Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

South Africa same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage was just legalized in South Africa and Israel. This web page should be adjusted.

This web page does not mention all Australian states and/or territories as having domestic partnerships, civil unions, civil partnerships or registered partnerships. All Australian states and/or territories do not affect and/or include federal legislation. See all of the following sources; [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5].

Interpertation of bible wording

I recentally scanned a Bible with an eye towards seeing what the Bible's stand on same-sex marriage was. I was suprised to see that the Bible (KJV) does not prohibit marriage or sex between two women. Also, marriage between two men is not prohibihed, just sex. Can someone find a way to insert this into the article? I cannot seem to find where this should go. Auric 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I managed to check the Gospels this afternoon and there is no explicit prohibition on same-sex marriage, Jesus refers to a husband and a wife, but this is only because he was asked a question using those terms. Jesus refers to marriage as "the two become one flesh". Dysprosia 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't mean to spoil the good theological inquiry here, but it must be realized that the initial question posted here deals with a technicality derived from a negatavist interpretation of the scriptures. The point: just because an idea is not mentioned explicitly (in name) in scripture, does not mean the idea is a non-issue for Christians (and Jews, too). In fact, there are plenty of well-established Christian perceptions of ethics that derive from ideas not discernable from a passing glance at the Bible. For instance, the idea that we ought not cause the earth's environment unnecessary damage is not mentioned in the Bible in our politicized sense of environmentalism. However, throughout all of scripture, the idea of mankind's responsibility for the earth and its resources is a strong theme. For another example, take the many applications of the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not murder:" it may apply to everything from real murder, to unjustified assault on another, to the rules of self-defense, to protecting the environment.

Upon a more thorough reading, one will likely find there to be many ideas expressed in scripture that address the same issues that surround our current debate over same-sex marriage.

Regarding same-sex marriage in particular, we can be sure there was virtually no one calling for legal recognition of same-sex unions in Biblical times. That aside, the Christian ideals of marriage and love between men and women are made very, very, very clear throughout both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. For someone to infer that SSM is acceptable despite all this seems quite unreasonable and is certainly contrary to just about every theologian and Church authority of the past 2,000 years.

There are so many factors to take into consideration when forming a proper exegesis of a Bible passage. Your question, in particular, however, would not apply to content allowed in Wikipedia. You wrote: "Can someone find a way to insert this into the article?" But since your conclusion is based on original research (which is prohibited in Wikipedia), it unfortunately isn't fair game (unless a source can be found with the same conclusion).

Best, Pianoman123 04:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Religious arguments section

Please consider the problems with this statement in this section:

"Members of these groups may believe that since the major scientific organizations state that there is no evidence one can voluntarily decide sexual orientation, all people regardless of sexuality should be able to marry the person they love and that to deny them is immoral."

This wording portrays the scientific community as monolithic--completely unanimous in opinion. Personally, I don't think the issue of why/by what means homosexuality comes about is important to the SSM debate. However, dealing simply with what's presented here, it's obviously a POV, as it is unsupported and highly disputed.

Pianoman123 01:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You could dig up the reasoning behind some of their decisions and correct the paragraph? I agree that it's poorly written. Fireplace 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

At least in American jurisprudence, the question of why homosexuality comes about is actually of paramount importance. If (more likely, "when") it is proven that most homosexual behavior is innate, born into the individual, then it is likely that American courts will have no choice but to view homosexuals as members of a protected class and it will be a lot harder to deny them equal rights under the law than it is now, when Fundamentalist Christians widely purvey the opinion that "homosexuality is a choice".

And right now, while it is true that the nature/nurture debate still rages on, there really isn't any valid scientific opinion suggesting that true homosexuals can "make a conscious choice" to not be homosexuals. That's why I suggest that the day is inevitably coming when discriminitory views will be smacked down by the law. The religions alluded to in the contentous text have already accepted the reality of the situation.

Atlant 12:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a non-constructive argumentative tactic...you've set up a caricature of those who oppose SSM. It's not just "Fundamentalist Christians," few as they are, who think this way. Using the most extreme example is not an accurate portrayal of the debate.

When you suggest that homosexuals cannot make a conscious choice not to act as homosexuals, you must realize the implications of that statement-- it's a denyal of the existence of free will. Are you prepared to make that claim? If so, you're getting yourself into a very, very deep philosophical rut.

Also, your opinion here is quite black-and-white: homosexuality is determined solely by predetermined biological factors and nothing else. This is not a view taken by even the most sympathetic of scientists (as you can see in the WP article on Biology and Sexual Orientation). Most believe that a continuum of factors cause homosexual proclivities, as in the case of many similar social behaviors. There is no human behavior analagous to homosexuality that is determined solely by a biologically deterministic function. If you reject this, you necessarily put homosexuality in the same category as major hereditary diseases and conditions (and neither you nor I would do that).

Concerning free will, even if someone is predisposed to homosexuality or any other lifestyle/mindset, they still have to use their free will to accept and maintain that lifestyle and mindset. That might sound outrageous on the surface, but think about it: someone genetically predisposed to alcoholism does not have to become an alcoholic (I'm not comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, but it's a valid example, since you've chosen to talk genetics)...because they can always seek all the means of avoiding alcohol. Someone predisposed to depression does not have to live a depressed life, as we all know. And again, if you deny this, you're putting homosexuality in the same category as depression, etc., which neither you nor I would do.

Now, still giving your belief credence, what would happen if it were "discovered" that homosexuality is a genetic phenomenon and nothing else? For one thing, there is no way for a government to prove that two people (who want to get married) are gay, because there is a whole spectrum of behaviors and lifestyles society defines as "homosexual." As I'm sure you know, the term "homosexual" is open to interpretation on many levels. But supposing you are correct and there were a scientific test for proving two people were "true homosexuals," as you've stated, ...would you be in favor of granting same-sex marriage licenses only to these people? What if there were two people who didn't feel naturally homosexual, but wanted to get a same-sex marriage anyway, for any number of reasons? Would there be some way of denying them marriages, because they weren't "gay" according to your definition? Is there a "true love" test you'd give them? No, because that would be discriminatory.

You see, this is why the origin of homosexuality has a very small role in the SSM debate. Why? The SSM debate is about whether it makes sense for the government to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, not about whether same-sex relationships are good or bad. Plenty of people, even some open homosexuals, are against SSM because they recognize that keeping SSM illegal has nothing to do with the state's view of homosexuality, but a lot to do with the practical matter of whether opening marriage to non-male/female couples is sensible for the government which marriage benefits.

Pianoman123 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many people out there make the claim that homosexuality is (universally) nothing more than a choice...to me that seems a highly unlikely explanation for homosexuality. What people are arguing here is that homosexuality may be acquired during life, whether consciously or unconsciously. That's a completely different argument from the one proposed by some, that homosexuality is somehow genetically determined. There are certainly many shades of grey here, since there are many documented cases of people being born with ambiguous gender, etc. It's obvious that a good number of people have genuine sexual issues when it comes to genetics. But in terms of the greater homosexual population, the myth of a "gay gene" is science fiction, and is a theoretical impossibility, as any honest doctor or geneticist will attest.

In terms of homosexuals becoming a protected class, consider this. Homosexuals are guaranteed all the rights that everyone else has: life, freedom, suffrage, property, fair trial, etc. In fact, every homosexual in America also has the right to marry, so long as his/her spouse is of the opposite sex. So you can't legitimately say that homosexuals are deprived of the rights everyone else has. So, logically, allowing homosexuals the special right to legal recognition would not be an equal right, it would be a special right, and would make them a priviliged class, not just a protected class.

I agree that there's no scientific consensus on whether a homosexual can consciously choose to be heterosexual, but you must acknowledge that all homosexuals have the right and the ability to make that choice, if they choose to do so. Some have. If you speak to the contrary of that right and ability, you're restricting the freedom of homosexuals; you would be dictating to them how to think.

It's also important to consider this: most opponents of SSM view SSM as an affront on the established understanding of marriage, and believe that allowing everyone to marry means allowing no one to marry...for if marriage is everything, it's nothing, and it ceases to fulfill its purpose as the foundation of the family. In a broader sense, it really doesn't matter that homosexuals happen to be the ones proposing SSM. Indeed, many prominent voices in the SSM debate have noted that it is profoundly mistaken to think that the SSM debate revolves around the nature of homosexuality. There are plenty of reasons to oppose SSM even if you support homosexuality as a lifestyle; indeed, even some homosexuals have denounced SSM, as it degrades their understanding of the purpose of marriage. You see, the reason to oppose SSM is because it would render marriage less and less meaningful in future generations, not because it has to do with homosexuals. If, for instance, a group of heterosexuals decided to promote the idea that marriage should be abolished as an institution, my arguments would be the same.

Pianoman123 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, every homosexual in America also has the right to marry, so long as his/her spouse is of the opposite sex....

And if they were granted the right to marry people of the same sex, so would you. So it would be a right granted to everyone, and therefore would in no way make homosexuals a protected class. 144.96.18.205 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pianoman123, you wrote: Homosexuals are guaranteed all the rights that everyone else has... In fact, every homosexual in America also has the right to marry, so long as his/her spouse is of the opposite sex. The problem with your argument is that it incorrectly portrays marriage as an individual right, rather than something that exists between two people. If marriage were an individual right, as you imply, then one person could marry another without the other's consent. Rather, marriage is a contract or agreement between two people, both of whom must agree to it. If two adults of the same sex cannot enter into the same agreement into which two opposite-sex adults can, then it is clear that equal rights do not exist.

Stu21202 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this very good point. I think your point is internally consistent, but I still maintain a disagreement on the nature of marriage. I would need to read more political philosophy before making a decent statement on whether marriage is an individual right, a group right, both, or neither (perhaps John Rawls and John Finnis might be of help). My inclination, though, is to re-assert that marriage has to be an individual right, and that marriage is an exercise of the individual rights of two people. After all, how can two people enter into a contract which bestows a right upon them, without some pre-existing condition of theirs? If they procured a divorce, would they lose the right to marry? No. Divorcees retain the right to marry even after renouncing a marriage, because their right to marry is a right that belongs to them, as individuals. Rights are intrinsic to personhood, and the two marriageable parties enter into a marriage with their rights already intact and complete. Also, if marriage is an individual right, then everyone has it. If only married people have it, then single people are an underprivileged class.

Additionally, to pick a point within your argument: "If marriage were an individual right, as you imply, then one person could marry another without the other's consent." I am confident this is not the case. There's simply no logical connection between the nature of the right and coercion. Everyone has the right and the ability to marry, but it is impossible to marry without the union of the will and freedom of two people, both of which are rights-holders. For you to say that marriage could be realized without the consent of one party, ignores the most obvious character of marriage--that it can only be accomplished by the consent of two people.

All of this seems to fall under a broader category: the purpose of marriage, and the reasons for the state's recognition of certain relationships. That, I think, is the source of our most fundamental disagreement.

Pianoman123 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But in terms of the greater homosexual population, the myth of a "gay gene" is science fiction, and is a theoretical impossibility, as any honest doctor or geneticist will attest.

Your understanding of genetics and how it works is apparently limited. It is entirely possible that homosexuality can be a trait passed on in the genes, especially if homosexuals take your advice and marry opposite-sex partners. But even absent that, the trait can still be passed-on.

Atlant 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If I take your comment seriously, then you must demonstrate why your own understanding of genetics is so superior to mine that I should not even be participating in this debate. Can you back up that statement?

Personal attacks don't constitute arguments; it's better to avoid them.

Here are some differing perspectives on the "gay gene" issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5798 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17pinker.html?ex=1273982400&en=cc413f948aad4159&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28505

Once again, I think the question of homosexuality's origin is consequential, but not important to the SSM debate...

Back to the debate...

Simply saying "the trait can still be passed on" doesn't make it true. Your statement: "It is entirely possible that homosexuality can be a trait passed on in the genes" can only be true if homosexuality is genetic...and so far, you're just treating that as an assumed fact, when it is, in fact, highly disputed. You have to give evidence before making that claim.

There's no evidence that a homosexual who reproduces will have a higher probability of bearing homosexual children; on the contrary, though, there is a higher rate of homosexuality among children adopted by same-sex parents, corroborating the 'nurture' side of the debate.

Getting back on topic, the website I cite here may be of some use in the SSM article.

Thanks for the discussion, Pianoman123 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You assume the trait is a single, isolated "gay/straight" switch. Were it so, your argument might hold water. But it's likely that the trait is linked to other factors, and doesn't operate in such neat, clean isolation. And if it is not isolated, it is heritable, even if gay folks in your ideal world didn't reproduce.

Atlant 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"it's likely that the trait is linked to other factors..." So are you making the concession that homosexuality is not just genetic, that there are other factors involved?

I don't really understand what you mean by "single, isolated," etc. Whatever that means, I did counter it in my earlier post: "There are certainly many shades of grey here, since there are many documented cases of people being born with ambiguous gender, etc. It's obvious that a good number of people have genuine sexual issues when it comes to genetics..."

Also, I never said anything about not wanting "gay folks" to reproduce in an "ideal world." I'm certainly no eugenecist. You've simply invented this.

I'm also perplexed by this: "if it is not isolated, it is heritable..." Are you making this up? It sounds nothing like any biology class I've taken. This discussion has grown useless...none of my original points have been dealt with...we should desist unless some sources (about genetics) can be cited.

Pianoman123 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right -- discussion is futile. I use words with specific, clear, well-understood meanings (such as trait) and you interpret them in the light of your propaganda. Remember, though, when the Congress or Supreme Court eventually does decide, someday in the future, that sexual orientation is a protected class, you heard it here first, even though you didn't like it.

Atlant 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with my points, does not make them propaganda. I've given evidence; you haven't.

I've taken on all of your arguments. You haven't dealt with any of my points; you've just re-asserted your personal beliefs.

Pianoman123 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Q: Betty, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Has there been much research into genetic influences on sexual orientation and has it produced any significant results?

A: Phyllis Frosst, Ph.D.: There has been, and some interesting hypotheses have been published and in some cases disproven. What's clear is that this is controlled my many genes and in some cases environmental factors. It's been shown a male child with an older male sibling is more likely to be gay. Scientists think it may have something to do with the mother generating an immune response to molecules like testosterone.

http://www.genome.gov/18516768

This makes me think pianoman123 is reading things from a website that may be very biased. hmmm.

Thanks for responding and bringing this up.

First of all, there's a big problem with your claim. I visited the website you cited above; it's a question-and-answer blog on a reputable website (which is fine by me), but the information you've found is merely an isolated quote which represents the view of one scientist, and is a very, very abridged and simplified one-sentence reduction of what could fill hundreds of pages of research.

You evidently arrived at the conclusion that this one-sentence quote represents the view of every reputable researcher in the scientific community. Why do I know this? Because you conclude that my sources are biased on account of it. But there are plenty of equally valid scientific studies out there which contradict each other. The fact that one contradicts the other does not mean that one of them is (or that I am) biased. It simply means that we must decide which studies have the best methodologies, comprehensive approaches, etc. But for you to assume that my sources are biased simply because of one quote you've found, is not only an insufficient argument, but it is a biased and normative claim on your part (because you assume--without analysis--that your sources are "better" than mine).

I've read scientific studies on this issue, and what seems to be the current scientific consensus--even from the most politically liberal of sources--is that homosexuality arises from a number of sources, some of which may be biological and others which may be environmental in nature.

For the record, it really doesn't matter to me exactly how homosexuality arises--whether it's nature, nurture, both, or neither. This view is framed (and agreed with) in an interesting article on a pro-gay website:

from http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26732.html:

No one is born with romantic feelings, much less engaging in sexual conduct. That comes later. Whether it comes as a result of genetics, or early environment, or watching too many episodes of Wonder Woman is a separate question that can't be settled by simple introspection. Moreover, the fact that feelings are strong doesn't mean that they're genetically determined. They might be, but they might not. Sexual orientation's involuntariness, which is largely beyond dispute, is separate from its origin, which is still controversial, even among sympathetic scientists. But here's the good news: It doesn't matter whether we're born this way.

The question of whether homosexuality has a strong connection with biology is a scientific one. But the question of what that means is a philosophical one. My main goal in the posts above has been to deal with the fact that people are jumping to conclusions in this debate, and are making irresponsible and premature assumptions.

P.S. Just as a reminder, please sign your posts.

P.P.S. Here's a better website. http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

Best,

Pianoman123 06:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting debate. However, and with all due respect, Pianoman, your "evidence" is certainly biased, coming from websites titled "Exposing the myth of Evolution" and other ridiculous claims such as this (the website absolutely exposes nothing). It is obviously not respected, peer reviewed research that should be quoted as evidence or even support for your argument.

That being said, I do find your logic compelling at times. And I appreciate the debate taking place here and everywhere. I personally believe that "religion" (note the scare quotes) should have no influence on the civil decision to grant benefits to committed couples. I see the civil benefits of marriage as benefits, not rights. In a democracy, sure, "religious" people have a vote. They can vote to deny what could be construed as fundamental rights to people they perceive as inferior, but should the government overrule this, as Abraham Lincoln did? I believe it has a duty to do so.

Also, the "breakdown of society" argument is not supported by anything of the sort for the Dutch, Belgians, or Spanish. Massachusetts seems to still be a state with culture, wealth, resources, it certainly still has its problems and debates, but little seems to have changed since "MARRIAGE" changed.

I don't see why a gay church can't "marry" gay people and why the state shouldn't recognize the union as equal to the union bestowed upon straight people by the straight church.

The bible has nothing to do with it. -Laikalynx 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, your arguments here can be reduced to "Same-Sex Marriage should be recognized because I want it to be recognized." That aside, I completely agree that one of the sources cited much earlier was not a source most people (including me) would ordinarily give credence. I don't necessarily agree with any of the three articles I cited...I merely presented them as fodder for debate, as they raise interesting questions. The only opinions I endorse are my own-- the ones I've put forth above. But as you can see, that article did not inform any of my points, and merely served as a reference. As a side note, the other two articles, one of which was a pro-gay website, were definitely ligit. I'm not sure, though, about the connections you've drawn...the impression I originally got when I found the article was that it just happened to be posted on that particular site (rather than originating from it). I've come upon several new sources recently, and I'll have to incorporate them here at some later date.

And since the opportunity is here, why don't I take on one or two of the points you've made.

First you mention civil benefits. My only question here is "why do you need marriage if all you want is benefits?" Marriage--as it is now--is clearly about much more than practical benefits; the benefits are merely one of civil marriage's secondary characteristics. More importantly, you don't need marriage to get these benefits. It's alright for people to get benefits (say, hospital visiting rights), as long as the benefits are not bestowed on account of the recipients' sexual behaviors. You see, the government is not in the business of rewarding certain groups of people solely because they think their sexual behavior merits a special social status. If marriage recognized anything other than what it always has (families), it would represent a move by the government to pass judgment on groups of people--based solely on their sexual orientation. If the purpose of civil marriage is to recognize the whole range of adult emotions and sexual behaviors, we have to ask ourselves why the state recognizes marriage in the first place.

Second, I've never heard such a claim made about Abe Lincoln. Are you making reference to slavery? If so, we must see that it was the religious people who were the original abolitionists. They were branded as religious extremists and bigots for holding their view, but they held out, and eventually people started to agree with them. And, as you know, Lincoln was against slavery!

Third, Yes it's true that Massachusetts (my home state) has not deteriorated in a conspicuous way. But if you look at the claims of anti-SSM people, you'll see that no one has ever claimed this "breakdown of society," as you put it, to be a sudden or immediate event. Almost universally, they have claimed that SSM would harm the next generation and those following it, as SSM would shape the entire generational understanding of what marriage is and what it means to them. This is the breakdown people are talking about.

Pianoman123 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as I've been a very big fan of wikipedia for a very long time, I never bothered creating an account until now, because I just needed to address a few of Pianoman's points, since it doesn't look like anyone here realizes the core issues of same sex marriage.

Pianoman is very right about one thing. The main and only legitimate argument against government-endorsed marriage between people of the same sex is that it would change what people currently view as the definition of marriage, which would lead to marriage losing its value as a social institution.

But that argument has been made before, when women wanted to vote, go to work, and more or less do anything other than be the good obediant home-maker who raises and nurtures the children.

"The future generations will suffer" they said, "if mother doesn't devote her life to raising the next generation. If she diverts her time from the most important thing a woman should be doing -- raising her children -- she will only provide a poorer upbringing to those children. Once women are allowed to be involved in the workplace, politics, the arts, or anything other than making a good family, the quality of the family will suffer and the quality of society will suffer"

Anyone who is against gay marriage on the grounds of keeping society stable, must, to avoid hypocracy, be against women's rights. Because the traditional establishment of marriage grants women very few rights and arguments against women's rights were made the same way for the same reasons. "Marriage is between a strong male provider and an obediant female caregiver. Anything else is not marriage, because it won't have the same value for raising a family and creating a good wholesome community"

No one thinks of that, because you can't go out on the internet and find quotes for it, these arguments were made before the internet existed, and no one, that you'd listen to at least, argues that women should be confined to the kitchen anymore. Nowadays we'd call those arguments silly, I would hope.

But the argument made against gay marriage, one we hear all too often, the argument that "if two men can marry, then marriage becomes anything and therefore nothing" comes down to the person saying "what's next? Incestuous Marriage? Marriage to animals? Inanimate objects? Abstract concepts? Why don't I just marry myself? Why don't I just marry EVERYONE?"

I talked about getting to the core issues of same sex marriage. Here it is: People who are against it say that enforcing traditional marriage makes for a more stable society. What is it about marriage that makes it an important foundation of society? As Pianoman said, the answer is about family. Marriage is an institution for raising the next generation of mankind with a healthy wholesome upbringing. So the question becomes, why don't you think two parents of the same sex can raise children just as competently as two parents of the opposite sex?

Only with evidence that they can't, should you be making the argument that the defintion of marriage would start to become meaningless.

And as an add-on to that, the whole "same-sex marriage would deminish families and society" has other problems in the real world we have now, since opposite-sex marriage between any two consenting adults also deminishes family and society. Between parents who are abusive, in love-less relationships, dysfunctional or just downright... stupid, the requirements for who is allowed to get married and raise a family could really use some cleaning up.

If someone wants to defend the healthy upbringing of our children and the fabric of society as a result, there are much more important marriage issues to tackle than why two people of the same sex should not be allowed it. How about why so many people of opposite sex ARE allowed it? Why are so many people vocal and outspoken against gay marriage without giving voice or passion to the marriage problems our society already has?

My point on the issue of same-sex marriage I think is done here. However, there is one final thing, nothing to do with this, that I have to address.

Pianoman compared a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality as being like in kind toward alcoholism or depression, to make the point that your free will dictates whether you follow through on that predisposition or make an effort to change it.

Alcoholism and Depression are bad things. They make you unhappy. The reason people make a conscious choice to change these qualities about themselves are because it makes them happy to do so.

I think that comparison was a bit insulting, and I know it wasn't meant as insulting. The idea that a straight person or gay person ought to be able to WILL themself into the opposite sexual behavior, and be HAPPY with it, that's just not true. Not universally at least. Alcoholics may willfully seek medication and support so they don't need alcohol to be happy. Depressed people may willfully seek medication and support so they don't feel depressed. But the human sex drive and need for love is not like the desire for alcohol or the tendency to feel depressed. For countless numbers of people, finding your soul mate and life partner is very much a requirement for them to be truely happy. The idea that you can will yourself away from that need, or that you can will yourself to be happy with someone who just right out doesn't make you happy, that's just a bad bad thing to be suggesting, and I don't think it was a very responsible argument to make.

While it's true some people have been able to find happiness by willfully changing their sexual orientation, it's just as true that some people are incapable of that. It's not like alcoholism or depression.

I think that's everything. Genericho 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remember:

1. The "talk" page is a place to discuss improvements to the article, not to debate the subject of the article.
2. Some people can't be convinced of some things, no matter how logical or long your argument ;-).

Atlant 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Atlant. Just to clear it up and put this debate to rest: -I like that Pianoman posted, "that we have to ask ourselves why the state recognizes marriage in the first place." That was precisely my point. -The Abe Lincoln mention was regarding slavery, and that the majority of people supported it, but a discerning leader overruled the majority opinion and fought like hell to keep the country together afterwards. It has nothing to do with the religious people or who supported what. -Laikalynx 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption as a form of gay marriage?

Has any attention been given to adoption as a form of gay marriage? Is this something that would belong here? Haiduc 11:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "gay adoption" as a "form" of marriage is stretching the definition. Citing a source using this way of speaking would make me more comfortable about going there. FYI there is a separate article called Adoption by same-sex couples. We could do a couple words and a seealso to that article. Yes? no? maybeso? MPS 21:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

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

Weasel words

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

I agree; there needs to be a much more balanced and egalitarian writing style in this article.

Pianoman123 19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening

I understand the intent in the first paragraph from the "or simply, 'marriage'" tacked on the end, but it's neither clearly worded (it's not the same sort of "less common term" as the others) nor particularly accurate--the avoidance of a linguistic distinction in usage is perhaps valid as a political/social approach, but if the lack of distinction were valid w/r/t scope of the article in the present day, then there would be essentially no need for this article to exist.

I think the notion of distinction-avoidance is covered adequately in a later section, and its awkward inclusion as an opener to the article, I think, certainly doesn't benefit the careful balance this article needs to remain in NPOV. I'm deleting it. I could reword it, make it a separate thought, but I don't think it's necessary. Perhaps someone else could do it in a way that would change my mind. 137.118.199.101

Fighting the term "gay marriage"

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

"Sacrificial love" =

"Religious institutions oppose homosexual unions because of the elimination of inherent differences between men and women that maximize the potential for sacrificial love in a relationship. Due to the difference between the sexes, much tension is encountered in heterosexual relationships and marriage. Homosexual unions eliminate this tension and the associated communication barriers."

Could we have a citation on this? I haven't heard this argument advanced at all, and it smacks of someone putting their personal observations on the battle of the sexes up. Wikipedia:No_original_research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.194.176.63 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, I think this definitely needs a citation, and we may want to remove it and put it "on hold" until one can be found. While it is true that some religions view sexual complementarity and family life as key issues in the SSM debate, that is but one line of reasoning among many. It's not accurate to say that this is the only argument religious institutions and people are putting forth.

Also, the phrase "religious institutions," is very unclear...there are many different religions are involved in the SSM debate.

Pianoman123 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are all good reasons to remove it until a cite is provided. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of same-sex marriage

Propose deleting the info on Germany from this article and moving it to the main article Status of same-sex marriage. That's where other countries are covered. RickDC 00:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to the Talkpage. I have no strong opinion on the matter myself, it just seemed like a good idea to look for some consensus. I won't revert again since you have a logical reason for it :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SOUTH AFRICA LEGALIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE

SOUTH AFRICA LEGALIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE Can someone please for the love of god add this country to the list of countries that have equal marriages? NOV, 14

why do people keep deleting South Africa as one of the countries that legalized same sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage is not yet legal in South Africa. The bill to do so has been passed by the National Assembly, the lower house of the South African parliament, but it still needs to be approved by the National Council of Provinces (the upper house) and then signed into law by the president. Apparently these last two steps are considered a formality, but they are still required to happen before the bill becomes enacted law. This is similar to what happened in Canada in 2005 -- the House of Commons passed the bill to allow same-sex marriages on June 28, and most outlets in the international media proclaimed that same-sex marriage was legal in Canada, but it did not become legal until almost a month later, when it was passed by the Senate on July 19 and given Royal Assent on July 20. --thirty-seven 04:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yah. Similarly, both houses of the California Legislature passed a gay marriage bill, but the republican governor subsequently pocket vetoed it. You just have to wait until the law has been executed. samwaltz 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the National Council passed the bill yesterday, so all this is left is for the President to sign it. --thirty-seven 00:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Which he has done by now. Updates a few of the articles, though I likely missed some parts which should have been updated, too. —Nightsta[User:Nightstallion|llion]] (?) 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence says Same-sex marriage is the union of two people who are of the same biological sex, or gender. While this is close, there are "unions of two people who are of the same biological sex" which are not called same-sex marriages for one reason or another. Indeed this is the heart of the controversy. I suggest we either say Same-sex marriage is a union or (even better) add something like "which has all the legal rights and privileges of an opposite-sex marriage." What do you think? –Shoaler (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your 2nd proposed wording and think the clarification is useful. RickDC 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be an important distinction. I also support the 2nd proposed wording; it seems to define things perfectly. The only nit I would pick would be that the term "opposite-sex marriage" seems a bit unwieldy. I was going to suggest "traditional marriages", but that might have some POV issues. "other legally sanctioned marriages" isn't necessarily an improvement either. Oh heck, just go ahead and make the change :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, many people draw a hard line between civil unions whose benefits are legally identical to marriage and "marriage" itself. Your proposed wording considers such civil unions to be marriages, while much of both the support and the opposition to such unions rests on the idea that they are similar but not the same.

Your proposed language also defines out of existence the religious marriages of people living under regimes that do not legally recognize them.

DanB†DanD 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points, but I'm not sure I can agree. The way I read it, the proposed language specifically excludes civil unions because they do not have " all the legal rights and privileges of an opposite-sex marriage." Regarding your second point about religous marriages, a "marriage" which is not legally santioned and not legally recognized by the State is not, technically, a marriage. I'm just typing as I think right now, I'm certainly open to discussion...--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One prominent position in the marriage debate is that gay couples should have access to civil unions which are in every way the same in their legal effects as marriage, but that the word marriage, because of its long traditional associations, should be applied only to male-female couples. I believe this is the stated belief of John Kerry and a number of other high-ranking Democrats.

Also, the question of whether marriage is essentially a legal contract or essentially a religious sacrament is itself a POV debate, on which Wikipedia should not take a position.

DanB†DanD 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree that WP shouldn't take positions in debates. However, within this article, "marriage" is being used in a legal context, not as a discussion of religous sacraments. I still think the proposed wording represents an improvement over the current version. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the article is about something with both religious and legal aspects but discusses only the political aspect, then that's a failing in the article, not a reason to further exclude the missing material. DanB†DanD 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just read the article again. If I'm understanding your concerns correctly, both of your points seem to be well addressed in "Debates over terminology" and "Controversies". --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex couples

Same-sex couples redirects to this page. Although related topics, a couple is not analogous to marriage. They should be separate articles. -Emiellaiendiay 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a (very stubby) Same-sex couple article I changed the redirect to point to that. The Same-sex couple article is basically just a definition at the moment (and one that just about equates it to same-sex marriage). Could use some good editors.... --Siobhan Hansa 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

United kingdom same-sex marriage

according to the page, the UK is debating same-sex marridge. this is not true. It has been legal in England and wales for a year.

They call it civil partnership, not marriage. It's a bit of a fine distinction, but being debated. See Civil Partnerships Act 2004. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.35.100.1 (talk • contribs) .

Vandalism?

I think these photos on this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.83.194 (talk • contribs) 13:01, November 15, 2006

Not sure which pictures you are refering too, they all look good to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hard to imagine that was a serious suggestion. The only photo in the article is amusingly inoffensive. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now OK, but there were many ugly photos in History of Same Sex Unions paragraph. I was sure it was vandalism.

The transsexual issue?

It seems worth mentioning that in countries that recongize sex reassignment surgery, it generally does not invalidate a prior marriage, leading to legally same-sex couples that are legally married, even if they became same-sex after marriage rather than the other way around. See, for example, the documentary Two Brides and a Scalpel.

Here and here are some pages on the subject from a U.S. perspective, and there are a zillion google hits on the subject.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.35.100.1 (talk • contribs) .

Economist article

Editors may be interested in the article on gay rights which appeared in The Economist magazine Dec 2nd 2006. It is titled "Until death do us part". It contains a table showing:

• Gay marriage legalised: Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, US (Massachusetts)
• Same rights as for married heterosexuals, but in civil unions or partnerships: Britain, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, US (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont)
• Civil unions or partnerships with lesser rights: Argentina (1 state), Czech Rep., France, Germany (3 states), Hong Kong, Iceland, Luxembourg, US (Hawaii, Maine)

You may know all this already but I thought it might be handy to have it froma verifiable source. Ciao Andeggs 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This was published in Economist volume 381 number 8506. In the issue the week following (8507) a correction was published saying that Hong Kong does not allow any civil partnership between gays. Andeggs 09:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tourism

I believe something could be mentioned about the economic impact of gay marriage from a tourism perspective. For example, Vancouver and Halifax Canada have had numerous gay cruise ships arrive to get married in Canada. This is just one example but clearly the overall effect economically of gay marriage in an increase in tourism. Canking 10:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, now if only New Orleans can get it legalized (LOL). That city (I'm from there, born and raised twenty three years!) needs all the economic help it can get right now.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning my edits:

If the wiki links point to “Conservative Christianity” and “Liberal Christianity”, I think it’s only fair and more neutral to use those terms rather than “Fundamentalist” (with all the baggage that term is intended to carry), and “Modern Christian” which implies that all other Christians who don’t subscribe to the liberal argument are not modern.

Other terms like “argue” which implies “dispute” and “note” which implies “generally accepted observation”, were changed to “claim” or “state” to simply imply a POV.

Mactographer 10:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain this?

Opponents answer that this view of marriage reduces marriage to little more than a means test for social benefits. They also see same-sex and male-female arrangements as inherently unequal, stating that nothing less than perpetuation of humanity itself relies fully on the latter and not at all on the former, and trying to "equalize" such arrangements through force of law will only create gross social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature. However, none to date have argued that there should be a legal requirement to have children in a male-female relationship to be recognized as a marriage or that sterile male-female couples should be denied a marriage license.

Two things. First, this reads badly. Very badly, as in non sequitur, unrelated, off topic and "what the hell is that doing there" badly. Second, it's unsourced. If "none to date" is verifiable, then it should be sourced. I'll give it a few days for a source to appear (a dollar says it won't) at which time I'll remove it.

And it's POV too, but I figured the non-subjective problems outweigh the subjective ones.

As a last comment, the whole article reads like this, badly scattered and difficult to follow. I would edit it, but I detest the inevitable assault that follows edits of controversial subjects. That being said, I will edit it if someone else doesn't. 70.121.7.89 Nunya

After looking over the article again, I noticed an abundance of weasel words. Specifically in the sections discussing the arguments for and against. There is very little sourcing, and a large amount of "many people say/think/believe"s and "some people"s. In my unblanched opinion, the article needs a rewrite because right now, it's garbage.

Unsourced POV paragraps for improvement if possible

I've cut the paragraphs pasted below. Wikipedia editors have no business saying what is a "fundamental concern" or "central to the debate" without citing the judgment to a reputable 3rd-party source. These paragraphs are essentially duelling editorial POVs.

A fundamental concern of opponents is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a reduction of the power of religious institutions in daily life,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  limit the right of anti-gay people to express their view in public forums, force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and that established churches would be eventually bankrupted by lawsuits brought against them. However, no lawsuits have as yet been brought against churches in nations which have legalized same-sex marriages‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Supporters of gay marriage point out that the same concerns and arquements were made by opponents of inter-racial marriage in the 1960's when the marriage of blacks and whites was illegal.

Same sex unions are one of many topics in sexuality that are discouraged by many religious institutions, others examples being masturbation and fornication. In the aforementioned light, however, masturbation and fornication are opposed to a greater degree by these religions' central axiom (which is that God is love). The Church maintains that masturbation and fornication are a selfish use of sexuality, while homosexuality is a less-grave "incomplete" use of one's sexuality.

[...]

The concept of "Tyranny of The Majority" is central to the debate. The tyranny of the majority is the dilemma facing a democracy when a minority's own interests are consistently blocked by an electoral majority. One of the most common ways of addressing the problem is through provisions in a constitution.

The phrase has variously been sourced to John Stuart Mill in On Liberty and Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. The concept was also mentioned in passing in Federalist No. 10 by James Madison, though Madison did not use the phrase.

Very POV

Although I have my personal opnions about gay marriage I found this article very POV from the pro gay perspective, like many gay articles on wikipedia this article seems to deal more with arguing for and justifying gay marriage and that it is right than providing a balanced and equal view. In short the article seems to be very pro gay marriage as opposed to the neutral place it should be. For example, comparing gays and blacks, is seen to be a poor if not faulty comparison for obvious reasons as was similar to comparing gays to animals, no one takes neither of these arguemnets seriously and I have never heard a politician gay or straight mention this in public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Recently defeated ex-senator Rick Santorum is the guy who famously equated gay marriage with bestiality. Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr., has compared the gay rights movement to the black civil rights movement, saying, ""Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

However.

You are absolutely right that the article is at the moment shamelessly POV, particularly in the new "Tyranny of the Majority" section, which is pretty much nothing more than a personal persuasive essay. I wish its author would recognize that this kind of subjective language undermines its own purposes by destroying Wikipedia's authority as a encyclopedic source. DanB†DanD 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Marriage "is defined as" a LEGAL union?

I think it's pretty POV to state in the intro that marriage is legally rather than sacramentally defined. At the very least, we need a source for the supposed definition. DanB†DanD 06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You've selectively quoted that line and in doing so, I believe you've parsed it incorrectly. I believe the intent is to say "same sex marriage is defined..." based on the fact that union in that phrase is an aliased link to marriage (which doesn't necessarily help either). Centering the article on legal recognition of the relationship is the most pragmatic approach, particularly since that's what all the political fighting is about. Opening it up to the ceremonial or religious concept of a committed relationship just muddies the waters and invites even messier edit/content warring. SSM in the religious realm had been practiced by the MCC for a couple of decades before the issue reached the legislative arena without all drama seen now. I'm curious as to what you think an alternative NPOV definition might be. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in a revert war over something so small so I won't remove the citation tag after the first sentence until there is a bit more consensus but I have to agree with Autiger. I too am curious as to what an alternative NPOV definition would be, especially since the whole concept of same-sex marriage today revolves around legal rights. Also, I find it interesting that while nothing else in the intro is sourced either, you've selected this particular sentence for a citation needed. I'm a grad student and, as such, am accustomed to writing a lot. I am of the opinion that sourcing in Wikipedia articles should be done in pretty much the same way as in an academic paper meaning that you source things that would require sourcing if you were writing a paper for an academic journal or class, otherwise no source is required. If that is the appropriate policy then this would not need sourcing. But, I am open to other opinions so perhaps we should hear a few more voices on the matter before making any final decisions. --The Way 09:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Marriage has historically been both religiously and legally defined, and much of the same-sex marriage controversy has involved disputes over the use of the sacrament of marriage in one or another denomination. For many people (as the article goes on to mention later down) marriage is fundamentally a religious sacrament which the government has no business defining or regulating. DanB†DanD 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has apparently slapped an online dictionary source on this sentence without troubling to read what the dictionary says--it does not support the legalistic definition on which I placed the fact-tag. Rather than removing the citation, I have changed the article so that it matches the source. However, I don't think dictionaries are good sources at all for overviews of general concepts, nor do I think the definition this dictionary gives is a good one -- it appears to apply to longterm roommates or to same-sex siblings or parents and children in a two-person living arrangement. DanB†DanD 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As you say, defining a same-sex marriage as a "family" is not particularly enlightening. Families can be all sorts of things. –Shoaler (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)