Talk:Same-sex marriage

Kashmir in Orange?

In the map listing out the countries as per their reaction to same sex unions, its shocking that Indian Administered Kashmir is shown as having a different colour than the rest of India. Last I remembered, the part of Kashmir under Indian rule is pretty much subject to the same regulations as the rest of India. Tigerassault (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir is subject to a different penal code, the "Ranbir Penal Code", and apparently the court decision on section 377 IPC didn't read down the corresponding section of the RPC. - htonl (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If that was a joke, then it missed me (and probably everyone else other than you). But I think we should make Kashmir the same colour as the rest of India Tigerassault (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, why would you think it was a joke? To quote from the ILGA report (page 42, section "India"):

"In most of India, the Indian Penal Code is applicable. In 2009, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was given a more limited interpretation, lifting the ban on same-sex sexual activity among consenting adult men. However, in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Penal Code is not applicable, but rather the Ranbir Penal Code (adapted from the Indian Penal Code) is applicable. Since the judgment of the Delhi High Court applies only where the Indian Penal Code is applicable, it does not change comparable provisions in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, Section 377 of the Ranbir Penal Code remains in effect, prohibiting same-sex sexual activity. If Section 377 of the IPC is struck down by the Supreme Court, then the pari materia provision in the Ranbir Penal Code will be automatically struck down as well - following precedents of the case Jankar Singh v State."

It's my understanding that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the appeal of the Naz Foundation case. - htonl (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinions here? Ron 1987 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Polls for same-sex marriage and Argentina section

The polls are so close to half that when you take into account the margin of error in the source, it goes down to less than half. Therefore, it shouldn't say a majority when the sources used show that it may be less than half. Regarding my other edit, Same-sex_marriage#Argentina already says "a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples." so the repeat of that just down from it is unnecessary. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. We should stick to what the sources say. Mentioning the margin of error is fine, but don't change language. Teammm ^TM 01:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the change precisely because of what the sources say. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Post a quote or section that resembles what you wrote. Teammm ^TM 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Numbers are as valuable as words. The numbers from the sources show that it could be less than half. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources say 53% and majority, so that's what we must say. This seems nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to use statistics and original research to revise facts. – MrX 02:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The other source says 51% and includes a margin of error that will easily take it to less than half. There's no original research in using the whole source rather than just the headline. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you then think we should go with the outlier of the group to make the numbers look as low as we possibly can? – MrX 02:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There's only 3 polls. Two say 53% and one says 51%. All 3 of them have a margins of error reaching less than 50%. It should say that polls show around half of Americans support SSM and specify the two numbers. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Source #1: "For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages." (Gallup from May 2011)

Source #2: "More than half of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal...this year's 53 percent..."

Source #3: "More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post...grown to 53 percent..." (ABC/Washington Post from March 2011)

Source #4: "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? ...should be recognized as valid ...51% (CNN/ORC from April 2011)

Your edit isn't reflective of the sources. Also, the CNN/ORC and ABC/WashingtonPost polls were redone in 2012 reporting 54% and 53%, mooting old ones. Teammm ^TM 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

One of those sources is just reporting another one. The 54% poll is the only poll to miss out of being half or less according to the margin or error. We should go with what the majority of sources say. The most accurate thing to put is that support of SSM is around half and give the 51-54% number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoma Magic (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's 2012 and no poll is reporting 51% if you haven't noticed. Take a look at the sources. Thank you. Teammm ^TM 13:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't just remove the sources and say that lol. Even the 53% polls show that it could be less than half. I restored the 51% poll as it's only a year old and isn't invalid. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove them, I updated them with the identical new one. What are you...blind or bad at comprehension? Stop trying to edit war. It's far from "lol" material. Teammm ^TM 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The MSNBC source is only used once. Also, the poll is reporting 51% only a year ago and we don't have enough sources for 2012 to invalidate that. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to reporting a range of percentages, but interpreting the margin of error to dispute "majority" is clear WP:OR. Remember, the poll itself is a primary source. We need to rely upon secondary sources to interpret it, and they interpret it as "a majority". Glaucus (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that reading beyond the headline (in order to avoid giving out possibly false information, which omitting the margin of error will do) is OR, but there's no point in arguing the same point again; I'll wait and see if more people join the discussion. Also, you reverted my removal of a bit from the Argentina subsection. I said why I did that up the top of here and do you agree or disagree? Acoma Magic (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Including the margin of error in the text is one thing, using it to dispute the source's interpretation (of majority) is another. But I don't think including margin of error is standard on wiki; it seems unnecessarily confusing when we have reliable sources to interpret them for us. As for the Argentina section, I disagree that it is at all POV (as the edit summary said). Furthermore, the quote from the article was about support for marital rights, not the bill itself. From the article: "polls showing that nearly 70 percent of Argentines support giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals." Glaucus (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just a repeat of the information above it. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really confused now. How is the result of a public opinion poll a repeat of "the Argentine Senate approved a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples"? Just because marital rights legislation is passed doesn't mean that marital rights has popular support, and vice versa. Glaucus (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It just needs to say something like "support for same-sex marriage in Argentina was nearly 70%". If there wasn't already information on the bill then it could be long winded. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Anything over 50 percent is indeed "more than half", and half is a common and useful threshold, so it's reasonable to use that wording in the article. "Around half", while not untrue, is less precise and tends to obfuscate that the figure at issue is in fact above the threshold. I propose a slight modification, changing "Recent polls show" to "Recent polls indicate"; that's more accurate, since the only thing that a given poll definitively shows is the results of a given poll. Various factors, including margin of error, can skew poll results, so I think that would be better wording. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't actually be less precise since the exact percentages (51-54%) would be there. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

51% hasn't been found in a legitimate national poll since the beginning of 2011. That's not considered recent. Okay? The poll you insist on using the 51% has concluded 53% at the end of 2011, and 54% in Late May 2012. All recent polls indicate 53-54%. Teammm ^TM 00:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You only have 3 polls to give. Two of them go to less than half because of the margin of error. So that's the first thing regarding language of "majority". Second, 3 polls is not enough to invalidate a poll taken a year ago. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that at least 3, maybe 2 more studies are needed that were taken later than the 51% poll to invalidate it (assuming the results are higher than 51%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoma Magic (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating the same arguments and beating a WP:DEADHORSE. As Teammm has said very plainly, all recent polls indicate 53-54% If you disagree with that fact, make your case with source-backed references, not hypothetical suppositions. – MrX 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"all recent polls"? It is only 3 polls you claim and one year is very recent. Recent polls give 51-54%. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, 51% and 53% are both over the majority, so the argument is unnecessary. If the 2012 polls were reported on or done by the same source as the 2011 that gives 51%, the new percentage should be used. If you feel the 51% must be in the article, maybe propose to say that "In 2011, polls ranged from 51%-54%. In 2012, polls ranged from 53%-54%." A margin of error is implied in the use of the term "poll". I believe the average user understands that a poll does not actually ask every single person in the world. Acronin3 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Other implications of same-sex marriage

There are many other issues and implications of same-sex marriage, that are relvant to the ongoing political arguments and the interpretation of what 'marriage' means. Some are captured here, but others aren't. Is there benefit in adding sections for things like the impact of the death of a partner on inheritance of assets, pensions, and responsiblities toward surviving children; day-to-day implications such as signing on behalf of the partner, visitation rights in hospital, joint ownership of property, picking up children from school, etc; taxation issues such as dependant spouse and dependant children, joint tax rreturns etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.206.132 (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fictional section

I don't think that "Fictional same-sex marriage" belongs under Issues, I propose that it be relocated to a separate section.

 Done. Teammm ^TM 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"marriage equality" in bold

I've only seen words in bold when they're another name for the article. I don't know if that's backed up by policy, but it's the status quo. So apart from it mocking Wikipedia's neutrality policy, it also shouldn't be in bold anyway. Acoma Magic (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering the context of the sentence, and that the use of the term is clearly attributed to a specific group, I'm having problems understanding how this is "mocking". eldamorie (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is another name for the article. Titles don't necessarily have to be neutral, and the bar for alternative titles is lower than for article titles. Marriage equality is a common term, well supported by available sources, and presented in a way that makes it clear it is used by supporters. --Trystan (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

[ WP:EDITCONFLICT with Trystan]. Acoma Magic, "marriage equality" is another name for the article. It's a redirect. And, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Abbreviations and synonyms, because it is another name (widely-used name)/redirect, it should be bolded. It follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Alternative names and Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names (see the small picture example on both pages?)

As an aside, perhaps you already know that everyone can see through your "I'm trying to present neutrality" charade; your "neutrality" is consistently focused on same-sex issues in opposition of same-sex issues/aspects; a lot of editors at this site have seen this type of behavior countless times before. And your having followed Teammm from the Homosexuality article to the Oprah Winfrey article is hopefully something that does not become a WP:STALKING pattern of yours regarding Teammm or others concerning other articles. From what I can see, there are a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and even essays that you need to read up on if you plan to edit here for long in the topics that you've been editing in. Removing images from articles just because you feel like it (with "justifications" being that "It doesn't look great," "Removed low quality image," or something of the sort), as you did while in conflict with Teammm at the Oprah Winfrey article, is often not good conduct. Not good reasons, since what doesn't look great or is low-quality to you may look great or not be low-quality to others; a lot of images have been discussed before being added or after being added and have WP:Consensus for being there, which is why it is generally best to ask on the talk page of the article in question before removing an image/images. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's mocking Wikipedia's neutrality because it is not an alternative name for the article, yet it's still in bold. Marriage equality is not an alternative name for same-sex marriage. Some may claim that once same-sex marriage is legalised, marriage will then be equal, but it's not the same as an alternative title. Responding to the IP, LGBT articles seem to be mostly or significantly edited by LGBT people, so support is usually well covered. I didn't edit anything Teammm edited, so your allegation of stalking is ridiculous. Images that are low quality or look bad should be removed and I'll continue to remove those. Images don't have to have consensus before being added. They are usually simply added to the article. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, to Scientiom, Jojalozzo's edit of that paragraph looks much better and I'd like to know why you don't think so. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Acoma magic, i disagree with you because there are many neutral reliable sources describing it as such for example [1], [2] Pass a Method talk 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Acoma: I agree with the others that "marriage equality" is indeed an alternative title for the article, as is clear from the sentence in which it appears, and should therefore appear in bold print. I see no possible POV problem with this, and do not agree with your assertion that it is "mocking" in any way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's usually not opposition to medical things, so medical people editing them shouldn't cause any neutrality issues. Where has it been shown "time and time again"? Where are the agreements that have been made? I'm not offended, it's just going to make readers suspicious about whether this article is neutral. Those reliable sources you have there just show that people feel that marriage will be equal if same-sex marriage is passed. It is not the same as being an alternative name for same-sex marriage. The sentence in which it appears says that recognition of same-sex marriage is marriage equality. Which is exactly what I've been saying. They say recognising SSM is making marriage equal. It does not mean that marriage equality is therefore another name for SSM. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: stricken text a response to now-deleted comment. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence most definitely DOES NOT say, as you claim it does, that "recognition of same-sex marriage is marriage equality". The term is properly attributed to "supporters", so I cannot understand why you think that there may be a POV problem with this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's not a POV problem with the words, just that two of them are in bold when they shouldn't be. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Acoma Magic, you have no proof that "LGBT articles are mostly or significantly edited by LGBT people." And it's not just about you not supporting LGBT issues because they are "usually well covered." Most edits that I have seen of yours, including some of your comments, regarding LGBT issues are always in direct conflict with LGBT aspects (such as definitions). And you followed Teammm from the Homosexuality article to the Oprah Winfrey article and were in dispute with him over an image; so you have indeed edited something Teammm has edited and stalked Teammm's edits. There's also other articles you and Teammm have edited, which is understandable since you have taken an interest in editing LGBT articles. But you didn't suddenly end up at the Oprah Winfrey article a little after he did by coincidence. I doubt that that's the first time you stalked (and I mean "followed" when I state "stalked" in this case) his edits. And saying that "Images that are low quality or look bad should be removed and I'll continue to remove those. Images don't have to have consensus before being added. They are usually simply added to the article." further shows how much reading you have to do regarding Wikipedia guidelines/policies. I repeat that what is considered low-quality or "looking bad" is often subjective. And, actually, images do need consensus before being added when current consensus favors one or more images over one or more other images, or when consensus is against a particular image that a person wants to add, or when consensus is for no image. New consensus must be formed before the previous consensus can be disregarded. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and your striked-out comment that "There's usually not opposition to medical things, so medical people editing them shouldn't cause any neutrality issues." is something members at WP:MED can tell you isn't any bit true. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite my lack of proof, they are edited mostly or significantly by LGBT people. I'm guessing you're referring to the outing article regarding definitions. I said I was open to other wordings so... whatever alligator. No, Teammm edited something I edited. I removed an image than he had nothing to do with then he reverted. So yes, it's still a ridiculous accusation. Since that wasn't a stalking incident, let me know if you find any. No, again I was right. They do not need consensus to be added. When consensus favours a different image, then of course, but that isn't what you said before. It is true; remember the word "usually". Maybe we should stay on topic? Acoma Magic (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have proof, you cannot state that "they are edited mostly or significantly by LGBT people." Regarding definitions, I'm referring to more than that. Even this discussion is half about definitions -- same-sex marriage also being described as marriage equality. And, oh, I see that you like to play a semantics game: "Teammm edited something [you] edited." I see. It still does not take away from the fact that you followed him to that article, and that I'm certain that it was you fishing for a dispute with him; nor does it take away from the fact that you have edited a variety of things he has edited. I'm willing to bet that you have followed him from one article to another several, if not more, times, which is stalking, and that it was you looking for a dispute with him at least half of those times. But deny if you must. I repeat that "everyone can see through your 'I'm trying to present neutrality' charade." And you are wrong about images not needing consensus before being added, per my above commentary. In some cases, they do. You'll learn that soon enough if you keep going down the image-path you are going down, if you aren't permanently blocked first. But by all means, go back to being on-topic. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I just did. How could removing an image of Oprah be fishing for a dispute with him? I'm still waiting for an example of stalking. I'm not wrong. You said they needed consensus. I said that they are usually simple added to the article; which they are. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And please stop wasting my time with this off-topic silliness. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Following a user that you have been in constant dispute with to another article isn't looking for a dispute with that user, especially when you nitpick on the article in question in a way that is likely to be reverted? Um, yeah, it usually is. See the WP:WIKIHOUNDING link I pipelinked beneath WP:STALKING above. You are wrong. If you followed him to that article, which you clearly did, you have very likely followed him to other articles. Your only cover is when you follow him to LGBT articles, since you also now largely edit LGBT articles; although a case can be made for stalking if you are showing up to articles in the same exact pattern that the user in question is, or soon after the user in question. If you continue to follow him to mostly off-topic articles (mostly off-the-topic of LGBT issues, that is, like Oprah Winfrey), you will be called out and sanctioned for it. The images issue was already sufficiently addressed by me. None of what I stated is silliness. Stop wasting my time with your denials about stalking Teammm. Go back to, and stay on, the on-topic discussion instead of trying to convince me otherwise regarding your motives. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not in constant dispute, removing a low quality image isn't nitpicking and you still haven't provided any examples in which I've followed him to other articles. I'm allowed to look at other people's contributions and when I saw the Oprah article I decided to have a look at it. A case for stalking or hounding can only be made if I went there to revert or edit his content. I did nothing to his content and I edited something else. Can somebody hat this? I'm involved so I'll leave it to somebody else. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you two are in constant dispute. Saying that you aren't is laughable, given the diff-links that can be provided showing that to be the case. And a case for stalking doesn't have to be made on whether or not you have reverted or "edited his content." You either did not read WP:WIKIHOUNDING or have not comprehended it in its entirety, but it is clear what constitutes WP:WIKIHOUNDING on the policy page about it. And it's difficult to hat this portion of the discusssion since it is mixed in with the original discussion, unless it is all grouped together away from the original discussion. But I wouldn't mind anyway (if it was done by someone other than you, of course). 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is from Wikihounding: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Are we done here? Acoma Magic (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it says nothing about a Wikihounding case only being made "if [you] went there to revert or edit his content." So, yes, we are done here. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I didn't do that, then I assume you agree that I didn't Wikihound. Feel free to hat this yourself, as I've got no objections. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I know what you claim. But you followed an editor that you have constantly been in dispute with regarding LGBT topics to a mostly non-LGBT topic. Wikihounding is not only about specifically editing a user's contribution. It's also about following that user to articles and editing those articles in a way/ways that is/are likely to lead to a dispute with that editor and cause distress for that editor. The policy page is clear about it, saying: "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." You claim that you didn't do that; I'm not buying it. That's just the way that it is. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lucky I edited the article in a way that isn't likely to lead to a dispute with that editor. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Riiight. That it did lead to a dispute is just the luck of the draw. Okey dokey. 58.53.192.218 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of having common alternative titles in bold is to make it clear at a glance to readers that they have indeed arrived at the article addressing the topic they were looking for. In this case, a reader might look for information on marriage equality after, for example, hearing about New York's Marriage Equality Act. Marriage equality redirects here, and the bold alternative title lets those readers see this is the article dealing with that topic. 58.53.192.218, this talk page is for discussing improvements to this article. If you have concerns about edits to other articles or about editors generally, please take them to the appropriate venue.--Trystan (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can see what you mean. However, I'm saying that marriage equality is simply what some people say will be the result of SSM. It doesn't make it an alternative name for SSM. The Marriage Equality Act is titled because it's about making marriage equal through the introduction of SSM. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Without a separate article on Same-sex marriage equality, any discussion of same-sex marriage is going to be primarily about the issue of same-sex couples even having the right to marry. What happens to this article after those rights are secured is anybody's guess. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't tell if that's for or against "marriage equality" remaining in bold. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Déjà vu. We went through all of this a mere three months ago. Rivertorch (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Last paragraph in lead

Jojalozzo changed it to something more concise and I think a lot better. This is what it looks like: Studies conducted in several countries indicate that same-sex marriage finds more support among younger adults and people with higher education.[2] Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not.[3]

and this is what it currently is: Studies conducted in several countries indicate that better-educated people are more likely to support the legalization of same-sex marriage than the less-educated, and younger people are more likely to support it than older generations.[2] Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not.[3]

Thoughts? Acoma Magic (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It makes it concise, but the two are not necessarily complementary and the concise version may make readers think they are. --Scientiom (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How does it make it look complementary? It says 'support among younger adults and people with higher education.' This clearly separates young people and people with higher education. 201.67.15.211 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Polls show...

The concluding sentence in the lead says, "Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not.[3]"

For starters, we don't seem to have cause and affect here. Correlation maybe but no causation. If I know someone is gay and I do or do not want to get to know them better, that tends to display my own opinion, but does not really demonstrate the cause at all.

With maybe 4% of men and 1% of women, gay in America, it would really be difficult not to "know someone who was gay." Particularly in the city. In rural areas, maybe not.

I think the sentence should be dropped as irrelevant. Student7 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant to what? People who know a gay person on a personal basis (ie. friend or close acquaintance) are more likely to support equal rights for them. I don't follow what you're saying. Teammm ^TM 03:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I also don't understand what you mean. CTF83! 03:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While the objection is without base as given (there is no claim of causation) and it seems rather relevant in reflecting support, the editor is actually correct in that the sentence should be dropped... just for other reasons. The poll referenced to is a US-specific poll, showing only the Americans who say they know someone who is gay is more likely to support SSM; as such, while it would have a place in SSM in America, it doesn't really deserve a spot in the intro in this non-country-specific article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I cited Australia, Britain, and Canada. I'm sure it's a universal thing. Teammm ^TM 01:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The cites for Australia and Britain are not relevant ones, as the reports do not separate the level of SSM support based on whether one knows homosexuals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the cites are irrelevant at all. It's difficult to find references that explicitly analyze in writing the question at hand. Other countries are simply not reporting that specific question unlike the U.S. What the cited polls do show is that the groups supporting marriage equality by significant majority (ie. women and people ages 18-34), are also more likely (by significant majority) to have close friends or relatives who are gay or lesbian. Teammm ^TM 02:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So they don't actually say what the statement they're used as reference for says, and we have no support for the general-case statement that's in the intro. I'm taking it out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

[3] seems to clearly state this. --Scientiom (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said NAT. If I thought the references didn't support it, I would've removed it myself. Teammm ^TM 13:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems very likely this is the case universally, but I don't see the references to support generalizing. I agree with Nat that this should be limited to statements about America. Glaucus (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And statementes specifically about America (which, Scientiom, is what the link you refer to covers) would be weak for inclusion in the intro of this global article, particularly a secondary measure on public opinion. (For that matter, an aggregation of English-speaking primarily-caucasian first world countries as an indicator for the general case would be weak as well.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more sources out there which can be found with a bit of searching for this. --Scientiom (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Until then, can we remove the statement from the intro for which we do not currently have support? (And similarly, remove the similar generalist statement from the body of the article for which the support is a US-specific poll? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears that some editors disagree about the content of the sources that the polls and conclusion are universal and not just for the USA. It also appears there is consensus that this statement about the polls not be included if and until other sources are found that make similar claims for regions in the world other than the USA. Those that are restoring this information should bother themselves to read all the sources to verify this claim before restoring again.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not appear to be the consensus, so please stop edit-warring. Thank you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As for editors that have actually commented on the content of the sources, there is unanimous consensus. Instead of making false accusations, why don't you comment on the sources?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, removal doesn't seem to have support on any basis. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think there is consensus to keep information in an article that doesn't support the sources, then I don't know if there is any reason to keep discussing this with you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your choice, but I've noticed that your edits keep getting reverted, so I think you need to convince someone. Might as well start with me, as I'm entirely willing to revert your next attempt. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get into an edit-war here. There is no consensus here to remove the text, so it should remain unless consensus to remove it emerges. --Scientiom (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, the sentence is a reasonable generalization, indicative of current social attitudes. It passes the common sense test, and as long as consensus trends toward keeping it, it should stay. – MrX 13:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading the sentence that is actually there, and it's making a specific claim ("Polls also indicate that people who know someone who is gay on a personal basis are more likely to support it than those who do not") that is not supported by the sources used. When we look at what is actually there, rather than the claim one might pretend it is, what we might want to infer from the sources to support it, and what sources we'd like to believe exist, it doesn't hold up. I'm numbering my assertions, so that they can easily be addressed specifically:

1. The Australian study, while it notes some subset of those who personally know a homosexual (it limits it to "close friends or relatives") and notes percentage of SSM support, does not correlate the two, and thus doesn't make the statement that it is being used as source for and should not be included.
2. The British study is actually a follow-up to the previous study, and has the same limitations in question, the same lack of correlation of the two questions, and thus should not be included.
3. The HuffPo article, which is on a survey of only Americans, similarly limits its statement to having a "close friend or family member" rather than who one knows, and while it talks about those who know such a person and those who support SSM, does not show how those answers correlate. It does not make the statement that we are asserting. Additionally, it is only a survey of Americans.
4. The ABC News/WashPost poll does address a group descriptor similar to what we state and does actually make a statement of correlation between knowing a homosexual and supporting SSM ("Seventy-one percent of Americans now say they have a friend, family member or acquaintance who’s gay, up from 59 percent in 1998. People who know someone who’s gay are 20 points more likely than others to support gay marriage.") However, it is a poll specifically of Americans.
5. Given 1-4, we have a total of one poll actually making the assertion claimed.
6. That poll is specifically of Americans, and cannot be assumed to apply to the general world population.
7. Even if we were to assume through WP:OR that the other sources listed did indicate correlation, they are still of a very limited, non-diverse group of regions - four first world, primarily English-speaking, primarily-Christian, primarily-Caucasian nations - and thus cannot be seen as representing the general case.
8. Even if we had multiple polls covering the world in order to support this statement, it may not be appropriate to put it in the intro. The intro is meant to be a summary of the longer article; this one sentence is almost as long as the one poorly-sourced sentence in the body text it is meant to summarize, and is not particularly primary to the core of the topic (it is not directly about SSM, it is not directly about support for SSM, it is about correlation of some other factor with support for SSM.)

I understand editors' belief that knowledge of homosexuals is likely to have a positive impact on support for legalization for SSM, but we are making a specific claim here subject to verifiability. If you wish to maintain the material, please address the numbered points above. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"typically"

A line in the introduction claims that "Supporters of legal recognition for same-sex marriage typically refer to such recognition as marriage equality." However, the source given for that statement makes no such claim; it merely quotes four supporters (all then US celebrities) as using the "marriage equality" term. The claim is dubious, and the source given quite insufficient for it; I tried switching "typically" with "sometimes", but an editor reverted it for reasons which were cut off (apparently exceeding the length of the explanation field.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is typical. How about "often"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How about "some supporters", and drop the latter adjective altogether? I really don't know that it is typical; it's not uncommon, but even in the US, I know a fair number of supporters who refer to supporting same-sex marriage as, well, supporting same-sex marriage. (And just to slam a quick loose quantification on it: "I+support+same-sex+marriage" "I support same-sex marriage" gets 2.5 times as many ghits as "I+support+same-sex+marriage" "I support marriage equality.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if we take Google as authoritative, 2.5:1 is still often. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we don't have anything authoritative that speaks to frequency. I can see wanting to include the term so that folks who get redirected to this page from "marriage equality" see what's going on, but I don't see the need to claim frequency. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nat, I agree that it is unquantifiable, and perhaps there is a better word than 'typically'. I don't believe that 'some' is the correct word though, because in this context, I think it implies a minority. How about, " Supporters of legal recognition for same-sex marriage often refer to such recognition as marriage equality."? – MrX 16:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we kill the sentence altogether, build the information into the first sentence (Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage or homosexual marriage, with some proponents calling for marriage equality or genderless marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity.) Then either kill the paragraph break leading into what is now the second paragraph, or finish out the first paragraph with something like While most of the world's legal jurisdictions do not grant or recognize same-sex marriages, the availability of same-sex marriage has been a political issue since the 1990s, as various locales have considered and at times chosen ending the restriction of marriage to solely mix-sexed couples. -- making the opening graph the definition and making clear that this is an issue in play. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Take out homosexual marriage and genderless marriage...for starters. Your proposal complicates everything. It should stay as is. Teammm ^TM 02:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know "starters" was a reason. I see no argument for why that one piece of nomenclature is so important that it gets the second sentence all for itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, basically it's not better than what's there now and sounds pretty ignorant. Teammm ^TM 06:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no argument for why we should keep a second sentence that appears to be false, is certainly not appropriately sourced, and has dubious reasons for being so important that it must be the second sentence of the article? Can we agree to get rid of that sentence? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Brackets

The lede currently shows christian and jewish denominations in brackets and mentions the main religions (jewish, christian). I think the brackets and the main religions should be removed because they are unnecessary. I think it should be reverted to yesterday's version. Do you agree? Pass a Method talk 17:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)