist issue?" This is very well documented, so nobody try to say it's fringe, please. And I don't know how you can accuse me of POV bias for this, but you will probably figure something out, lol.Ragazz (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The feminism issue falls under equality under the law. -->David Shankbone 13:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not if people are simply voting along with a feminist political agenda. I'm not trying to refer to the reasons given by feminist supporters, but rather that a significant population see it as a "feminist issue." It is certainly fair to say that otherwise undecided voters would vote for SSM because NOW or Gloria Steinem supported it, for example.Ragazz (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's too speculative without showing it's the motivating factor for support, as opposed to an organization spinning it that way with a statement/opinion. -->David Shankbone 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't that just fall under common sense? People are followers. Some self-identified "feminists" would surely vote for anything they were told, as would some "Christians," "Republicans," "Democrats," etc. I see parallels with the usage here of "homophobia" as well as "religious grounds."Ragazz (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy is WP:V. The difference here is you have a statement by NOW that raises it as a feminism issue; yet they aren't arguing for "lesbian marriage" so it's a difficult argument to stick in that regards (one could equally make a common sense argument male-male partnership makes women irrelevant, and so it's anti-feminism). The difference with the homophobia issue is that the sources directly attribute homophobia as a reason why some people do not support gay marriage. Last, I'm only arguing against it for the lead intro; NOW's argument is certainly appropriate in the body, and if we can produce more sources showing it's a big factor, then I'd support it in the lead as well. -->David Shankbone 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do they say they're protecting the tradition of marriages if they only pick and choose what definitions to protect? And Yobomod I understand it may make them look like idiots & hypocrites but the argument in itself is -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, a core Wikipedia policy, it's not whether the arguments for/against are stupid or hypocritical, but whether they are being made by/in multiple reliable sources. Think "death panels". When dumb arguments are raised, it's all the more important to adhere to WP:NPOV in explaining them, and their counterpoints, so that our readers understand them. Stupidity will hopefully be obvious through attempts at NPOV. -->David Shankbone 18:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Implying that opponents of SSM are somehow supporting polygamous arranged child marriages does a massive disservice to the debate. If a reliable source comments on traditional marriage being a fabrication and that they cherry pick only forms of marrage that suit them, then something can be included and attibuted as an opinion. Also, as David asks, please tone down the confrontational comments: We are all good faith editors, this is not a contest (also David Shankbone and other editors working on this article are highly valued contributors from the LGBT project - if you think they are biased against SSM, then i guess they are doing great jobs at keeping their real opinions in check).Yob Mod 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments from Tradition

Deleted section on following basis:

The only reference was a copy of a now-deleted Wikipedia page that survives on another site
The section cited the "Traditional Marriage Movement", which is not an organization (as the capitalization would suggest) and is not even a widely-used term (when we did the AfD for the TMM article, we found that there were under 150 uses of the term on Google that weren't just copies of the other uses, and that many of these uses were either coming from the wikipedia invocation or were part of a larger phrase)
Most importantly, the section is a blatant attempt to paint the "movement" with beliefs that they do not have. If one wishes to point out that those who argue for "traditional marriage" don't want truly traditional marriage, one can certainly find a source that would support a "Critics reflect that they are cherry-picking the traditional concepts of marriage" statement. And if the "traditional marriage" banner is waved in this article, its lack of accuracy should definitely be addressed. But this is not the way to do it.

- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "Traditional Marriage Movement", so thereby it only includes people seeking to "protect the tradition of marriage" -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted section again. It was a one-sentence section, and the only reference was a copy of a (now-deleted) Wikipedia page, which makes it WP:CIRCULAR. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

SWAMPED

I am afraid I am finding hard to follow all the different discussions across various sections covering several matters. Can we agree to go through one point at a time, sort it out on the talk page, and make the edit with consensus, rather than what is going on now, which is not likely to improve the article at all. Mish (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mish - the page's discussion are becoming too unwieldy; we're biting off more than we can chew. I encourage fellow editors to work on compiling the list of arguments I started above so that we can then hash them out one-by-one. Each has its own set of issues, including which sources to use and how to use them. Everything on this page is recent, and all opinions still count that have been expressed to this point, but I suggest we try to get together the basic RS arguments, and then figure out how they fit into the big picture for the lead, and then what needs to go into the body of the article. We can make revisions as consensus is reached on each point. -->David Shankbone 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy

A common arguement against SSM is that it leaves the door open for polygamy. Legal arguements, as well as documentation of LGBT activists who support legalization of polyamorous unions can be found here. I propose adding polygamy to the list, because it is often used as a reason.Ragazz (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is an opinion piece, and pays brief attention to hypothetical legalisation of polyamorous unions (not 'polygamy', which is generally a heterosexual institution, such as polyandry or polygyny). My sense is this would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH; it is the sort of argument that links disparate phenomena as a rhetorical device - such as linking homosexuality with paraphilias (such as bestiality or paedophilia). This article is about same-sex marriage, not polyamorous marriage. Mish (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Point by point:

1) That the source is an opinion piece should not bar its use in the Controversy section. Besides, their are a plethora of sources naming this concern. A google search of ""same-sex marriage" polygamy" gives 117,000 results. Here is the website of the LGBT activists who promote legal recognition of polyamorous relationships. One of the household groups they go to bat for is "Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."

2)According to Polygamy, "Polygamy can be defined as any "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse."" In otherwords, polyamorous couples who are married are polygamists.

3) WP:OR? Are you suggesting that this is my original research? Please... We all know of this arguement. WP:SYNTH? The entire viewpoint can be found in articles like this and this.

This is a well known arguement and should not be excluded from this article.Ragazz (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's a New York Times article that mentions assemblyman James N. Tedisco's view that same-sex marriage may lead to polygamy.Ragazz (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This New York Times article about the Iowa Supreme Court hearings mentions the arguement in its first paragraph.Ragazz (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

'We all know of this argument' - who is this 'we'? This is the first time I've heard about this argument (unlike defamatory red-herrings about paedophilia and bestiality). Mish (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[9]] This source cites a comparison between gay marriage and polygamy, no argument that one will lead to the other.

"polyamorous couples who are married are polygamists" - what does this mean? If this already happens, are these heterosexual or bisexual or homosexual? How can they be 'couples', if more than two people are married? If this already happens, how does this relate to gay marriage making this possible? Mish (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, my apologies for not assuming good faith, I really thought everyone had heard of this. But as you can see, it is a fairly widespread arguement. It seems, in fact, that there is an actual movement to make polygamy legal now based on the legality of SSM. Just so that you don't think I'm nuts, here it is in canada and here it is in the US.

The arguement goes as follows: "If SSM must be legalized because conseting adults have the right to choose who they marry, then the gov can't tell 3 or more consenting adults they can't get married."Ragazz (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that like saying by allowing African-Americans to vote, we'd have to allow those who wish to vote multiple times the ability too? The difference is not whom you're with (or rather who you are), but how many, there is a difference. You can't choose your sexual orientation but you can certainly choose how many people to be with. It's a completely idiotic argument. - Linestarz (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ragazz is right: it's a well-known argument, and it's extreme version is that gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriage. The beauty of Wikipedia is that when people come here looking for information, we should provide it, and explain the issues. The interspecies argument is ridiculous and only brought up by crackpots, but not the polyamory argument - there are arguments on both sides[10]. However, Beyondgaymarriage.org is a fringe group and there support for anything other than marriages of more than two people is not an indication that there is mainstream support for polygamy amongst same-sex marriage proponents. Both sides of this debate have their fringe, and this article will be better served if both sides prevent their fringe theories--such as Fred Phelps's theories on gay marriage--from co-opting the article edits. -->David Shankbone 12:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

page break

Gay marriage will lead to inter-species marriages? hahahahhahahahahha. That's a slippery slope logical fallacy I'm afraid, and enormously stupid -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't honestly know what to think, I have watched Jerry Springer, but I didn't realise so many Americans took this sort of thing so seriously. I can see that some commentators may use 'this will lead to legaisation of polygamy', but I'm still not convinced it is an argument per se, any more than saying that same-sex marriage will lead to bestial or paedophile unions, more a rhetorical device which deflects from the arguments itself by distraction onto some other issue 'all reasonable people' would feel uncomfortable with. The references cited seem to be comments along the lines of 'and it will open the door to polygamous marriage', with no analysis of how this would happen. Is there a source which clearly shows opponents of same-sex marriage 'showing' how this will lead to polygamous marriage as a seriously developed argument, rather than just stating the possibility? That is what one usually expects in an 'argument', rather than 'sticks and stones'. I tend to agree with David, it sounds fringe. Mish (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Remind me again as to why pro-same-sex marriage advocates do not support polygamy as well? It seems like an open and shut case to me. It's your basic human right as a private individual to enter with whatever contracts you want with adults who can give informed consent. I know that plenty of people go "Ewww... Polygamy... ewww! Gross!", but "Eww..." is not an acceptable criteria for making law. The Squicks (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a majority view, but I don't think that it's a fringe view either. I know that Tucker Carlson, of all people, has advocated legalizing polygamy on MSNBC. The issue was serious enough, after all, to be discussed in Salon Magazine as David pointed out. The Squicks (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So, where is this argument developed as a nuanced criticism of same-sex marriage? As opposed to scare-mongering... Mish (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just google it. [11] [12] The arguement is based on personal autonomy.Ragazz (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal autonomy can be applied to anything, including woman's rights, black's rights, etc. How do we know gays are doing this for this particular reason, pulling one person and sourcing is not legitimate. If we do include anything regarding personal autonomy, then expect some inclusions. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To MishMich= As someone who is a personal cheerleader for both same-sex marriage and polygamy for the same civil rights based reasons, it seems to me that it isn't criticism= it's a positive. Someday, the fact that homosexuals will have the right to marry their partner of the same gender will lead to a bisexuals having the right to marry their partners of both gender. Isn't this the point of view of a significant minority of LGBT individuals? The Squicks (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be arguing about whether the stance has validity. The argument is widely used, as Shankbone said as well, and there is no reason to keep it out of the article as per WP:CONTROVERSY, unbiased reporting, etc. End of sub-issue please?Ragazz (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree, that is why I am not discussing the validity of the advocacy - it is not relevant. The issue is the assertion that critics of same-sex marriage have developed a critique of same-sex marriage that is based on the assertion that it will lead to polygamous unions. I have the argument here:

if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.[13]

So, I guess the point is carried. Mish (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable enough to include in the lead (as it would require too much explanation), and would be covered under 'tradition', but perhaps it could complement Same-sex marriage#Argument concerning marriage privatization somehow? Mish (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is a widespread arguement with basis in actual leagal cases and deserves to be in the lead.Ragazz (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better source.Ragazz (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if you look at the lead, the list of criticisms by opponents is brief and summed up by one word. If you add polygamy to the lead, it won't make sense - you would need to expand that in a way that explains the argument - that way it will constitute more than all the forms of criticism there already, which would be undue (for the lead). However, if you look at the 'reasons' one of these is 'tradition' - and that is essentially what 'polygamy' falls under. The argument I cited bears this out: "traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender" it is the break with tradition that forges this hypothetical connection between the two distinct phenomena (SSM & polygamy) - so it gives undue emphasis to one concern based on the 'traditional' view other any other when 'tradition' is already listed. OK? Mish (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mish on this: "polygamy" falls under a number of general categories already discussed in the intro, such as tradition and religion. An intro paragraph is not the article, but a broad overview, and this argument is already covered by the general categories, and then developed in the article, which is our standard. -->David Shankbone 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tommy: this discussion has been going on for a little while now, maybe you weren't aware. The rest of us seem to have reached a consensus that some discussion of the polygamy/polyamory issue will be included- remember, this is not about whether we as individuals feel that an argument is silly, not that that's what you were trying to imply below in the "List of proposed changes" section.

David and Mish: I can see the point that polygamy somewhat falls under the "tradition" argument in the lead. However, if we leave polygamy out, then we should leave "universal human rights" the way it is, and not expand it back to the way it was earlier.Ragazz (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are three 'reasons' people support same-sex marriage, and six 'reasons' people oppose this. Now, people have expressed the view that hypothetical 'risks' of polygamy comes under 'tradition', and you think that one of the 'reasons' people support 'same-sex marriage' should be culled for balance. If this is the way you see the lead being balanced, which other four 'reasons' people oppose same-sex marriage should be culled to ensure balance? Mish (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, polygamy counts under "tradition" for now, that is unless people try to expand upon existing "proponent" arguments. Besides, "homophobia" is really an "argument" given by the proponent camp anyway, it hardly slants the lead for the opponents side.Ragazz (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I take offense to this. What does homosexuality and granting gay marriage have anything to do with polygamy??? It's seriously no more valid than trying to argue that blacks are less intelligent than whites by saying that they talk differently and then saying that if we give them equal rights, society will fail... and surprise surprise! They used to argue that too (in fact I think the neocons are currently going ballistic because Obama is president, but thats another story) I mean I honestly feel like these 2 are perfect metaphors. Now, I saw that MSNBC article, and while I see their point, I believe they will be dissapointed. Marriage is a union between 2 people. The connection between "oh this will lead to people marrying dogs and a father marrying his daughter . . ." it's just not only degrading, it's offensive to those of us who have been gay since age 3. sigh <tommy> (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tommy: I can see that you have strong feelings about polygamy/polyamory. I don't, really. If we are being egalitarian and libertarian, than the government has no right to favor loving unions of 2 people over loving unions of more than 2 as long as all parties are consenting adults. The government has no more right to enforce monogamy than it has a right to enforce heterosexuality. Or so the argument goes.

Yes, this argument has been used for its shock value. However, that doesn't give it any less merit in terms of its reasonability.Ragazz (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tommy, it doesn't matter if we think it is nonsense, what matters is if people state this as a 'reason', and that this features significantly in WP:RS. There's far more offensive things than this in the encylopedia, but however offensive things can be, that doesn't seem to matter. For example, I find the image in this section [Intersex#Ambiguous genitalia]] far offensive more than the position we are discussing - but it cannot be got rid of. Let's face it, lots of things people put forward as arguments are irrational, such as when they based on a belief that a supernatural entity told them to believe it, but that doesn't mean we exclude their views. Personally, I'm not that fussed about hypothetical future polygamous marriages; I am more concerned with the history where it has been used in a sexist way that was oppressive and abusive. To me it is a red-herring used to deflect attention rather than discussing the issue on its merits and demerits, but a neutral approach should draw that out from the debate. Mish (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tommy, I want to second Ragazz and Mish without repeating. The more a topic assaults your values, the more important it is that we explain it. The polygamy (or "Polyamory" as in this Newsweek feature) is a classic slippery slope argument, and it's very problematic and easily refuted by distinguishing (which is what the Salon article does). I will say that I am against BeyondSameSexMarriage.org being used as evidence of a major LGBT organization supporting polygamy - it's not a group, but a couple of fringe intellectuals who put together a statement. Its fountainhead, Richard Kim of The Nation, doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. I'm happy to discuss this further in a break-off section. -->David Shankbone 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nation is a liberal magazine.. What is that site advocating? Different types of marriage? :S <tommy> (talk)

Page break 2

Saying something like "If we let this happen, then THAT should (or will inevitably) happen" is a logical fallacy. Nonetheless I am definitely open to having the traditional marriage movement use polygamy as an argument, after all they are protecting the tradition of such, right? We could say something like "The Traditional Marriage Movement seeks to protect the definition of marriage and all it's traditions, including polygamy, incestuous relationships, endogamy, exogamy, and forego age of consent laws - but for some reason I bet they wouldn't agree to the previous, why? Because they only seek to protect SOME of the tradition, the one's they pick and choose. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And the counter argument is that mainstrem supporters of SSM only seek to grant equal rights to some relationships, the ones they pick and choose. And yes, some who make the polygamy argument maintain the logical fallacy you mention, but the issue can be raised without saying "polygamy will inevitably happen."Ragazz (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

True, Historyguy - but we aren't here for the truth, only what is notable according to reliable sources. Mish (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sad isn't it Mish? And Ragazz, so it's okay to include logical fallacies as long as you make sure the statement has no certitude? Isn't this place suppose to be an encyclopedia? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the arguments isn't our concern, but presenting the most documented (in RS) ones being made, and their counterpoints. -->David Shankbone 03:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, once more for posterity: "The quality of the arguments isn't our concern, but presenting the most documented (in RS) ones being made, and their counterpoints." He shouldn't even have to say that guys.Ragazz (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thus, there is no real scientific, reliable source that says gay marriage will absolutely, positively lead to polygamy. Case closed or I'm not getting something. <tommy> (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss arguments about same-sex marriage. We are documenting exiting arguments. Tommy, I will take this up with you on your talk page.Ragazz (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

^ Sullivan, Andrew, "Here Comes the Groom".
^ Abraham, Julie (May). "Public Relations: Why the Rush to Same-Sex Marriage? And Who Stands to Benefit?". The Women's Review of Books. 17 (8): 12–14. its most vocal advocates want gay marriage because marriage stands at the center of a system of legitimazation [...]. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
^ Azzolina, David (2003). "The End of Gay (and the Death of Heterosexuality).(Book Review)". Library Journal: 288. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Warner, Michael (1999). The Trouble with Normal. The Free Press. p. 80. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, May 21, 2009; accessed September 11, 2009.
^ Sharpton chides black churches over homophobia, gay marriage, Southern Voice, Dyana Bagby, January 27, 2006.
^ Frank: Scalia's legal opinions reveal his homophobia, CNN, March 25, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2009.
^ Homophobia damaging lives across Europe-EU study, Sylvia Westall, Reuters, March 31, 2009
^ Craig A. Rimmerman; Clyde Wilcox (2007). The politics of same-sex marriage. University of Chicago Press. p. 234. ISBN 9780226720012. Clearly homophobia is at the heart of blanket opposition to gay rights policies.
^ Evan Gerstmann (2004). Same-sex marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9780521009522. Keeping marriage heterosexual and dual gendered clearly has more widespread support than other homophobic policies.
^ http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Traditional_marriage_movement

[1] Sullivan, Andrew, "Here Comes the Groom".

[2] Abraham, Julie (May). "Public Relations: Why the Rush to Same-Sex Marriage? And Who Stands to Benefit?". The Women's Review of Books. 17 (8): 12–14. its most vocal advocates want gay marriage because marriage stands at the center of a system of legitimazation [...]. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

[3] Azzolina, David (2003). "The End of Gay (and the Death of Heterosexuality).(Book Review)". Library Journal: 288. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[4] Warner, Michael (1999). The Trouble with Normal. The Free Press. p. 80. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[Pew-5] A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, May 21, 2009; accessed September 11, 2009.

[SoVO-6] Sharpton chides black churches over homophobia, gay marriage, Southern Voice, Dyana Bagby, January 27, 2006.

[Scalia-7] Frank: Scalia's legal opinions reveal his homophobia, CNN, March 25, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2009.

[Reuters-8] Homophobia damaging lives across Europe-EU study, Sylvia Westall, Reuters, March 31, 2009

[9] Craig A. Rimmerman; Clyde Wilcox (2007). The politics of same-sex marriage. University of Chicago Press. p. 234. ISBN 9780226720012. Clearly homophobia is at the heart of blanket opposition to gay rights policies.

[10] Evan Gerstmann (2004). Same-sex marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9780521009522. Keeping marriage heterosexual and dual gendered clearly has more widespread support than other homophobic policies.

[11] ttp://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Traditional_marriage_movement

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]