Talk:Same-sex marriage

Same-Sex Marriage and Immigration

While the article talks about same sex marriages globally, how it is viewed in different religions, societies, etc., it doesn't make mention of the effects of same sex marriages on immigration in different countries (legal aspect). Care to contribute? Thanks. --Weekeejames (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see two primary subtopics for "immigration": there's couples moving from jurisdictions where they cannot get marriage recognition to where they can be married, and there's the inability for a citizen to have their non-citizen same-sex spouse given citizenship or given automatic entry to a country (the Andrew Sullivan situation; not sure how many other countries besides the US it may apply to). No sources immediately come to mind for categorical discussion (as opposed to individual examples), but I imagine they are out there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient history

It is not clear what the article means by same-sex "marriage" in ancient times. In the Websters definition given, it defines marriage as a "contractual relationship recognized by law," while here they can be "informal, unsanctioned relationships." I fail to see how "informal, unsanctioned relationships" can be called "marriages." This is highly misleading. Furhermore, there is only one citation for the "various types" described, and it doesn't seem clear from the source that these were "like that of a traditional marriage." Please do not remove the citation or clarification tags until there is a consensus on these issues. Thank you.Ragazz (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I fail to see how "informal, unsanctioned relationships" can be called "marriages." - I agree, and that certainly shouldn't exist without a citation to a distinguished source (such as a reputable journal). The ancient history stuff, in my opinion, needs the highest quality of published sources exactly for the terminology issues (the concept of LGBT people didn't exist), and some of it is highly theoretical for that reason: ancient humans weren't versed in the terminology and knowledge of humanity we have today. However, tracing the history of same-sex marriage should include any forerunners to the concept. I'd also like to include the Black's Law Dictionary definition for marriage in etymology, or make some reference to it. -->David Shankbone 13:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would go a step further. Sometimes even if a reputable source uses the word we should think twice. I've encountered history sources where the author used the word "marriage" for convenience. For example, the term may be used simply for any relationship that a same-sex couple lived together. The author may even explain this with a disclaimer of sorts, such as "I will refer to these relationships henceforward as 'marriages.'" There may still be substantial differences between those relationships and contemporary opposite-sex marriages: dowries, rituals, religious sanction, state sanction, child rearing, being considered equivalent by contemporary sources, or even a sexual component. Clearly, even if the author uses the word "marriage" we might still reconsider repeating the term here. At the least an explanation of usage of the term, or even a caveat lector should be included. The Black's Law definition seems US-specific. I would want some more discussion before including it.Ragazz (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just slightly changed the wording to reflect the ambiguity of the terminology ("Historians have called...). I also removed the Webster's dictionary citation which is totally irrelevant here. There is no major content change, so I don't see how this should be an issue.Ragazz (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I fail to see how "informal, unsanctioned relationships" can be called "marriages." - how does Common law marriage fit in with that statement? -->David Shankbone 21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To freely equate common-law marriages with all marriages would be misleading. This issue is clearly about semantics for both sides, so this distiction is crucial. What's your point David?Ragazz (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm asking less for the article and more out of I agreed with you at first, but earlier I remembered CLM, whose informality is formalized, and it struck me as running counter to the initial thing I agreed with you over, so I was only bouncing it off you. Why misleading? -->David Shankbone 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement was not at all misleading. Let me rephrase that. To most present-day readers, marriage includes aspects that are absent in CLM, and are also absent in ancient SSUs, and even ancient opposite-sex "marriages" for that matter. I think it is probably more prudent to leave the word "marriage" out of the ancient history section altogether. Strictly following reputable sources, the section can then briefly describe same-sex unions inhistory that have substantial similarities to modern marriage, and of course great care should be taken to avoid WP:SYNTH. It appears at a glance, and I am a total layperson in this, that there is no consensus among historians as to which ancient unions should be called "marriages." Therefore, for us to use the term "marriage" for certain ancient same-sex unions without restriction, with the single justification that the term has been used by one or more authors/historians in a similar context, and with disregard for scholars who use different terminology, would surely be dubious. An analogy would be a future society looking back at present-day California. By said logic, historians could look back on today's domestic partnership arrangements and call them "marriages." Historians by necessity change present-day language usage to reflect ancient practices that have no clear equivalent in the present-day. Scholars often use customized terminology within a source, and when this is done responsibly there is usually even an explanation somewhere early in the document accompanying the first appearance of the term (ie. "For the purposes of this discussion, I will refer to all such cases of same-sex couples who lived together as 'same-sex marriages.'"). This situation absolutly needs to be addressed in the section.Ragazz (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was the difference between a union and a marriage in ancient times? Does anyone have a source? As a historian I realize they're just different words for the same thing, although in today's world (for obvious religiously-motivated reasons) people want to "own" terms that have no basis for their position. So again, I ask, in bold; what was the difference between a union and a marriage in ancient times? - here's another interested tidbit, why are we playing around with the word marriage, a word that originated less than 1000 years ago? What am I getting at? The fact that the word "marriage" did not exist until recently, so it was obvious they used different words to essentially describe the same thing. So I ask, for a third time, what was the difference between a union and a marriage in ancient times? - to me, any ritual celebrating the union of people must be a marriage, that's what marriage is defined as. Whether that be two people, three people, gay people or straight people I don't see how the words unions and 'marriage' could have not been used interchangeably in ancient times. Marriages ARE unions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Many societies even today do not have a codified system of law. To suggest that tribal marriages are not true marriages because they don't have a government stamp (having neither a government nor stamps) is twisting the meaning of the word to give a Western-centric modern view only, which is especially problematic when discussing ancient cultures that didn'thave words to differentiate such concepts. According to this definition, many old testament biblical marriages are not even marriages. Our article on marriage has no problem recognising the many different forms of marriage, including those with no state recognition or weddings.

So this does not seem a difficult problem to solve: A paragraph to explain different views on marriage throughout history and the lack of differentiation between unions and marriages, then call them by same-sex unions for the rest of the section. After the first paragraph this can then just be a summary of the SSU subarticle. Are there reasons to not do this fix?YobMod 09:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that solution. I would say less than a paragraph of explanation though, maybe a sentence or two. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Marriage article there was a very long argument regarding the distinctions. Read the opening paragraph for a list of essentials in marriage. One notable one is kinship. Unions may or may not create kinship. Also marriages have an open duration as opposed to being time limited arrangements. The word union can be extended to any relationship. In other words people that have no intention on being married, recognize the distinction between their relationship and marriage can be considered as being in a 'union'. Marriages may be unions but unions are not necessarly marriage. Mrdthree (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed "marriage" from the first sentence of the section, which was originally put in there without consensus anyway. Besides, it didn't make sense because of the phrase "informal, unsanctioned relationships" which I don't think any of us are saying should be covered by "marriage" here. As it reads, it is highly neutral. None of us are arguing that these aren't unions, as marriage is a type of union. It doesn't say "these aren't marriages." This is possibly only a temporary fix. OK? Please don't stick marriage back in there without a consensus. Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've reverted back to it's original wording before you played around with it. You can't just change it and then say "well, no evidence for the contrary has arised", I've already explained my position, that the distinction between the two terms has not been established, until you provide an answer as how to a word (originating in the 12th-13th century English) has somehow been derived from a particular term spanning across all cultures then I'm afraid we can't leave it as the previous ambiguous wording. Remember, you can not disprove a negative, you must provide evidence stating a difference between union and marriage, otherwise the other side can't disprove it. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you excuse your original disregard fo consensus by including marriage in the opening? "Sorry, I've reverted back to it's original wording before you played around with it." It originally said unions before you changed it, not the other way around. This is obvious, because of the phrase: "informal, unsanctioned relationships" which no longer makes sense. This is totally unfair. I insist that someone else step in.Ragazz (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

-Answers to Mrdthree- - Just to answer your post, marriages can also have the various distinctions you've mentioned in relation to unions. For example you said "marriages have an open duration as opposed to being time limited arrangements." - that isn't necessary true, considering several marriages (Nikah Mut'a comes to mind) have a certain fixed term. Also, kinship may or may not have to be present in marriages, the whole idea of Arranged Marriages speaks about that, though despite this various SSM in the past were based on kinship AND had no time limit, so it falls under the definition of a marriage. Last thing you said was "The word union can be extended to any relationship.", well if you look at definition #3 @ websters.com for marriage it reads "an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>" which doesn't necessary speak of a particular kin. Hope this answers some questions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is for everyone: Currently (it appears) Yobmod, Mrdthree and myself are in favor of using "unions" instead of "marriages" for the ancient history section, with an accompanying explanation of terminology. Nat made the suggestion to use the word unions for ancient heterosexual unions as well, which I have no problem with. I have consulted a better writer than myself for this. Here's my current proposal for the section lead:

• Various types of same-sex unions have been recorded in the historical record, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. These unions had varying degrees of similarity to modern marriage, and to contemporary forms of heterosexual union within their cultures.

Any thoughts specific to content and wording? Thanks.Ragazz (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as any introduction preemts misunderstandings from readers, or changes from casual editors, who think unions should not be covered in a marriage article, i'll be happy. Peronally, i think the above suggestion does the job, but i find many editors can be pretty willfull about not understanding when they don't want to - if the rest of the section being a summary of SSUs is challenged, then this intro would need beefing up. Having regular editors arguing about semantics of translations of foreign words is simply a huge drain on editors, and slows down more important improvements. I'm fine with either word being used, as as Historyguy wrote, there is essentialy no difference in pre-modern usage, and unions just seems the one that causes less accusations of synthesis or OR, and allows a more comprehesive coverage of the topic without having to search for sources that specifically call a union "marriage".

Can we have a sentence that explictly notes that some modern scholars call these marriages, while others compare the two but don't go so far as to call them by the word marriage - plenty of sources exist showing writers doing this, and that should be enough for sourcing. Any sources describing such unions as being akin to marriage, or discussing the problems of meanings of translations would be great.YobMod 11:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand what the problem is with using the word "marriage" in an article titled "Same-Sex Marriage" to describe past ancient Same-Sex marriages, I really don't. Yobmod made a great point in saying that it's such a drain and waste of time worrying about semantics and mere words. Ragazz you say, for example: "These unions had varying degrees of similarity to modern marriage" - what exactly does that mean, what are "modern marriages" and what are these similarities? Also, how do such similarities imply and turn an ancient same-sex marriage into a same-sex union? What I'm trying to figure out is "What the heck is the difference?" - see this would be A LOT EASIER if the word marriage had existed in ancient times, but all we've done was use the word 'marriage' to describe unions. Like I've said before, even Webster's has this definition for marriage: "<3> an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>" - so all in all I don't necessarily see the problem with the wording as it is, it's not like the people in the marriage article are debating whether the heterosexual unions of the past were called marriages or not. The unions they called marriages and the marriages they called unions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are already few enough editors willing to find sources and write content. Cassel's Encylopedia of Queer myth has a large section on SSMs, but under the title "unions". They call Native American SSMs "marriages", ancient Greek ones "unions", and Aztec ones "marriage-like legal contracts". Simply calling them all unions makes sourcing much easier (as many sources use unions, a more inclusive word) and makes the writing more consistant. Every time we write "marriage", it would need to sourced specifically using the word, then someone will say that it is opinion, so we would have to write "according to xxxx", then they will find a source disputing this, so we have to add "but yyyy disagrees, writing zzz". For a summary section, this simply results in bad writing, with poor flow and readability, and far too long. Calling them unions solves the whole problem, and is in no way inaccurate, per vagueness of translations and scholars using both terms. If sombody wrote a sourced section that avoided such problems and used "marriage" throughout, that would be fine, but i simply don't see it ever happening. The only argument for "marriages" seems to be that it makes it more clear that SSMs have a long history, but that is already stated in the suggested intro paragraph (which can be worked on to make even clearer). Look at how convoluted the Roman paragraph already is, in order to justify the use of marriage. That only covers one society - we simply can't fit in such paragraphs for each example. The history subarticle should be the place to go into how marriage-like specific unions are, and who has called them marriages or not.YobMod 13:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Strategically, I think that if we start off the ancient history by saying that the word "marriage" only goes back to the umpteenth century, and that historians have used it describe a variety of types of earlier unions, both single-sex and mixed-sex, and that there is no consensus among historians of which should be termed "marriage", then we can move forward referring to everything from before the adoption of marriage as "unions". (Of course, that brings into question the propogation of the term across cultural lines over time, but I don't think we'll be hitting that too often. I could be wrong though; I've largely stayed out of the history discussion because there's too much homework involved.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're both making good points. To address some things, Yobomod you were mentioning arguments from both sides and one thing you said was: "Every time we write "marriage", it would need to sourced specifically using the word" - only one problem with this, the word marriage (as we use it today in the English language) did not exist back in ancient times, so it'd be impossible to link to such. Think about it like this, in lexicography (that is the act of writing/updating dictionaries) we know that we derive terms from the past and include them in current terms we use today. In almost every dictionary we get relatively the same definition for marriage, an intimate or close union by two or more people, some take it further and include ceremonies, etc. Are we really going to deny that same-sex relationships of the past did not include any of the former? Let me contrast it with another example, the word 'meme' originated in 1976 and is defined as "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture" - now if you're in a discussion and you use the word meme to define something of the past, would you be wrong? Of course not. So to say "let's call everything a union because it's safe" makes no sense to me, in that case anything termed "marriage" before the 12th century would be "wrong" when we all know that isn't the case. Both of you already know that though -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with David. Let's delete the ancient history section until we have a new version reworked on the talk page here, and until we resolve this terminology debate. Do we have consensus to remove the section entirely (temporarily)?Ragazz (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, why would we remove the entire section if we're going to work on terminology? That's like removing the entire section of the Big Bang or the origins of the cell on the basis that there's no 'agreement' from wiki editors. The section is sourced, the concepts of marriage/unions have been explained in my posts as well as the conceptualizations in lexicography. Just keep the talk going (as David, Nat, and Yobo have done) and present your side, then we will edit the article in response. Controversial topics should not be deleted AND worked on, but rather worked on AND updated, that's the beauty of how wikipedia works -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by editors cooperating. You didn't seek a consensus before you changed "unions" to "marriages." At least "unions" is uncontroversial. It reads like WP:SYNTH, it's poorly cited, etc. I agree with David, the section should be temporarily removed. I'll give it more time to allow others to respond.Ragazz (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I only advocated removing the section if you both were going to actually work on it and then get it back up, instead of edit-war. I don't advocate removing it for more than a day or two, but only if you guys work on the issues. Neither one of you have made much progress in actually researching the history and providing citations to support yourselves. -->David Shankbone 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the lead that I reworked with Nat's help?Ragazz (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was good. But the section is still poorly sourced. For such a contentious issue, our readers are better served when you guys argue with an army of citations. Most of this discussion is revolving around your and Historyguy's opinions, to an extent that even I can't figure out who has valid points (absent my researching it myself). You both are clearly intelligent, but what we as editors think doesn't mean anything without reliable sources behind it. -->David Shankbone 20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Ancient history

David is right, unless we present our side then there's no point of a discussion.

The word "Marriage" comes from Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry", literally “give in marriage’”), from maritus (“‘lover", "nuptial’”), from mas (“‘male", "masculine", "of the male sex’”). The word marriage originated in the 13th century , Dictionary.com claims the origin to have originated in "1250–1300; (from) ME mariage"

The question now becomes, what do you call a "marriage" before the 12th-13th century? Better yet, were they called marriages?

So what do historians do? With the newer words that enter our lexicon we have to take their meanings and apply them to the practices done in history, in other words we have to ask ourselves: "Does this word fit this practice" - if we didn't operate on this logic then anything we referred to as a marriage before the 12th-13th century would be invalid, and can anyone name me a single historian (or otherwise anthropologist) that follows such a practice? So if "homosexual marriages" didn't exist in ancient history, then neither did "heterosexual marriages" on the basis that the word itself did not exist, it was only derived from ME, greek, etc.

We ask ourselves now, did ancient practices for same-sex couples follow practices for other couples, even going back to Hieroglyphs we could see couples like Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum not only intimately embracing eachother but the banquet scene (as mentioned in the original article) were the exact same as other couples of that era. Even John Boswell mentions the sanctifying of relationships in his book Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe

So the question now becomes, if these weren't marriages what were they? They were sanctified, recognized, and celebrated in the way every other marriage at that time was, so by what name did they operate if not marriage? Even civil partnerships/civil unions are relatively new terms (we refer to them as neologisms) that were coined in 1837-40

If there is proof of a distinction then I'd like to see the evidence, because it's equivalent to someone saying "celebrated unions between tall white men and short white women were not marriages" and then asking someone to provide proof explicitly stating that "tall white men and short white women are marriages" -- unless the person making the claim (that is, XY is not a relationship) provides evidence of a distinction of terms then I feel they should be attributed to all the other unions at the time. Was there even a debate on terminology between these relationships in ancient times? How about the terminology applied to Common-law marriages? Even in Rome such marriages required nothing but "consent of the parties to live together" and no "forms" or "ceremonies" were required -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ragazz, Historyguy makes good arguments. What's the counter-argument? If 'marriage' has only been around since the 12th/13th century, what were heterosexuals doing before then? A similar issue crops up with 'homosexuals' themselves, since they didn't 'exist' until recently. Yet, it is often argued that the Leviticus chapter about 'man lying with man as with woman' (or similar phrasing) means homosexuality. Even though 'homosexuals' didn't exist. Ragazz, what is the underlying principle that would be able to fit both Historyguy's 'marriage' argument above, and the 'homosexual' argument I just raised. If we can't say that these unions were 'marriages' then by logical reasoning, we can't argue that Leviticus had anything to do with 'homosexuals'. This might seem academic, but it kind of goes to the heart of your issue. Interested to hear your view. -->David Shankbone 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

HistoryGuy's arguments above have already been stated and addressed. That's why it has been suggested here that all ancient "marriages", straight and gay, be called unions. If we can't get past this issue then we won't be able to make any progress with the section. The word "marriage" is controversial, the word "unions" should not be not (as all marriages are unions, whereas all unions are not marriages). Even if some historians do call some ancient same-sex unions in some cultures "marriages," that's not all historians for all unions across all cutures. Please read the following and tell me how it is not neutral:

• Various types of same-sex unions have been recorded in the historical record, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. These unions had varying degrees of similarity to modern marriage, and to contemporary forms of heterosexual union within their cultures.

Please notice that ancient hetero "marriages" are called "unions."Ragazz (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Please notice that ancient hetero "marriages" are called "unions."" - the problem here is this is opinionated and not sourced, most (if not all) historians have no problem referring to such heterosexual unions as marriages and there is no controversy amongst them. To avoid calling any such unions "marriages" before the 12th century would defeat the purpose of adding such words into our lexicon -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• How is it opinionated? Please be specific. It reads totally neutral to me, text book neutral.Ragazz (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Historyguy, do you have a citation for that statement? -->David Shankbone 19:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ragazz, there is nothing wrong with the current wording and I've provided countless sources from historians calling these unions 'marriages', you just seem to have a problem with using the word 'marriage' which astounds me as you haven't provided a single source contrasting such distinctions. Dave, do you mean a citation that indicates historians have called heterosexual unions marriages in the past? AFAIK, most every book on marriage refers to unions before the 12th-13th century as marriages, I never under the impression that there was even some contention in this regard (for instance, Edvard Westermarck has referred to these relationships as marriages, even in times related to BCE).

I also wanted to pose this question to everyone and wanted your opinions, if someone asked "Did marriage exist before the 12th century?" - what would you guys say? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think marriage existed before the 12th century, just as I think the "big bang" happened sometime before that term was invented. However, I can't point to which set of pre-12th century unions were definitely marriage and which definitely weren't, a particular difficulty due to both changing forms of unions and to a word whose definition is arguably in flux. To put it another way -- would a sociologist look at "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" and say that from a sociological standpoint those are marriages, at least as much as those ancient same-sex unions were? And yet, we are not referring to them here as marriages, in part because we are dealing with different legal and sociological definitions, and using the word "marriage" to describe them muddies the discussion more than it clarifies it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The marriages currently described in that section are of the same ceremonies applied to heterosexual relationships of that time. Can somebody link to me a source stating the variances between these on the basis of gender and how different names were applied? Personally I can't find one. If we operate by this logic (that is, it's hard to distinguish) then marriage itself must not be referred to before the 12th century, but historians and sociologists and anthropologists still call them marriages, are they all wrong? Just because a small group of religious people find it "controversial" that doesn't take away from the fact of what is and what was, if every minority claimed (but not supported by evidence) such proposals then the Holocaust section would be "deleted" on the basis of no consensus (since there exists groups that deny it ever happened). If we delete the "ancient history" section because it references early marriages then literally 50% of the articles on wikipedia must experience the same process. I just wonder why the Marriage article hasn't experienced the same sort of debate in terms of heterosexual relationships of the past?

Let me turn this around and ask this another way, can someone find me evidence explicitly stating that 28 year old white men with mustaches marrying 25 year old females who are exactly 5'4" as marriages? What would you say if I said: "unless you provide me evidence stating such unions as marriages, then it'd be wrong to refer to such as a marriage entirely"? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"but historians and sociologists and anthropologists still call them marriages, are they all wrong?" Historians and sociologists and anthropologists are all serving different purposes than encyclopedians or whatever the hell we're called. If Brenda says that her son and his lover Mgombo are married, and Judge Hortense says they're not married, is one of them wrong? No. One of them is just saying that Mgombo is a member of the family, the other is saying that the law does not recognize that marriage. They're talking from different purposes. We can find historical reference referring to Neptune as a star, rather than a planet. Were they wrong? No, because "star" to them meant a dot of light in the sky, "star" to us means a glowing ball of plasma, so Neptune is not one of our stars, but it is one of theirs. This chapter does not have a working definition of marriage, and indeed that definition is very much at the heart of the question of what this chapter discusses. To proclaim those earlier same-sex unions to be marriages is to proclaim civil unions to be marriage, and that is not NPOV for this entry. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument could just as easily be turned around, on what basis were heterosexual unions "marriages", after all would proclaiming such unions to be marriages be NPOV? After all were people like Edvard Westermarck, John Boswell, etc just biased when they referenced such unions as marriages in the past? And the purpose "historians and sociologists and anthropologists" serve (at least to us) is a basis to avoid things like WP:OR. Last thing I want to do is analyze this sentence you made: "We can find historical reference referring to Neptune as a star, rather than a planet. Were they wrong? No, because "star" to them meant a dot of light in the sky, "star" to us means a glowing ball of plasma, so Neptune is not one of our stars, but it is one of theirs" - so wait a second, was this second an argument for or against the use of the word marriage?

- Let's look at your Neptune example and contrast it with marriage. We know that such SSU's of the past had the same sanctifying ceremonies, celebrations, etc as the heterosexual unions, so by using the same logic (even if we didn't consider it a marriage today) it would still be a marriage to them (right? we're using the exact same logic you just used). Better yet, even the second argument works in favor of calling them marriages. Even if what they called marriages weren't actually marriages (which no one has provided a single source for, and hopefully will) we could just as easily use the logic you just used and say "our applicators for what constitutes a marriage today (and here we could use any reputable dictionary in existence) and apply it to the SSU's of the past"

And perhaps it's just me, but is the idea of referencing distinctions between unions/marriages (something not a single source provided has done) a violation of WP:NPV 'Giving equal validity', I can not remember a single instance in my studies (or anywhere else) where historians have argued the use of neoteric terms in ancient societies (then again marriage isn't that new to begin with) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

so by using the same logic (even if we didn't consider it a marriage today) it would still be a marriage to them -- No, they didn't have the term "marriage", remember?

And perhaps it's just me, but is the idea of referencing distinctions between unions/marriages (something not a single source provided has done) -then you should look to the many, many sources that will tell you that civil unions are not indeed civil marriage, that the distinction between the two is at the base of large disagreements in various of the United States. That "marriage" must involve at least one member of each sex is not a fringe view. It may be a bigoted view, a vile view, a naive view, however one might want to cast it - but it's hard to paint it as being one of a small minority, or only coming from those who don't pay particular attention to marriage, so that 'Giving equal validity' concern does not apply. This article is at heart a current events article, not a historical article, so historians should not be our primary source on the appropriateness of terminology. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"...That "marriage" must involve at least one member of each sex is not a fringe view." - There has no doubt been limitations on marriage in a variety of degrees, including bans on same-sex marriage, but a ban in one 'contingency' does not negate a permit in another, which brings me to your second point:

"This article is at heart a current events article, not a historical article, so historians should not be our primary source on the appropriateness of terminology." - absolutely Nat, but this is the "Ancient History" section we're debating and as such requires sources from historians and anthropologists alike. Let me just put it in this respect, have there been "civil unions" in history? Depends how you look at it, according to dictionary.com that particular term originated in "1837-40" And I'm certainly no linguistic professional but perhaps a word like γάμος (meaning marriage in Greek) was used to describe "unions/marriages" in the past. It just seems not a single source provided proves there was a distinction, and that is ultimately what I'm after. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're switching definitions because we've gotten to the ancient history section (which sounds like a bad idea to begin with), we're going to have to make it explicit that we are switching definitions. It seems much more reasonable to use the term "unions" across all unions in ancient history. If you're questioning the truth of "These unions had varying degrees of similarity ... to contemporary forms of heterosexual union", you won't have an argument from me one way or the other, it's outside of anything I care to research at the moment. If a word like "γάμος" covers same-sex unions, the fact that it gets commonly translated as "marriage" doesn't mean that "marriage" covers same-sex unions. Languages differ; they are not simple cyphers where each word substitutes exactly for one in another language. Two words that refer largely to similar things in two languages may have subtle differences which are unimportant in most but not all uses. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems we keep going back to square one and begin arguing opinions (which I hate because an opinion should never ever ever override the facts). Perhaps either you or Ragazz could provide me on sources speaking of the distinctions (because as per David's request, I did my part and sourced various anthropologists). And since David posed another question, I'd like it answered as well: "What's the counter-argument? If 'marriage' has only been around since the 12th/13th century, what were heterosexuals doing before then?" So again, let's work with sources otherwise this'll go on forever -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't want opinions you shouldn't have posted that you "wanted [our] opinions". In fact, I only entered this "Ancient History" section because you made that specific request. If you didn't want opinions that disagreed with yours, or you only wanted opinions that wouldn't be backed up with logic, you should have made those requests. If you merely didn't want to argue, that too was your option.

Can you point to non-trivial uses of "marriage" to describe contemporary same-sex unions before fairly recently in the history of that term? If not, it seems to me that historians applying the term to same-sex unions of the past may be trying their best to use modern language to describe a culture that language was not designed to describe, that this is imprecise translation. To insist on using their terminology is treating them as experts not of history, but of linguistics. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to David's request is the reason I moved away from opinions and into sources, the "opinion" I asked for was based around a rhetorical question. Responding to the rest of your post, "Can you point to non-trivial uses of "marriage" to describe contemporary same-sex unions before fairly recently in the history of that term?" - I don't understand what you're asking here, I had posted a reply but the word 'contemporary' threw me off. Next, when describing conclusions from historians/anthropologists you said "To insist on using their terminology is treating them as experts not of history, but of linguistics." - so if these people are wrong, what is the alternative? Do you have any sources to linguistic experts explaining the difference because as far as I'm concerned, not a single source proving a distinction has been brought up. It just seems that some people think they have to "play it safe" and use unions because saying "it is a marriage" and "it is NOT a marriage" lie on two extremes, unfortunately that's a logical fallacy and I think you're an intelligent guy Nat, I'd just like to see evidence proving my original statement wrong. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Either you're misusing the term rhetorical question, or you didn't really want the answers you were asking for. I'm certainly not going to apologize for answering you, nor in answering you in a way that didn't fit some preconceived notion of how people would answer. As for the "contemporary" question, let me simplify it: in between the introduction of the word "marriage" and, say, the end of the nineteenth century, were there non-trivial instances of people referring to a same-sex union that existed in the time of the speaker, in the culture of the speaker, and calling it a "marriage" non-ironically, non-sarcastically, in the family-building sense (not in the "marriage of comfort and convenience" sense)? You have also either misunderstood or are misapplying the Argument to moderation. If five people say there was 1 cookie in the box and five say there were 100 cookies, the compromise position is to say that there were 50. It is not a compromise to say there were conflicting reports about the number of cookies, nor to simply avoid making any claim about the number of cookies there. There are real valid arguments on both sides for applying the word "marriage" to those unions in the context of this article, a genuine conflict. (At least in the cookie conflict, there was some real answer, some genuine number of cookies that were in the box. Language is much more malleable than cookies; it exists on understandings, not on truths.) I have heard no arguments, however, that the word "union" does not apply. I see no reason to apply a problematic term that muddies the article when a clear one exists and will suffice. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, calm down, I don't care if you apologize for stating your opinion, I never asked you to apologize for anything! We're just having a good discussion and hopefully we can learn from eachother. You seem to take umbrage with the most minuscule of things and you come off as very abrasive, just relax buddy, I promise you that whatever consensus we come to will never effect the world in any way, shape, or form. If anything we'll both benefit from eachother's insights.

Now to respond to some of what you said:

"in between the introduction of the word "marriage" and, say, the end of the nineteenth century, were there non-trivial instances of people referring to a same-sex union that existed in the time of the speaker, in the culture of the speaker, and calling it a "marriage" non-ironically, non-sarcastically, in the family-building sense (not in the "marriage of comfort and convenience" sense)" - My answer, who cares? I'm not trying to sound facetious in the least, I'm just asking what these 'contemporary' unions have to do with 'ancient history'? But if I am going to bite then perhaps Judy Grahn's examples of recognized same-sex marriages in American Indian tribes will do, especially for women wanting to take the role of say, the hunter Your next argument is pretty much summarized in your conclusion in which you said "I have heard no arguments, however, that the word "union" does not apply. I see no reason to apply a problematic term that muddies the article when a clear one exists and will suffice." - Nothing "muddies the article" when/if it's clearly understood, this article is on "same-sex marriages" and the ancient history relates, obviously, to "same-sex marriages", those who have a problem with using marriage (that is you and ragazz) have provided not a single source proving a distinction between a marriage and union in ancient history. To simply cross our arms, sit back and say "well, it's just problematic so let's just stick with unions" is being lazy, it's pretending like an answer doesn't exist so we'd rather stick a random ambiguous term as opposed to what such relationships actually were.

If people like Westermarck, Boswell, Grahn, etc etc have no problem referring to ancient relationships as marriages, then I don't see why some editors here do. Sure they're not "linguistic experts" but they sure as heck have no agenda, they don't have a horse in the race, they just presented history as they've studied it. If there are linguistic experts (like you've mentioned) who have problems with such terms then I'd like to see a source. It just seems that whenever I provide a source it gets brushed off as something like "Oh, well, they just know history not language", well unless you provide a COMPETING source then you're just arguing opinion. Let me just simplify the argument and perhaps either of you will provide evidence for your positions; either we use the current (ie: modern-day) definitions of marriage and apply it to cultures past (in which case the argument for calling them 'marriages' immediately wins) or we use the various applicators historians, etc have used (ie: ceremonies, contracts, etc) and apply them to opposite-sex relationships and see their similarities to same-sex relationships (in which case the result is the same, they're still marriages) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"My answer, who cares?" Obviously, I do. "But if I am going to bite then perhaps Judy Grahn's examples of recognized same-sex marriages in American Indian tribes will do" No, Grahn (born 1940) was not commenting before the end of the nineteenth century (nor can I find any source indicating she is from the American Indian culture.) "If people like Westermarck, Boswell, Grahn, etc etc have no problem referring to ancient relationships as marriages, then I don't see why some editors here do." Then perhaps you should reread the comments we have made. "they sure as heck have no agenda" I have trouble assuming that a member of the Gay Women's Liberation Group, for example, has no agenda. "either we use the current (ie: modern-day) definitions of marriage and apply it to cultures past" - note the shift there, from the plural ("definitions") to the singular ("it"). That's actually important, because while most current American English dictionaries have definitions of "marriage" that cover same-sex unions, they are generally separate definitions than those which cover mixed-sex unions. Given that, stating that "the Ancient Whosamatamians had marriage for both mixed-sex and same-sex couples" comes across like saying that both Ivan Elmanov and Vera Wang designed trains. If the point is to say that the Whosamatamians used the same form of union for both mixed-sex and same-sex couples, it's clearer than to say that than to come across as saying the they had marriage-def-1 for mixed-sex couples and marriage-def-2 for same-sex couples. You might want there to be a single universally-accepted definition that covers both (I certainly do), but it would be a mistake to write the article as if it were currently true. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NatGertler do you by any chance have evidence that shows the contrariety between these ancient same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions? And I'm no expert on this (both of you probably know 1000 times more than I do) but isn't a "single universally-accepted definition that covers both" applicable here? I think of it like polygamy, child marriages, etc, they go by different names but all come down to being "marriages" - Linestarz (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not have evidence showing that contrariety, nor am I claiming that contrariety. However, there is no "single universally-accepted definition that covers both". In Merriam-Webster, for example, mixed-sex marriage would be definition 1a(1), same-sex would be 1(a)2. Or this dictionary, where mixed-sex is definition 1, and same-sex would be conditionally 4. (Polygamy is generally not a single marriage with more than two people, but multiple marriages; it only requires a definition that does not require the union be exclusive.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "single universally-accepted definition" of God either, that wouldn't mean that the "less-popular" gods like Tabaldak (just an example) wouldn't be a god, right? Also I didn't know you guys were using modernday definitions in dictionaries in this argument, i figure itd work for the 'marriage' (opposed to union) argument would it not? - Linestarz (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nat I think it's time for you to go on the offensive in terms of providing sources because quite frankly opinions are useless at this point. It appears as if you're arguing from ignorenace and just assume that all these historians, etc are wrong (and want evidence that obviously can't exist, it's like asking for proof that the term 'sun' came before the sun existed). Apparently nothing is good enough and it's come down to my sources vs your opinions, which makes the debate futile. I mean you say things like there is no "single universally-accepted definition that covers both" - what??? At this point it's time to back up what you say, because you saying it should be unions and me (along with the sourced historians and anthropologists) saying it should be marriages changes nothing. So I await to see some proof, the burden of proof now lies in your backyard. Oh, and just some advice, remember that something being different doesn't mean it doesn't fit a particular term, ie: (an arrange marriage is different than a monogamous marriage, but ultimately are both marriages) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you missed my citations of definitions, and pointing out that even current dictionaries define same-sex and mixed-sex marriages separately (or is it that you don't consider dictionaries reliable sources on the language?). I realize that there are excuses for calling a same-sex ancient union a "marriage" as well as doing he same for a mixed-sex union.... but there are also reasons for describing a monorail inventor and a bridal gown maker each as "a designer of trains", yet it's poor form to use that as an excuse to make it sound like they do the same thing, as one is using different definition of "train". You may not have concerns about clarity and POV. Others do. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in awe at how someone could see the current dictionary definitions as a way to prove they were unions as opposed to "marriages" (which you still haven't shown by the way), it's like a creationist using evolutionary evidence to prove their side. If you read the definitions, for instance webster's it would say "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage", are you seriously going to tell me that the SSU's, which had the same sanctifying unions and rituals as their counterpart opposite-sex unions, were not marriages? The only reason I avoided using the dictionary was to avoid the "you're just using the current definitions" argument. "You may not have concerns about clarity and POV. Others do" - well in this case you're judging me and making assumptions, perhaps if you focused less on your assumptions and more on your sources we'd get somewhere -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in awe at how someone could see the current dictionary definitions as a way to prove they were unions as opposed to "marriages" (which you still haven't shown by the way) And which I still haven't claimed. But you seem wound up to argue against points I haven't made. are you seriously going to tell me that the SSU's, which had the same sanctifying unions and rituals as their counterpart opposite-sex unions, were not marriages? I am seriously going to tell you -- and please pay attention to all the words here -- that by some respected dictionaries, they do not fit the same primary definition that includes the mixed-sex marriages. Saying "A was marriage, and B was marriage" actually undercuts the point that A and B were the same if you rely on different definitions of "marriage" to make that statement. Perhaps you should step back and wonder whether your arguing technique of going "who cares?" "What?",announcing you don't see why people here disagree when they've been telling you why they disagree, and bemoaning opinion when you've not only asked for opinion but offered opinion after opinion after opinion yourself, might be what's getting in the way of understanding other people and coming to an understanding with them. well in this case you're judging me and making assumptions - no,I was actually allowing for a possibility. That word "may" is actually a vital one there. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

alright you're both being condescending and I cant see why this cant be a discussion good for the article. Nat, just because A & B are different that doesn't mean they don't fall under the same broad category (like Q & R are different, but they're both still letters). I don't think all SSU's were marriages, I don't think all opposite sex unions were marriages, they could just of been people living together, but I'm pretty sure that there mustve been SOME SSU's that were performed exactly the same way that would declare a marriage. I think it should stay marriages because that's what they were, if no one can come up showing a contrariety between a union and a marriage I don't see why it shouldn't stay marriage. Just my thoughts - Linestarz (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do fall under the same broad category, and that's family-forming unions. Marriage as used by dictionary sources is not as broadly-defined a category as we'd like it to be... unless we use a definition that is too broad, that fits any close union, at which point it stops saying what we want to to say. When Grahn was using the word a quarter century ago, it would seem to be beyond the way that most dictionaries of the time would recognize. I would have no problem with "In Ancient Whatsopotamia, the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for same-sex couples" (properly sourced), but I would have a problem with "the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for the marriages of same-sex couples", because then you have the two-types of "marriage" there. I would also have a problem with "the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for same-sex unions", because then you have an unnecessary smell of POV, that marriages and SSUs are different. We are dealing in a tricky field here, with words that have changed their recognized definitions recently with new definitions that are still controversial. (I have a feeling that a quarter century from now, this aspect of the article will be a lot simpler, as the primary definition of marriage will no longer be sex-specific. However, this article should reflection the dictionary we have, not the one we hope to have.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"In Ancient Whatsopotamia, the same rituals and statuses used to confer marriage on mixed-sex couples were also used for same-sex couples" - I like this, would you also be for adding Linestarz' suggestion below of using 'unions/marriages' (even though I personally believe it should just be marriages, at least by using the / it could be left up for interpretation). If so, we could add it right now and preface it with your line (I'll provide the sources) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need the slash, because if we're saying it's marriage, we're inherently saying it's a union, and I believe that you have adequate source for calling those mixed-sex unions "marriages" (both in the dictionary of the time the source was written, and the dictionary of today) without much conflict. And since we're not actually applying the word "marriage" to the same-sex folks, it doesn't have that two-definition conflict. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood, but are you for leaving in the word 'marriage' (as it currently stands) on the basis that there wouldn't be a conflict? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In the sentence as listed, yes. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a citation of Boswell, one of the most radical gay-union historians, where even he makes a distiction between gay-marriages and gay-unions during the Roman empire. In otherwords, even strongly pro-gay-marriage historians don't consider all unions to be "marriages." (I'm trying to find out where the block quote comes from, but it referenced here: [Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7).]) Capisci?Ragazz (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said ALL unions were marriages? There have been no doubt been couples (heterosexual and homosexual alike) that have lived together and were not married (we have that today), I want to see a source placing a distinction between a sanctifying heterosexual marriage and a sanctifying homosexual marriage. And I just reread that section again, trying to contemplate a way to word it another way when I saw this:

Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius.

Could anyone provide a rebuttal to the above? If not, then I believe this debate is over, that's the best piece of evidence yet-- Historyguy1965 (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Who said ALL unions were marriages?" You did! :"to me, any ritual celebrating the union of people must be a marriage, that's what marriage is defined as.[...] Whether that be two people, three people, gay people or straight people I don't see how the words unions and 'marriage' could have not been used interchangeably in ancient times. So let's be clear, according to historians (and you're a history professor right?), not all gay unions were gay marriages.Ragazz (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, read what I said: "ritual celebrating the union of people must be a marriage" is NOT the same thing as saying "some unions were not marriages" because what this assumes is relationships that say, enacted non-contractual obligations within two (or more people) could very well be a relationship but not a marriage (the only exception to this case is a common-law marriage). A boyfriend/girlfriend could be very well described as a "union" (whether past or present) but I would never, ever ever insinuate that to be a marriage just because. A union can mean anything and everything, it could describe the relationship between a grandmother (ie: guardian) and her grandchild, or a business partnership. The reason I have a problem with using the word 'union' is because it's vague and does not correctly describe the same-sex relationships described above (which included rituals, which were sanctified, etc). Now could you respond to the bolded sentence I had above? If that wasn't a marriage then what was it? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But the introductory paragraph should make it clear that we are only discussing those unions that were similar (or even considered identical) to modern conceptions of marriages, not all relationships. I took that as being obvious from the article context, but maybe it should be clarified for casual readers. I certainly don't think this section should become a summary of the "History of homoxesuality" by including all relationships, no matter how informal.

Historyguy, i have a question. If we were to use "marriage" thoughout the section, would this mean you support removing any union which the ancient society itself used a different word for SSUs than the one they use for hetero marriages? Ancient Greeks had another word for lesbian unions i think - as they have a word for marriage, does that mean the lesbian unions are not marriage, and should not be covered in this article on SSM? How would you solve such situations, bearing in mind this should be a summary section? If a modern source uses the word "marriage", when we know the primary sources distinguish them, would you consider it acceptable to call them marriages, or unions, or to exclude them?YobMod 19:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yobo you make a good and reasonable point. I'd assume it all depends on the context of the relationship. I think a common misconception is people tend to dichotomized these relationships (either it's "one form of marriage" otherwise it's "just a union"). For example, in Islamic socieities a Nikah mut‘ah and a Nikah Misyar may go by different names (the word Nikah means "contract in marriage") but ultimately they're both contracts and, both marriages (of course one could argue why "Nikah" should translate to 'marriage' at all). So I sort of ask, if such lesbian unions (the ones you mentioned) went by another name would that immediately cease such from being called marriages? How do we know the "non-lesbian unions" were merely just "unions" as well? See how easily it gets complicated?

I don't believe Ancient socieities cared about "terms" as much as we do today. All the people I linked to above, like Westermarck , Boswell, Grahn, etc didn't have a problem linking a whole slew of these relationships as marriages, yet there seems to be a contention here and one reason I've read is because calling them "marriages" is controversial. Perhaps I should've asked this a long time ago, who exactly is finding these terms controversial and under what basis? Again, I ask for sources because I've looked and couldn't find any (with the exception of religious advocacy groups) but those violate WP:RS. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

thought of something, how about this compromise by using "unions/marriages", so it'd be: "Various types of same-sex unions/marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions." - this way, the reader will know it couldve been a union or a marriage depending on context, cool? - Linestarz (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is a term...

The current opener is "Same-sex marriage is a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage"... which makes this sound like a weak dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia one. We don't start biography section saying "Charles M. Schulz is a name used to identify the man who created the comic strip which is identified by the term 'Peanuts'." I say let's kill the phrase "term used to describe a", leaving "Same-sex marriage is legally or socially recognized marriage..." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree, and based on the format of other articles it seems appropriate -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

other terms

The second sentence is a bit of an odd duck. "Other terms used to describe this type of recognition include gay marriage or gender-neutral marriage." Gender-neutral marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage; it is rather the legal inclusion of both same-sex and mixed-sex marriage without differentiation. This would be better handled by making the opening sentence "Same-sex marriage' (also referred to as gay marriage) is..." and then either eliminating the second sentence or replacing it with "Jurisdictions that do not distinguish between same-sex and mixed-sex marriage are said to have gender-neutral marriage (also known as marriage equality)." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of objections, I've implemented this, moving gender-neutral marriage to be with marriage equality down in terminology section. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Economic effects: US heavy

The section that was on effects on the "whole economy" was only on the US and jurisdictions within the US. I've now labeled it as such. Ideally, it should be fleshed out with pieces on economic effects in other nations; barring that, we may want to reduce it, shuttling off to Same-sex marriage in the U.S. any bits that aren't already there, and just including a summary and/or a see-also link. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of genetic implications of gay marriage to children

This is the place to discuss editing of the article, not one's belief about the "gay mafia", nor to protect children. If poster gets some reliable sources, he is welcome to edit the appropriate article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why has the section of genetic implications of gay marriage on children been deleted - Achieved (non visible) Obviously the gay mafia run wiki - that's very sad and points to corruption. I gave money to this site thinking wiki was for FREEDOM OF SPEECH but obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions. Freedom of speech died today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.132.47 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I remember the original discussion, I believe it was archived because no one was commenting on it any further. If you have a suggestion for a page, it's better to make that specific suggestion on the talk page so other editors can comment. If you just pop in, throw out a vague topic, then don't come back for a month or more, chances are nothing will get done. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Because of the amount of discussion this article generates, it has been set up to automatically archive discussion threads that have seen no action in the last 30 days. There are a very large number of articles that have this functionality enabled, across a very large number of topics. As Dayewalker pointed out, that is what happened to the discussion thread in question. If you want to keep a discussion active, you will need to contribute to it regularly. With regards to freedom of speech, might I recommend Wikipedia's article on that topic; you seem to have a misunderstanding as to what it really is. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC) If you, liked the anonymous poster who started that thread, want to see the topic reflected in the article, what you need to do is find reliable sources that state what you're trying to say. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be, a reflection of information from reliable sources. It's not a place for personal theories, nor for information that is not available from reliable sources because of a theorized conspiracy theory. If the suggestion had some credible basis, then the author might have even gotten help in locating those reliable sources, but the anonymous invidual(s) pushing for it argued on the basis of an obvious lack of understanding of genetics, so it wasn't getting taken seriously. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, and just to correct slightly what Techbear said, due to periods of strong activity, this page is set to archive threads after 10 days of inactivity, not 30. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions" - I'm sorry, do you have any evidence for that statement or is this just another personal opinion that has no validity or basis whatsoever? The problem with some editors, like yourself, is they don't want to do their homework, and when they do do their homework they don't like what they find, so they do the next best thing and that's victimize themselves into thinking there's some violation of speech, when the only thing being violated is ignorance. Look at the "ancient history" discussion, we we're debating over a single word and look at the sources, research, time, and effort that was put into place. We didn't just cross our arms and pout when people disagreed. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC) That previous discussion was hatted and archived. The user, same one as above, provided no sources, no evidence, nor anything to discuss except his inflammatory opinion. Since I put a hat on the previous discussion (per WP:TALK this is not a chat room) then maybe somebody else would like to do so here? It is only serving to distract from the real discussions. -->David Shankbone 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC) When it comes to the protection of children NO comments should be Archived!, which my comments were very quickly. Which points to strong gay mafia bias on this site. As to source, how many sources do you need for genetic inheritance? Even a 5 year old child knows about inheritance. But any excuse to stop the truth from being told, another example of gay bias on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.65.13 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Mental and Physical Health

I have posted the following information (not thinking beforehand to discuss it here as this is my first wikipedia edit) but will edit further if new information or problems with it come up.

I realize that some of the information more directly relates to homosexuality, but as the effects of homosexual behavior is a key concern over same-sex marriage, I thought it important to include them in the article. It does have great bearing on the subject.

If you have problems with my edits I wish you would delete the parts you specifically have cause against instead of deleting all the information.

Physical Health Edit

A study done by Hogg and Strathdee in a major urban center in Canada found that the life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8-20 years less than for all men, and that if the same patterns were to continue, nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Studies by the CDC have declared that the sole, or potential cause of more than seventy percent of all AIDS cases that have been reported in the United States from the first case through 2004 is male homosexual behavior. And that of the 402,722 cumulative AIDS cases reported through 2004, 55% involved the single mode of exposure of men who had sex with men. Extensive medical evidence supports greater rates of other medical disease among homosexuals as well, including 10 times the rate of anal cancer infection in homosexual males compared to heterosexual males, hemorrhoids, penile edema and others. And in Lesbians leading to higher rates of hepatitis B & C, bacterial vaginosis, heavy cigarette smoking, intravenous drug use and abuse of alcohol.

Here is my edit on the Mental Health section- it includes all the previous parts of the article.

Recently, several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.

Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis.

Ferguson, Horwood, and Beautrais conducted research and concluded that “Gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression...generalized anxiety disorder...conduct disorder...nicotine dependence...multiple disorders...suicidal ideation...suicide attempts.”

Other researchers claim that the idea that this is the result of social pressures is unlikely because the study was replicated in The Netherlands with similar, more robust results.

Researchers have concluded that lesbians have a much higher rate of substance abuse disorders during their lifetime as well as a higher prevalence of mood disorders.

There are also higher rates of sexual molestation reported in the history of homosexuals. One study found that 46% of gay men and 22% of lesbians were sexually abused as children compared to 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women. The study also found that 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not self-identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation.

There are also significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity.

Other studies have shown that the civilizing effects of marriage that lead to lower crime rates among men, spending more time with relatives than friends, and working longer hours,as well as being less promiscuous and less likely to abuse alcohol,was not an artifact of selectionand is a result of gender complementarity.

After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage, Gregory M. Herek claims that the data indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Herek concludes that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Critics claim that many such studies claiming no difference in children raised by homosexual parents, compared to heterosexual parents, primarily compared children who were conceived in a heterosexual relationship whose mothers later divorced and self-identified as lesbians, and that these children were the ones compared to divorced, heterosexual, mother-headed families.

Other research and review has been done that also claim these studies showing no difference suffered from methodological flaws, in addition to not dealing adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious correlation.

Yet other research has demonstrated that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two bilogical parents in a low-conflict marriage...and that there is value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents, while other research has focused on how dual gender parenting and child-rearing is crucial to healthy child development.

Studies have also been conducted on the importance of gender identification in children and found that parenting can derail biological priming. (MatLocke (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

These are not really arguments against same-sex marriages as much as they are arguments against same-sex relationships, there is a difference. Just because a man/man become husband/husband that does not by any means increase their risk, as one of your sources pointed out, of a "life expectancy of 8-20 years less". Another one of your sources is A._Dean_Byrd, who is currently the President of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a pseudopsychological association that promotes conversion therapy, currently rejected by all the major and legitimate psychological associations. Lastly, many of your sources deal with "fatherless" households, which have less to do with same-sex marriages and more to do with the "consequences" towards lesbian-relationships. The problem here is you have too many fringe sources that have no legitimate basis other than an obvious aversion towards homosexuality -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, there is a difference. That does not mean the information is not pertinent to the topic. Perhaps I should create a new section on science based objections to Same-sex marriage?

Also, if you wish I can remove citations from A. Dean Byrd, despite the fact that there are many other social scientists and psychologists- including now the doctor who was most responsible for the APA's removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder) who have shown that such conversion therapy can work.

In regards to the sources on fatherless households- it pertains to same-sex couple childrearing. I believe I should move this to a different article. However, there is information currently in the article section on mental health that deals with the effects on children but is allowed in because of the mention of marriage bestowing substantial psychological, social, and health benefits- which is another topic entirely, and one addressed also in some of the sources I cited. (MatLocke (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

This article is not a coatrack on which you can hang every claim about homosexuality. It's specifically about same-sex marriage. In addition, much of your material is, well, bunk. For example, the "Hogg and Strathdee" study you cite not only does not generalize to the larger population (by H&S's own statement), but is also outdated. "if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First, they are not mere claims, they are supported by scientific evidence. And as I said above- information on homosexuality is very important to the issue of same-sex marriage and it's legalization. To claim that much of my material is 'bunk' is an unjustifiable position when you certainly have not had the time to find and read the sources. Your point on the Hogg and Strathdee study being outdated is well taken- that is why we have editing- therefore it would have been more fair to have edited my edit with this newer information than for someone to delete it all. Overall- Aids, and perhaps even all of the physical health data is not as crucial to the topic. Therefore I now see no need to include it in the article on Same-sex marriage. (MatLocke (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Saying its "very important" does not make it actually relevant to this article, and no relevancy was shown. To say that I have not had time to read the sources presumes that this is the first time I would have seen reference to the sources. And while I was not the one who deleted the H&S reference, while updating it would have made it more accurate, it would not have made it more relevant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I will attempt to spell it out (in regards to the mental health data- as I have already said I am willing to remove the physical health data) (though if you had actually read what I pointed to above with the 'very important' quote, you would have seen a little more relevancy shown). Same-sex marriage legalization is a controversial subject- yes? It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values. One side claims that Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it creates a government incentive and promotion of homosexual relations, and because it then leads to an increase in same-sex parenting. (You may claim that sexual orientation is strictly biological and that government legalization would have no effect- but I, and many others, could argue the other way. However I personally do believe there is a genetic factor involved.) Thus the utilitarian issue of harm enters the picture. Therefore, any evidence concerning the harm of same-sex relationships, or same-sex parenting, becomes a deciding factor in the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Also, the chance that you have had opportunity to read all, or even most of the studies I have posted is astronomical. If you had indeed done so you would likely provide detailed analysis of the methodological flaws that make them 'bunk.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So I couldn't be pointing out to you, for example, that the authors of the Child Trends piece followed it up with another piece from the same background where they reject applying their work to same-sex couples? - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't say you hadn't read some of them, or that you haven't had time to read a few more. But this new information is very helpful- please continue to provide such refutations so that the article can include only those which are accurate. I am going to read that article now. But what is your response on the relevancy issue? And I suppose here is as good a place as any to mention that if you have issue with the relevancy of my data, you should also take issue with "A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts." Which is just as connected to the issue of same-sex marriage as is my information. (MatLocke (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Just because you've posted a lot of sources that does not by any means indicate their validity. I'm still trying to figure out what AIDS has to do with a same-sex marriage article, according to the CDC the majority of HIV/AIDS infections are towards heterosexuals and blacks, yet you wouldn't use these as arguments towards opposite-sex marriages or interracial marriages would you? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

True enough, and they will be removed once shown to be invalid. I have already said on numerous occasions that I am willing to give up on the physical health data- And while some of the physical health data is just as relevant as I hope I showed above the mental health data to be, I would not use such an argument against interracial marriages etc. because they don't also have the fact on their side that gay males participate in more risky sexual behavior (such as not wearing protection for one thing). Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 17 (7), 1029-1038 (MatLocke (talk)

Do you notice a pattern here? Each time you assert a claim, and someone provides evidence to the contrary, you say "true enough" or "yes, that's right", perhaps indicating that you're just adding these statements and just hoping that someone proves them as fallacious. You don't add biographical inclusions like "John Doe is a rapist" and hope that someone disproves that statement, that's not how Wikipedia works. I'm going to assume good faith, and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~), I've signed your previous post for you. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing for me- I often forget. But hold on now! Yes, when specific evidence has been brought up- it has sometimes been correct. I do not have infinite knowledge of sociological studies and therefore rely on others to help edit wikipedia. I have provided scientific sources, not made foundationless claims. I do not appreciate the comparison to one who has. A few of my sources may have flaws that I did not notice. What do you expect- that no one should post sources to scholarly articles unless they have knowledge of every possible counter to them? (MatLocke (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

To NatGertler: Your statements on the child trends research was misleading. For one thing they specifically said that children did best when raised by biological parents. The caveat on same-sex couples pertained to the other concerns of the article, such as communication and intimacy and emotional support etc. (MatLocke (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Legal section edit

I had edited the legal and judicial section by adding:

From a strictly legal standpoint the Burden of proof lies with the party laying charges or wanting a change. In the case of same-sex marriage or same-sex parenting that burden lies with the proponents.

It was removed with the comment that the same could be said about interracial marriage.

My response: So? Yes it could, but correct scientific study would not have found sufficient harm of it to legally prevent its occurrence. I do not believe your objection warrants the removal of the link. At the most, you may be justified in removing my second sentence. (MatLocke (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

No, actually, your first sentence is wrong as well. Even in court cases, the burden of proof can land on those resisting the change, that they have to prove that the state has a compelling interest for its discrimination. It was an unsourced comment of questionable relevancy and accuracy. And if we removed the second sentence, as you admit may be justified, that leaves the first sentence as a statement without visible relevancy. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, it appears then that all I must do is find an authoritative source on how the burden of proof in this case rests on proponents of same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke (talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What change are you speaking of anyway? Same-sex marriages have existed in history, as have opposite-sex marriage, polygamous marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages, etc etc. All of these things could, in one respect or another, be arguments against various other marriages on the basis that marriage is somehow narrowed down to only one form, which history dictates otherwise. The burden of proof lies on YOU to prove such a thing has always been in only one form and originated in one form -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As I say below- perhaps my arguments are more fitting in another article. But Same-sex marriage has not always existed in U.S. law, nor in British law from which it is largely derived. U.S. law, nor that of most countries would expect proof that something has never existed as a reason why it should not exist now. The burden of proof would (often) lay with those seeking the change from existing law- which in most places is that same-sex marriage is not legalized. (MatLocke (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

No, that's not "all you need do"; even with a source, there could well be questions of appropriateness and weight of the inclusion... particularly if its U.S.-oriented. That brief section is already too U.S.-specific. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Then those questions of appropriateness should be brought up. But yeh, perhaps it would better fit in the article Same-sex marriage in the U.S. (MatLocke (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))