Template talk:Same-sex marriage map Europe
|WikiProject LGBT studies||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Europe||(Rated Template-class)|
Which laws or court decisions recognizing same-sex relationships have not entered into effect yet, but are coloured on the map? If there aren't any, the footnote should not be there until it is necessary, because you will make people wonder if there have been recent developments. If there are such decisions or legislation, put it on the template page with <noinclude></noinclude>. Niew (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The colour red
I'm wondering what the exact criteria is that has to be met in order for a country to be coloured red on this map. In the US, the federal and state constitutions are readily identifiable, and it is clear what "constitutionally prohibited" means in their cases. Constitutional law in European countries can be quite different, and there isn't always a clear-cut difference between constitutional statutes and non-constitutional statutes. For example, given the uncodified nature of the constitution of the United Kingdom, what would it take for that country to be coloured red? Gabbe (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"Opposite-sex → Mixed-sex" edit revert
The edit summary explaining the reasons for the change wasn't filled.
I imagine that, much as me, the reverter isn't a native speaker of English, though both of our native languages probably use mostly a construct in the lines of "opposite sex". But my reasoning is that assigning the term "opposite", though mainstream and common sense, is actually non-neutral. To what extent male and female, or men and women, are really opposite? Biological? Societal? Both of those indeed have flaws to using a term that, want us or not, generalizes reality and in a certain way, deletes the perspective of those who really don't fall anywhere. Or those who, despite feeling perfectly fitting to the common gender roles we have, disagree with male and female being really 'opposite' for reasons of it being a social construct that has a naturalistic fallacy appeal that doesn't apply to a correct understanding of human societies that aren't suppose to be in accordance with what is common for other, less social and cognitively able, animals.
It is not OR, this reasoning of mine wasn't even firstly held in my mind by my own reflections over issues such as those, I read a piece about the issue to get convinced that this is a somewhat problematic usage.
And I don't see how constructs such as mixed-sex or different-sex (I prefer the first in English, the latter sounds a bit more strange; the reverse for Spanish and Portuguese) would really be inadequate. Surely, they aren't common usage, but I can't see where one will object to them for merely logical or grammatical reasons; for political and ideological ones, ok, but not for those merely of style. Lguipontes (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you are trying to say, but do have a problem with using such a scarcely used term. Indeed, we have the freedom to choose the most scientific or neutral term when more options are available (e.g. hence same sex marriage; not gay marriage), but if the use of a term is really not commonplace, we shouldn't be in the business of promoting in it, but we should foliow a common name: opposite sex couples. L.tak (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I see from where you are coming from, but is this usage really so uncommon? I thought that rarity would be a reason for avoiding words that the average user can't as easily deduce the meaning, but when talking about same-sex couples/relationships and the level of governmental [non-]recognition given to them, I think everyone can deduce what this word communicates.
- For "mixed-sex couples" - with quotes I got 221 thousand results in Google Brasil, and for "different-sex couples" I got 659 thousand ones. Though still far from the 8 million I got for "opposite-sex couples" (with quotes), this means that this usage is not so unnatural. Lguipontes (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)