Talk:Heterosexism

Neutral Language

CJ, as you seem to be a major editor on this page, can you offer more neutral language for this section?

Creating parallel institutions to marriage, such civil unions, or opening them to gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals only as stopgap measures to avoid granting same-sex couples the privileges, protection, respect, and symbolism that only a legally and socially accepted marriage can confer.

Unsourced claims and relationships discriminated against

For some reason, people seem to think that it needs to be discussed whether we should have unsourced claims in the article. It is claimed that a "LGBT youth" was prohibited "from attending the high school prom when [he chose] to bring a same-sex date." I see no support for that allegation. Dr Enh also refuses to have relationships listed as something that is discriminated against, insisting that people are discriminated against, not relationships. But clearly two straight people of the same sex cannot get married, while two homosexuals of the opposite sex can, hence it obviously the relationship, and not the individuals, that are discriminated against.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr. enh, you continued editing of the article while refusing to respond to these points constitutes edit warring. Your own definition (which is wrong, for reasons that I have explained and you refuse to respond to), specifically states' that "discrimination" can refer to a thing. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage is NOT discrimination against people. Saying "there's an article that explains why it is", but not saying where that article is is not having a discussion.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To repeat my talk from 23:30, 28 November 2009, the definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." [1] The groups in question in this article are heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. The definition does not belong to me, it is from a reliable source. Your assertion that the reliable source is "wrong" is irrelevant; see WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You cannot say that same-sex marriages are discriminated against, unless you can identify the group, class, or category to which SSM belongs. It is your job to read the Jung and Smith reference that you deleted; it is not my job to type it onto this talk page for you. --Dr.enh (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is your job to type in the location of the article. How the hell am I supposed to read it if you refuse to tell me where it is? What, am I supposed to be psychic or something? I don't know how to explain this any more clearly: you are making no fucking sense at all. You have gone from edit warring without any response to my points to edit warring with nonsensical, incoherent, off-topic responses. If you want to make edits, you are obligated to explain your position. That obligation is not fulfilled by telling me to go read some article that you won't even tell me how to find. It is not my job to read whatever article you find interesting, let alone decipher some cryptic reference to the article.

I have no need to tell you what group same-sex marriage belongs to, unless you are unable to figure out for yourself that it belongs to the group of relationships that do not consist of one man and one woman. According to m-w, "to discriminate" means "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate . Clearly, the distinguishing features of SSM are perceived and marked by Prop 8. It is rather frustrating to have to explain point after point that should be blatantly obvious.

To sum up, you have not provided a cite for the claim that a student was prohibited from attending his prom. You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is discrimination against people, or at all acknowledged my argument to the contrary. You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is not discrimination against relationships. You have not responded to my pointing out that your proposed definition of "discrimination" is nonsensical. You have refused to explain what article I supposedly "deleted".

Please stop wasting my time with these responses that completely fail to address the issue at hand.Heqwm2 (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The relevant definition from M/W is "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." In jurisdictions that do not recognize SSM, same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused; opposite-sex pairs of people of legal age are always allowed, without having to demonstrate individual merit. That is clearly "a difference in treatment" that is "in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships" -- the definition of heterosexism. For the fourth time, the ref which you have twice deleted is Jung, Patricia Beattie; Smith, Ralph F. (1993). Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge. State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791416968. --Dr.enh (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The definition that I gave is the first definition. You're simply cherry-picking what definition you want. You say "same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused". Exactly my point. Pairs are refused. Yes, the pairs are made up of people, but the people are not prohibited from getting married, the pair is. This is not the fourth time that you have given the ref, it is the first time. You STILL haven't given a cite for the prom claim or explained how relationships are not being discriminated against.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did provide a cite, and you deleted it. [2] Why? --Dr.enh (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you did not provide a cite for the given claim. You can't just take some web link and claim that it's a ref. It has to actually support the claim.Heqwm2 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Claim: Aaron Fricke was a LGBT youth who was prohibited from attending the high school prom when he chose to bring a same-sex date. The ref states "Information on a 1980 case in which a federal court ruled that Aaron Fricke, a student from Rhode Island, had the right to bring a same-sex date to his prom" and links to [3] which states "Aaron Fricke decided he wanted to go to his senior prom with Paul Guilbert. His principal wouldn't let him." How is that not support? --Dr.enh (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for the claim that Aaron WAS NOT PERMITTED TO ATTEND THE PROM? Yes, or no? What is so hard to understand about this question? I am not asking for a cite for the claim that he was not permitted to take a same-sex date. I am asking for a cite for the claim that he was not permitted TO ATTEND. What is WRONG with you? Why can't you answer a simple question? Why do you insist on engaging in these evasions and obfuscations?Heqwm2 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to look at the inline "see also," Aaron Fricke, specifically Fricke v. Lynch. If he had been permitted to attend the prom, it would never have gone to federal court. If an inline wikilink to the court case was provided, would you be happy? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't how to deal with you. You just don't seem to be able to comprehend basic concepts that are necessary to have a conversation. A cite for a claim is an article that ACTUALLY MAKES THE CLAIM. It is not an article which has caused you to speculate that the claim is true. In WP terms, you are engaging in original research. I could try to explain to you why your logic is faulty, but I think that it would be a waste of time, and I don't need to, anyway. WP is quite clear about citing a link and then making logical inferences from that source.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

POV issues

This article has major POV issues. It's quite clear that the article disapproves of heterosexism. Furthermore, throughout the article there is constant equivocation between discrimination against homosexuals and merely organizing society around a heterosexual norm.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, disapproves? I mean, heterosexism is a form of homophobia, which is a human rights abuse. You wouldn't expect the human rights article to say that human rights should not be honored. Do you feel it disapproves of heterosexism because it does not display heterosexism in a positive light? It can be very difficult to discuss issues of human rights without seeming to be in a positive or negative light to somebody. Here, I wonder if this may be a good source of answers to your questions: The Yogyakarta Principles on the human rights of LGBT people. Among the principles affirmed are the right to equal treatment (without a bias against them), the right to found a family, the right to cultural participation, and the right to redress of grievances. This agreement was reached and signed by international signatories in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and is thus far the most comprehensive and authoritative definition of fair treatment of LGBT people. To breach it, would be homophobia. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's put Gilgamesh's assumptions aside for a second. Heterosexism by definition discriminates against non-heterosexuals. The article should not imply that this discrimination is "right" or "wrong", "fair" or "unfair". As far as I can see, the article walks a pretty neutral line on that point. I admit that the word discrimination itself is a bit sticky, but it seems to be the best fit. Do you have a specific part that troubles you? --Knulclunk (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Where, there seems to be the part he removed. Other than that, I don't know — I'm rather new to this particular exact discussion. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there is an equivocation between discrimination against homosexuals and organizing a society around a heterosexual norm. Heterosexism does not "by definition" discriminate against non-heterosexuals. Simply because discrimination is heterosexism does not mean heterosexism is discrimination. Homophobia, discrimination, heterosexism, human rights abuse: all of these are distinct concepts that are simply lumped into one category.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, organizing society around a heterosexual norm does by definition discriminate against non-heterosexuals. The definition of desrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." --Dr.enh (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not the definition of "discrimination", nor, if it were, would it include organizing society around a heterosexual norm. Simply recognizing that a majority of people have a particular characteristic, and creating institutions that take advantage of that characteristic, does not satisfy either the actual definition of "discrimination" or the one you have presented. I should have included "disparate impact" on my list of concepts that are lumped together, as you seem to not understand the difference between that and discrimination.Heqwm2 (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination. "Organizing society around a heterosexual norm" is the definition of heterosexism. Your bare assertion fallacies that words do not mean what they mean are growing tiresome. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Merely believing that a word has a meaning different from what you believe it has is not a "fallacy", and I find this to be yet another instance of your refusal to evaluate my position respectfully. Just because a definition is in a dictionary does not mean that's what the word means. If that were what "discrimination" means, then very little of what is called anti-homosexual discrimination would, in fact, be discrimination. For instance, anti-sodomy laws, which target people not on some abstract notion of belonging to a group, but on individual actions, would not be discrimination. If organizing society around a heterosexual norm is heterosexism, is organizing society around written communication "literacism"? Should we have an article about how society "discriminates" against people who can't read?Heqwm2 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All statements should be properly sourced. Anything that is identified as heterosexism must be accompanied by the organization that identifies it as such. I would be hesitant in using the Yogyakarta Principles as an authority on discrimination since the document itself has been accused of being discriminatory.[4] Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If the concept of "literacism" had a definition, advocates and reliable sources, then yes, we should have an article on it. But to your point, if there are reliable sources calling the concept of heterosexism baloney or that the organizing society around a heterosexual norm is preferential, then perhaps they should be included. It would be best if they were mainstream, reliable or academic sources though.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming majority of societies, both across the globe and across history, have been built around a heterosexual norm, it's safe to say that it's a view widely shared that this is a good idea.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

... ... citing the Oaks speech? That speech inflamed every gay rights and gay support group around, and put off more than a few professionals and even moderate Mormons. If you want to make a case that the Yogyakarta Principles are discriminatory, don't cite far-right sources that would object to any non-negative gay information in the first place. Many religious groups are going to object no matter what, and are not very objective in terms of science or civil rights. For accredited independent sources, you cite the consensus of scientists, psychiatrists, legal scholars, etc. The Yogyakarta Principles were an orderly international effort to outline the fundamental human rights of LGBT people, with representatives and signatories from many different countries, including countries as conservative as Pakistan. Even Talk:Homophobia/FAQ temp cites the Yogyakarta Principles as an accredited reference. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

POV issues (arbitrary section break)

I feel that the article as a whole asserts a point of view (that various controversial beliefs and policies are discriminatory), but if there is a broad consensus that these are facts rather than opinions, I will adhere to a 2-revert rule and leave it undisturbed. Bwrs (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." [5] The groups in question in this article are heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

By asserting that policies viewed as heterosexist are biased or discriminatory, you attribute a negative value to them, since unfair discrimination is a human rights violation. It would be better to say that _____ considers _____ policy to be heterosexist, and _____ asserts that heterosexism is discriminatory, but _____ asserts something else, et cetera. Bwrs (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the definition again. "Discrimination" is neither positive not negative; the POV value judgement is yours. Unfairness is POV. There are many who argue that discrimination against non-heterosexuals is fair, good, holy, and in line with "natural law." --Dr.enh (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally have to agree with Dr.enh. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dr.enh. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. enh is talking nonsense. "Discrimination" absolutely has negative connotations, and it is ridiculous that anyone could claim otherwise. Look at what Dr. enh claims the definition of "discrimination" is: it's treating people differently when they don't deserve it. That's not POV? Please explain how same-sex marriage is "discrimination" according to Dr. enh's definition. Is anyone prohibited from getting married based on the group to which they belong? No, homosexuals are allowed to have OSM, and heterosexuals are prohibited from having SSM. Those who think that homosexuality is morally wrong would argue that treating homosexuals differently is not discrimination under Dr. enh's definition; since homosexuals are morally depraved, they MERIT different treatment. Since Dr. enh's definition specifically excludes different treatment that is based on merit (that is, what people "deserve"), heterosexism is discrimination only given the POV that homosexuality is not morally wrong.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of "homosexuals" in these talk pages. (That term has become more disused as now less respectful than "gay" or "LGBT" people.) You are certainly allowed to believe what you wish, but you could end up inviting a flame war (or even a behavioral complaint) in the process of repeating that they as people are immoral in their presence. I'm not accusing you of any bad faith or anything like that — but could you please be civil to us? What we think matters as well.

Anyway, discrimination is based on human rights assuming arbitrary individuals to be equal. An assumption of LGBT people being immoral is not based in peer-reviewed accredited scientific evidence, but only on a judgment stemming from a cultural tradition - cultural traditions being notoriously fickle and unobjective. Every individual has cultural rights, but someone's culture cannot trump the personal rights of others whom that cultural merely considers undesirable. To protect the individual and equal rights of all, everyone's individual rights must be upheld, even if those rights might be frowned upon by someone else's own tradition. For instance, take partnership rights: How many gay men want to be with a woman? Now compare that to how many gay men want to be with a man. If you treat their fundamental life desires as less important than that of straight people, then it has a discriminatory effect on those gay men, and that is undeniable regardless of whether you think they deserve less rights because you believe them to be immoral. First, you must respect their unique rights, even if you may not know what they are. Then, you figure out what those rights are. And here, we consult the extensively internationally peer-debated Yogyakarta Principles on LGBT rights, as well as the positions of numerous mainstream accredited psychiatric organizations. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To see how how same-sex marriage is "discrimination," please read the reference in the article that Heqwm2 deleted and I restored. --Dr.enh (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying that discrimination is based on human rights supports my position: "discrimination" is not a neutral term. LGBT being immoral is not an "assumption", it is a position, a position which I presented, not one which I gave as my own. Now, as to Dr. enh's comment, what article did I delete? I asked a simple question: "How is same-sex marriage discrimination?" Yet again, you are simply evading the issue. Do you have an answer or not? And no, "take a look at some unnamed article" is not an answer.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference that Heqwm2 deleted was <ref name="JungSmith" />^{pp. 145-151} --Dr.enh (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, the position that "discrimination" is not a neutral term does not belong in Wikipedia. --07:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have very little understanding of the term "reference". How about actually looking at what's supposed supposed to be in that ref tag? What, exactly, is this article that you are talking about, and when and where did I delete it? And "reliable source" applies to article space, not talk space. Sheesh. Not that it would be difficult to find a source; your pretending otherwise is simply yet another example of your bad faith. And your hypocrisy, given that you are engaged in an edit war to include a claim that has no source.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the the first reference.[6] You deleted the reference tonight, twice.

Your edits (removal of the source) to SSM in article are based on your unsourced claim that "discrimination" has negative connotations. Please cease that edit until/unless you find a source. --Dr.enh (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't even mention marriage. Just partnership rights. That is, the right for people to form a common household and family (the Yogyakarta Principles include the right to start a family) without being hindered in areas that benefit partnerships, whether they be marriage, common law marriage, domestic partnership, or even just shared health insurance. In some countries, men can face criminal charges for even having a relationship with each other, and the very right to their partnership at all is denied. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) My edits are not based on the fact that discrimination has negative connotations. I presented this fact in reference to the POV issue, not in reference to my edits. I started two different sections on the talk page because I had two different issues: your reverting my edits, and the POV issue. You telling me what my edits are based on is really quite rude. I started an entire section of the talk page to discuss what they are based on, and not only did you not respond to that, you are now pretending that what I wrote in a different section was meant as the basis for my edits. And while I did revert to an earlier version that had one fewer mention of the reference, I did not ever delete the reference from the article. And since you do not have a weblink, I would have to track down the article if I wanted to read it.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the Jung-Smith ref twice from SSM [7] [8]. The ISBN serves as a weblink. Please remember that talk page is for discussing improvements to the Heterosexism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After my edits, the reference was still at the bottom of the page. And something is either a web link or it is not. Can I put the ISBN into a web browser and see the article?69.107.102.25 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairness

This article implies that certain beliefs held by homophobes make someone a homophobe. For example, that everyone is naturally heterosexual has scientific merit when you consider natural selection. This belief does not make someone a homophobe. Also, belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong is not homophobi as exemplified in the book Songmaster by Orson Scott Card in which Orson Scott Card condemns homosexual acts but more seriously condemns homophobia and hatred/abuse of gay people. It is my Sincere belief that all people deserve respect and love no matter what. I however hold the two aforementioned views. Please rectify this situation. Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.10.116 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not once is any person or group labeled as a homophobe in this article. In fact, neither "homophobic" nor "homophobe" are used anywhere. What's more, the article is about heterosexism, not homophobia, the difference being clearly explained in that section of the heterosexism article. Your fallacious points are unfounded, thus no rectification is due. I suggest you shift your time, energy, and focus to articles dealing with the causes of heterosexuality, religion and homosexuality or heterophobia since, in all fairness, that is where your true interests lie. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination is against people, not against relationships

To repeat my talk from 23:30, 28 November 2009, the definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." [9] The groups in question in this article are heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that is NOT what discrimination means. Secondly, that does not exclude relationships. Third, according to that definition, prohibition of same-sex marriage is not discrimination. How about instead of just repeating yourself, you actually respond to my points?Heqwm2 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My definition is taken from a dictionary.[10] What is your definition, and where did you get it? I will respond to your points when you make a point backed by evidence or reference, not just by bare assertion. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already presented a different definition. Since you have declared that you are not going to respond to my points, I am going to revert your edit, and I will submit an edit war report on you if you revert. Your abysmal civility is unacceptable.Heqwm2 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant definition from M/W is "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." In jurisdictions that do not recognize SSM, same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused; opposite-sex pairs of people of legal age are always allowed, without having to demonstrate individual merit. That is clearly "a difference in treatment" that is "in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships" -- the definition of heterosexism. Please explain how the M/W definition and the dictionary.reference.com are "NOT what discrimination means." --Dr.enh (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating arguments that I have already responded to, and asking questions that I have already answered. Once again, you are being acting with a complete lack of good faith and civility. The PAIRS are being categorized. No INDIVIDUAL is denied a marriage license based on their sexual orientation.

Statements that you should read again (Dr.enh's comments in italics):

For instance, anti-sodomy laws, which target people not on some abstract notion of belonging to a group, but on individual actions, would not be discrimination [according to your definition].

True if the anti-sodomy law applies equally to opposite-sex and same-sex sodomy, but not relevant to this talk page on heterosexism.

True regardless of whether it applies to opposite-sex sodomy, and relevant to this talk page because it shows the inconsistency in your position.

Simply recognizing that a majority of people have a particular characteristic, and creating institutions that take advantage of that characteristic, does not satisfy either the actual definition of "discrimination" or the one you have presented. I should have included "disparate impact" on my list of concepts that are lumped together, as you seem to not understand the difference between that and discrimination.

False. That is the definition of discrimination.

Yet more hypocrisy, making such a statement after accusing me of the bare assertion fallacy.

But clearly two straight people of the same sex cannot get married, while two homosexuals of the opposite sex can, hence it obviously the relationship, and not the individuals, that are discriminated against

The couple either receives a marriage license or does not. Thus, it is the couple (not an individual and not a relationship) that is discriminated against.

The fight is over the recognition given to particular relationships. Either a particular relationship is called a "marriage", or it is not. It is the relationships that are receiving differing treatment.

According to m-w, "to discriminate" means "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate .

Not the relevant definition. This article is about treatment of people, not perception of people.

Your response is both false and irrelevant. The perception of people is clearly within the purview of this article, and even if it weren't, that wouldn't establish that this is not the relevant definition. You are engaging in circular reasoning; you are saying that it is legitimate to refer to everything as "discrimination", and then claiming that all definitions of "discrimination" that do not admit such a categorization should be discarded. This is fallacious and narcissistic reasoning; you are saying that anything that disagrees with you should be ignored.

You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is discrimination against people, or at all acknowledged my argument to the contrary. You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is not discrimination against relationships. You have not responded to my pointing out that your proposed definition of "discrimination" is nonsensical.

I have not responded to your irrelevant statements. I have not proposed any definitions; thus, your accusation of "nonsensical" is also irrelevant.

More narcissism. Anything that disagrees with your point of view is dismissed as "irrelevant". You quite clearly have presented a definition, so unless you are attempting some sort of quibble over the term "proposed" (again, revealing a narcissistic attitude, this time of "I'm not proposing that this is the correct definition, I'm telling you that it is the correct definition"), you flat-out lied.

You say "same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused". Exactly my point. Pairs are refused. Yes, the pairs are made up of people, but the people are not prohibited from getting married, the pair is.

On that we can agree. Pairs of people, not individual people, and not relationships.

They are differentiated on the basis of what sort of relationship they have. But if this is as far as we've gotten, I'll change it to that for now.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you going to just repeat the same bullshit in section after section of the talk page?Heqwm2 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am repeating myself because you are repeating yourself.--Dr.enh (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm repeating myself because you are repeating yourself. You created an entire section, of which your first entry was nothing but "points" that I had already responded to.Heqwm2 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Language! - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex Pairings

"Same-sex pairings" is redundant, and should be removed. Unless someone can find a reliably sourced instance of two straight women or two straight men who applied for a marriage license and were denied. -Dr.enh (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not waste anymore time as "same-sex pairings" is ridiculous: harrassing women's doubles tennis? discrimination against Sherlock Holmes and Watson? Come on, the issue is linguistically and semantically inconsequential. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wasting time on the talk page with utter bullshit. Either you are completely ignorant of what the word "redundant" means, or you are deliberately making nonsensical statements. I don't think that it's too much to ask that you treat me and this talk page with respect, nor do I think that is reasonable to ask as a condition for my participation at this website that I put up with utter garbage masquerading as "discussion". You STILL have yet to make any reasonable attempt to respond to my points, and seem to have adopted a pattern of simply starting a new section on the talk page every once in a while in a pathetic attempt to distract from that fact. This is now four sections that you've played your little obfuscatory games in. And the burden of proof is not on me, but on you.

Furthermore, do you really believe that if a same-sex couple were to apply for a marriage license, they would receive it if they could establish that they are heterosexual? No, I don't believe you do. You are clearly making a completely bad-faith argument in yet another of your attempts to avoid having a reasonable discussion of the issue. Heqwm2 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)