Talk:Same-sex marriage

New Zealand

Cooks Islands and Niue are not "New Zealand territories" but self-governing states in free association with New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.170.112 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2014‎

Rogue counties

Hey, I'm not sure if we should have rogue counties on the timeline so I'm going to remove them. Also, should Australian Capital Territory be kept on the timeline even though same-sex marriage was invalidated..?

Colombia Marriage Situation Misrepresented

In the "National debates" section there is a mention to a union from july of 2013 "that is not matrimony" indeed it was not, anyhow since september of the same year there have been other cases already protected by higher courts with the word "marriage", that you can find in these links: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/judges-allow-first-same-sex-marriages-colombia011013 , http://blabbeando.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/same-sex-couples-marry-in-colombia.html#.VAp6r_l5OSr and this one in Spanish http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/vivir/matrimonio-igualitario-un-hecho-articulo-449264 , the fact is that those marriages are registered and recognized by the Colombian State, it should be represented at some point, perhaps a brief mention in this article because there is a certainty that Judges are performing marriages using the 2011 Contitutional Court ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bor989 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a case of NONE, SOME and ALL authorities granting marriage licenses for gay couples, and in Colombia there are Some. ALL is not true and will ignore the fact that gay couples face dificulties to get married, saying NONE ignores the reality the couples are married. So this SOME should be considered by you editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bor989 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

you got this news story, right?

Today's SCOTUS denial of certiorari. http://www.wtop.com/319/3716613/High-court-denies-gay-marriage-appeals 71.163.117.143 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Estonia

G'day everyone, I think it should be considered to review the paragraphs related to these news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29559012 . -- Torne (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Torne. I've added it ... though it may be re-classified as a 'civil partnership', the article is not very clear on that, it uses both terms. It seems that the only difference to 'marriage' is the lack of adoption rights though if it grants adoption if the couple is infertile... well, assuming that refers the fertility of the people IN the relationship, that would be all of them? Not sure. Thoughts? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording at lede

Someone did put a [citation needed] tag in the very first sentence of the article, but I think they could have been bold and deleted the alleged disputable content. This article by and large deals with legal discrimination against and equalization for couples that are seen by the law as being of the same sex, so I think we should do away with both "biological sex" and "gender identity", replacing it with whatever fits "what your government regards you as being either X or Y".

We have intersex males, females and non-binary/genderqueer people, and trans male, trans female and genderqueer or non-binary trans dyadic people, at various degrees of recognition by multiple cultures and legal systems (most of them multiple times more wicked toward said groups than in regards to cisgender non-heteros, that are already largely discriminated against). There are multiple combinations of this with what cis people are already used to consider [ traditional standard vs new part of what's tolerable inside gender norms ]. Reading what a SSM might be, depending on such potentially conflicting characteristics (according to the way it is implied to be), will just make it further confusing.

Personally, it seems rather trans-exclusionary to me to regard this particular nonsense sex x gender divide, given how it implies science's and law's invalidation of inner gender identity through this social construct of "sex" that legitimizes your designated social role based on an arbitrary bodily binary (that establishes a given bodily function-focused pattern for an infinite spectrum regarding multiple levels of dimorphism-related corporeality) often at the sake of what you get to say about it, as something we should officially respect as one given adequate worldview. That's bad.

Let me explain. I can understand Wikipedia citing "biological sex" - a particular worldview - in its science-related articles based on a contemporary established consensus, that is to be cynically expected when it comes to academic fields historically dominated by dyadic cisgender people (particularly male ones), but not here. There's nothing exact about classifying people as F [ ] / M [ ], or F [ ] / M [ ] / N.A. - humans obviously don't work like this. "Biological sex" of the chromosomes, of the gonads, regarding the shape of genitalia, regarding endocrine gearing, regarding neurological wiring? They all are spectra that have at least a dozen of different possibilities (the last one has infinite variation... so that, if we were to take a certain so-called "neutral" standpoint, without needing to fit people into boxes [for the sake of simplicity... or social control that needs a fair amount of body and identity policing/pathologization], every single one of us could be their own micro-mini-"biological sex"), all are independent in status regarding each other, all are defined in different stages of development, and the three or four last could be ambiguous or "switched" in all humans ever, entirely depending on the course of the hormonal bath over pregnancy rather than a "perfect, intersex-proof" genetic code, as often people ignorantly think is what is related to such [at least oftentimes, non-pathological] conditions.

The point is, if we know that a diverse, science-based understanding of "sex" that is also affirmative of the people who despise the concept is not just possible but real, why would we need to legitimize the dominant one? We could just discuss the legal aspects, as this article is already concerned with to the most part. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that some editors took a WP:Too long, didn't read approach to your above comment in this section; I mean no disrespect by that. What I mean is that it's an approach I see often when it comes to a section that begins with three or more decent-sized paragraphs, and especially ones that begin with four or more. Moving on to the matter at hand: We should go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight (WP:Due weight is an aspect of the WP:Neutrality policy; being neutral on Wikipedia means something entirely different than what it means in common discourse). Like I told you in the edit history of the Yaoi article in March of this year, WP:Activism should be left at the door. The sex and gender distinction exists, and it is a distinction that many intersex, and especially transgender, people go by; for example, when trying to explain the topic of gender identity being different than the how one's body is. This distinction is far more an intersex and transgender matter than a cisgender matter. Both "biological sex" and "gender identity" were cited in the lead before you changed the lead. So I don't see what exclusion of transgender people you are referring to in this case. Sure, the word "biological" was not needed, since, as we know by the existence of intersex and transgender people, biology is more complicated than just, for example, "You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male." But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter." The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. "I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)."

That stated, the previous lead wording was unsourced. But so is yours. I tweaked your change here with regard to the WP:REFERS essay. And like I stated in that edit summary with a followup note here, your version currently includes a WP:EGG link...unless, of course, it can be demonstrated that people who type in "legal sex" will be looking for the Sex assignment article and/or unless that article is expanded to include explicit legal material regarding sex/gender assignment. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I object to the revised version on a few points:

• It greatly narrows the scope of the topic to be only about legal aspects of SSM. The coverage of social aspects in the article isn't yet what it could be, but it is an important part of the topic and shouldn't be excluded from the scope.
• By making it only about same-sex couples in the eyes of the law, it excludes some marriages with a trans partner from the scope of the article.
• It's much less clearly written and rather difficult to parse for a lead sentence.

I would support restoring the longstanding version while consensus is built on a revised version to address the issues raised by Srtª above.--Trystan (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, I tried to make my response more compact but that was futile. Awfully futile. Edit: (+11,599)‎, this is a first...

@Flyer22, I wasn't trying to do activism, but rather to reduce systemic bias (especially given how often large pro-*minority group* discourses are not cited as major views in this place – even as minority ones –, when we get coverage of much more obscure information) – if I tried to be activist, the page sex assignment would be seriously altered as a whole to reflect my views of intersex people as everything but an ambiguous blurry non-classification of what cis-dyadic science can't explain according to its seemingly reasonable but actually problematic expectation of ~perfection as fully male or fully female~ – after all, as we people who are used to think of homosexuality as natural, shouldn't we regard what /works/ rather than what we /idealize/ as what is to be expected in biology? –, instead a fully normal part of our [at least] 5 distinct, isolated, possibly "conflicting" spectra of kaleidoscopic-like corporeality (genetic background + anatomy) possibilities, specifically what is represented in it as a [conditionally] pathologized core (and the associated lived experiences with such kind of institutionally-validated oppression), with vast internal discrepancies, arbitrarily classified as a group because people aren't willing to admit that their illusion of manhood/womanhood as something that starts from spermatozoa is pure bullshit. (Yes, I would go that far into throwing the jars around if I could.)

(Irrelevant info: I imply the belief in 2 sexes to be questionable, because there is a large number of people who believe it to be, too, a social construct – one that is validated by academia to such pervasive levels, it manages to dismiss the cited dissidence, and the exact reason why careful people should also construct heavy criticism of it if they're supposed to be truly affirmative of people who deviate from said established sex-gender norm, that is not just societal anymore, given how, as non-hetero cis dyadic folks should know very well, law and "science" are not always so neutral and can indeed be used to extreme extents to validate existing prejudices.)

Of course I know all this information is best left for social media (or Rational Wiki... maybe, if I wasn't lazy), given how getting "science" to back me is almost supposed to be hard – and that's a good reason for me to question its credibility, as there is "science" (or rather institutional power controlling it; I've seen it referred to as "biopoder" here) actually advocating for infant genital mutilation as ever valid, as far as I can tell in that very "sex assignment" article (unless my English skills are doubtful and I got it all wrong), what is many shades worse than my possibly questionable view of the world. You probably get the idea now, so actual comments on the issues you pointed out must now follow.

Going back to the point, yes, that Wikipedia has no single article commenting the sharp consequences of how legal sex designation affects people and that I needed to get an Easter Egg link because the only seemingly distant equivalent I found was on about, to the most part, how to identify an adequate gender identity as the choice for an intersex infant, is very problematic. Given how my view is not just existent, but it resonates a lot within both feminist (particularly the queer and trans flavors) AND intersex-affirmative politics, we should take care whether we talk about "sex" assignment – as in what governments generally regards the M/F system to be; not to be confused with intersex genital mutilation (that I don't even see being addressed as an important ethical/moral controversy, or the often alleged inaccuracies in the presentation of its virtues – e.g. internal testes being more cancer-proof than DFAB folks' breasts or something like that –, when Wikipedia got plenty of room for dyadic DMAB-related intactivism and dyadic DFAB-related FGV coverage) – and gender designation – as in our reading of people's corporeality for a multitude of social functions – as different stuff.

That people don't pay attention to how legal sex and societal gender are related (and "chosen"/chosen in the same circumstances) but also vastly differ in various aspects – e.g. some people raise [binary] trans children as their chosen gender role from early ages, maybe as early as 4 or 5, but they are the sole ones that can change their legal genders, in most places far after a decade from the start of their recognition by family/society, often at the sake of the alteration of their bodies as explicitly mandatory – is an issue. That people don't realize how 1) identifying legal sex/societal gender (something about sociology, law, etc.) and 2) what the corporeality spectra/spectrum/dimorphism actually is and is meant to influence (something about biology, neurology, maybe a bit of sociological/activist commentary), are relevantly divergent notions that need their own three different flavors each of social or specialist commentary, meaning different takes on our use of what others said, what most likely would ask for three different articles if someone actually got really into doing this right, is an even bigger issue.

Yes, most intersex and transgender people identify within one binary gender. Nevertheless, this article discusses something that is seen as new in society. Something that is binarized as meaning what was previously excluded, and now is increasingly fully included. In such a report, it is very likely that a binary approach to things will be taken, and some people might be erased. I preferred to not argue in favor of radically altering this mentioned report that has been construed here over the course of these many years, but rather to fully exclude gender out of it (because there are infinite genders and this is a private issue that is almost never discussed socially and never discussed legally so far – hint to my "as of 2014, limited to both male and both female" – unless the prospect of married third gender-only couples suddenly appear in India, and non-binary people were always erased from this debate – hell, people act like bisexuality [relevant given that serial monogamy exists] doesn't exist a lot in their take on the matter), and to stop this page from engaging in unnecessary validation of the construct of "biological sex", that I believe should be left out for the areas of Wikipedia that explicitly deal with natural sciences, given how 1) governments don't give a damn over anything other than what is written in legal documents, or changes in the scientific take on the definition of what constitutes the placing of who in a binarism that, given the minute number of countries willing to give us both marriage and adoption certificates, is seen as essential to the very structures of society, tradition, pardon the POV, all that stinky yadda yadda, and 2) haters opponents of same-sex marriage's opinions on transgender and intersex people as well as their legal recognition as such might not be among the most sensitive or receptive...

Over sources, the ones I gathered in my foolish excuse of a research only pass through slightly the subject of same-sex marriage being related to [specifically] legal sex, without limiting its definition, what I would believe would appease you the most:

• http://books.google.com.br/books?id=hR0_CoNj6GAC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=same-sex+marriage+%22legal+sex%22&source=bl&ots=NOcP6vPfSd&sig=w6j2VaIoLY9D-l_7nJMYHZY47e8&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=gghGVJuqIIHJggS0iIGAAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22legal%20sex%22&f=false (page 76 explicitly narrows the importance of 'legal sex' when it comes to trans people)
• http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/What%20Feminists%20Have%20to%20Lose%20in%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20Litigation.pdf (sex just as understood by law is at the stake of how individuals are read by the State and how they can be seen as legitimately discriminated for said reason, gender is used as an euphemism for sex)
• http://www.glaad.org/reference/marriage (again cites trans people being on a legal gray area due to the construct of 'legal sex')

@Trystan, I'm okay with just "sex" without a link, or even marking that said "same sex" might be describing either the one in the eyes of law or individuals, but I can't see a reason to why we should comment on gender. The term "sex" implying also the gender of binary people (both cis and trans) is already enough. Gender, for this article, will inherently imply binary gender as the sole relevant detail in this account of historical gender-based discrimination and attempts of reparation – it'd be undue to comment on the long consequences of gender terminology here, and also how cis queer couples get it better in comparison to trans, particularly non-binary, people (especially when we look at these maps and see so little navy blue) –, it also implies that if we got "same", there's also a corresponding "opposite"... In short, I can only see a feast of confusion as the result coming out of this.

People are still okay with seeing sex as [ideally] a binary with little space for criticism, but, as Flyer22 noted, gender is increasingly seen as the sparkly mental one that we are progressing our views on to the point we should get used with a [far] greater number of available choices. We should use the word in an article that doesn't, putting it bluntly, is forced to look at matters as "gays vs. anti-gays".

/Gender identity/ (this terminology means not any gender, it's gender as in what you feel like inside your head) is something disrespected all over the world, never to be written on papers if it's something society (and by extension law/academia influenced by it) can't accept as valid, and never really recognized by society at large – just sympathetic fractions of it – unless it's the one you were designated to carry, if you don't "switch" (how people imagine it works) for a hegemonic "opposite" as long as you are both keen to a lot of expectations and accepts being classified as mentally ill (except for Argentina and Denmark). Maybe I'm overdoing it, but it's my full belief that using the term casually when only a millimeter of the iceberg that it represents is not fully erased is not adequate.

Roundabouts that are supposed to be inclusive of trans people but actually reconfirm given prevailing ideas about how "gender" works have an excluding effect. That would occur here because we are discussing what other people think of same-sex marriage and what it is institutionally (meaning we only comment what they direct their generalized "ew"/"no" at – heterosexism avoiding cissexism and dyadism seems even mythical, so there's that –, and how we're winning it), not representing a given definition of "same-sex relationships" as a general idea, and associating an inclusive narrative of gender identity with it. Same-sex relationship is the ideal place to start seeking more trans-inclusive descriptions (that's part of the reason I also linked the SSR article in the lede, and why I altered it as soon as I glanced into it too), but I still think this article isn't the place to discuss or get aware in regards to "same-sex marriage and trans issues". Does Wikipedia have a policy on what people interpret from the wording being a really important part of the choice about what the article should say? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Srtª PiriLimPomPom, without reading all of your latest post, I must state that you should very seriously (not just somewhat) keep WP:Too long, didn't read in mind. When you make super long posts like your "12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" post, it discourages the vast majority of people from wanting to read what you have stated and therefore discourages them from interacting with you. Some editors use that type of approach -- very long posts -- to derail conversation and people challenging their edits; I've been wrongly accused of doing the same, though I've never made a post as long as, or anywhere close to as long as, your "12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" post (unless I was perhaps transporting some copied and pasted text from a Wikipedia article to the talk page). In the future, in order to reduce your post size, consider WP:Hatting (with a note) the aspects that are not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article, or posting those aspects on the talk page(s) of the user(s) you are debating with. As for what you stated, "[trying] to reduce systemic bias" in the way that you have done, as you have explained above, is WP:Activism or close to it at least. This section that was on my user page (and is temporarily removed) about neutrality is exactly how Wikipedia treats neutrality. I follow what I stated there, even with being supportive of the LGBT community. Wikipedia is about the majority view far more than it is about the minority view. We should not be here to WP:Right the great wrongs. We do have the Wikipedia:Systemic bias page, but that is a WP:Essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it begins by seemingly noting that Wikipedia should follow the WP:Neutral policy. You can discuss any systemic bias issue there and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. We also have the Wikipedia:Gender identity essay; you can discuss gender ideas there or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies. But like BullRangifer (Brangifer) stated before (see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Name of policy) concerning the WP:Neutral policy, "The policy refers primarily to the neutrality of editors, not blah articles which contain no opinions or POV. Editors must edit in a neutral manner, reproducing faithfully the opinions, POV, and spirit of the sources, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If the balance of mainstream RS tends in one direction, then the article will tend in that direction, with minority opinions only getting passing mention." That is the way Wikipedia works, and is supposed to work.

Anyway, I have now read all of your "12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" reply. I still feel that the lead was better/flowed better the previous way (meaning before your aforementioned change to it), but I have also stated above that "biological" was not needed. The words "sex and gender identity" in the context that was in the article covered everybody, including intersex, transgender and genderqueer people; so I don't grasp any objection to sticking with that...except for the argument that the law goes by sex assignment only and/or legally changing one's sex when it comes to what is or is not same-sex marriage. But I'm also thinking that I'll mainly leave this aspect of the lead up to others watching this article to work out, especially since I'm busy with other matters on Wikipedia and have enough contentious Wikipedia topics to worry about. And, Brangifer, I know that I've pinged you twice today via WP:Echo, here and above; forgive me. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I approve of Trystan's approach of having gone back to the basics. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)