Talk:Same-sex marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleSame-sex marriage is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
November 21, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Pretend countries[edit]

Why does the map legitimise the non-UN Russian puppet de facto states of Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia? We might as well separate out Donetsk and Luhansk from Ukraine or roll Taiwan into China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.112.107.189 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This map isn't about the issue of international border disputes, it shows the state of SSM. Put it this way, if Ukraine legalised SSM tomorrow, you couldn't get married in Crimea because the current authorities apply Russian law. I would image that Donetsk and Luhansk aren't marked that way because the sitution there is very fluid. For the same reason, while the international status of Taiwan is ... complicated, because you CAN get married in Taiwan but not in Communist China, Taiwan is dark blue and the other one isn't. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sdesilva11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors on the map[edit]

I would like to point out some errors on the map. First, according to the map, same-sex marriage is due to become legally performed and recognized in Haiti. However, this allegation is not backed by evidence. According to "LGBT rights in Haiti", the country does not recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions or similar institutions. 

Second, Namibia is pink asserting that the country recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad. However, according to "LGBT rights in Namibia", same-sex unions are currently not recognized in Namibia. Several court cases on the issue have been filed with the High Court, and await a decision. The article states that a judgment is expected on 20 January 2022. Therefore, I suggest to avoid premature conclusions and to await the decision of the High Court.

Next, according to "Recognition of same-sex unions in South Korea", the country recognizes neither same-sex marriage nor any other form of legal union for same-sex couples. In 2019, the Government of South Korea announced it would recognize the same-sex spouses of foreign diplomats who come to live in South Korea. However, the recognition does not extend to same-sex spouses of South Korean diplomats living abroad, much less to South Korean same-sex couples. As of May 2021, the only beneficiaries of this scheme have been New Zealand Ambassador Philip Turner and his husband Hiroshi Ikeda. Thus, South Korea doesn't fit the description of "minimal recognition".

Finally, Kwamikagami asserts that the government of Thailand recognizes same-sex couples as families. However, this seems opinionated and the statement is not backed by any credible sources. Besides, Thailand does not have specific unregistered cohabitation/domestic partnership laws. According to "LGBT rights in Thailand", the country currently does not recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. Same goes with Vietnam. This country also does not have specific unregistered cohabitation/domestic partnership laws. The Wikipedia article "Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam" states that "same-sex marriage is not legal in Vietnam, nor is any other form of same-sex union recognized."

The map contradicts with other map "Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse, unions and expression". (See "LGBT rights by country or territory") In conclusion, Haiti, South Korea, Namibia, Thailand and Vietnam should be uncolored. Please, edit the map. Cyanmax (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You exaggerate. Arguments about qualifying criteria are not "facts". Your argument is that SS couples have some rights, but not other rights, so we shouldn't note that they have any rights. The question therefore is what are our criteria for minimal recognition/cohabitation. This is something we've revisited multiple times over the years. In Vietnam, SS couples register their cohabitation, just as everyone else is required to do. At the time SSM was decriminalized in Vietnam, I asked if such registered cohabitation was adequate for inclusion on the map as "registered cohabitation", and there was no objection. For Thailand, I couldn't retrace my news sources, which is why I asked in the thread above if anyone else knew the situation. (You obviously don't, since you use WP as your evidence.) In South Korea, you yourself admit to the law, so that country definitely belongs on the map. It's even striped because of how limited the recognition is, and the situation explained on the key. This was all accepted by the WP/Commons community at the time. Haiti was a high court case and Namibia was a court recognition of the kind that we've used for other countries. I'd need to review those countries to recall the details / cite sources, maybe tomorrow. They may indeed be too marginal to qualify for the map. But that's a judgement call. There's no problem with revisiting our criteria, of course, as we judge best reflects the global situation. There have been other occasions where some new development has led us to change or reinterpret the criteria for the map.
There are two reasons why such situations may be of interest. One is the quality of the rights themselves. But the other is that they are indications of a legal shift in the country, part of a global shift toward greater LGBT recognition and rights (and of course also a global backlash, though thankfully a smaller one). Showing even minimal recognition on our map gives the reader a sense of that global shift. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems opinionated and none of the statements above are backed by any credible sources.  Cyanmax (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's opinionated, as are we both. We're talking about opinions. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still, none of the statements above are backed by any credible sources. Vietnam, Thailand, Haiti...what's next Myanmar? Bangladesh? Jamaica? The map should reflect the reality, and not your fantasies. Please, verify sources. Cyanmax (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, quit exaggerating. No-one is proposing that we should claim recognition where none exists. If you want to go that route, I could argue that the US, NZ and Netherlands should all be removed from the list, because they all refuse to recognize SSM.[verification needed][citation needed] The question is how we deal with the many cases that are not clear-cut.
According to our article, the Namibian courts have already recognized SS couples for the purpose of residency.[verification needed][citation needed] Thus Namibia is more or less equivalent to Romania (apart from it being a domestic rather than foreign court). Additional cases are before the court. So, do we color Namibia for the case it has already recognized, or not color it in because of the cases that are pending? That's an opinion of what our criteria should be based on the facts. AFAIK there is nothing equivalent in Burma, Bangladesh or Jamaica.
In Thailand, the govt recognizes religious ceremonies establishing couples as couples.[verification needed][citation needed] It does not recognize their marriages, but it is more or less equivalent to Vietnam, which we have consensus to include.
Vietnam, as I noted before, quite literally has registered cohabitation.[verification needed][citation needed] If you want to argue that registered cohabitation should not count as registered cohabitation, fine, but present you argument for why.
As for Haiti, the green reflects the presidential decree. The media reported that he had decreed that SSM will be allowed in the new constitution.[verification needed] ([Church] ministers were "outraged", claiming this would require them to perform SSM in their church or go to prison, which no-one had ever proposed.) But I'm not sure the legalities were accurately reported. And even if the decree does allow SSM, parliament has a year to override it, so coloring it is premature. Though the same is true of Switzerland -- why no objection to coloring Switzerland green?
Anyway, I reverted Haiti pending events. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for these events in Haiti? Last thing I've read about the country was an outcry against a presidential decree making discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal, but no more.--Aréat (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could try to hunt them down, but considering that the same clergy were claiming that the presidential decree legalized sex with dogs (because it took its wording directly from the laws of Canada and Belgium, which as we all know are popular with dog-fuckers)[verification needed][citation needed], I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
There were a number of apparently RS's that said it would legalize SSM, but there was so much nonsense being thrown around it was hard to verify anything. I never saw a copy of the actual decree, though I expect you could find it. Anyway, the decree wouldn't go into effect until 2022, and a number of MPs have promised to override it. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no source whatsoever for Haiti having incoming SSM? It shouldn't have been added on the map. I searched for one in french, and found none. --Aréat (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland can not be compared with Haiti. The referendum is scheduled for 26 September 2021. In November 2020, a poll conducted by the gfs group found that 82% of respondents "strongly" or "somewhat" supported same-sex marriage, 17% were opposed and 1% were undecided. SSM will be approved, just like in Ireland and Australia.

Please, provide sources with detailed information for Namibia, Thailand, Vietnam, and add them to "LGBT rights in Namibia", "Recognition of same-sex unions in Namibia", "LGBT rights in Vietnam", "Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam" and "LGBT rights in Thailand". Your assertion contradicts the corresponding articles and creates confusion. Cyanmax (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way to go. We shouldn't have to ask around for sources on this page in the first place.--Aréat (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that means anyone can do whatever they want and just say, "I'm not obliged to provide sources! I can do whatever I want! Leave me alone!" That's what you mean? Now, where is the logic in that? Kwamikagami's allegations cannot rely on rumor or assumption, they must be supported by reliable evidence. If there's no proof, then it's just a groundless rumor. Cyanmax (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. If you have a different interpretation of the matter than someone else, they must be trying to substitute unfounded rumor for verifiable fact in a blatant attempt to vandalize WP. They're completely irrational. There's no other explanation as to why someone might have a different understanding than you do.
It's hard to take your hyperbole seriously. I suspect you would have more success if you engaged in good faith and assumed good faith of others.
I pinged all editors from the past 2yrs and hope for some constructive feedback.
Re. your first point, of course Switzerland can be compared to Haiti. Treating it differently is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It's highly probable, of course, that SSM will pass with the referendum. Much more likely than that SSM will go through in Haiti. But per CRYSTAL we can't assume that it will pass. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyanmax: Are you answering to me? I agreed with the need to have properly sourced pages backing the map. Users shouldn't have to come here to beg for some source. It should be sourced on the country's page, and the map a mere reflection of those page's content. There shouldn't be claim on the map that aren't first backed on the own country's page. Such discussion on whether Haiti has or hasn't SSM in work should happen on Haiti's LGBT right page, not on this random map page.--Aréat (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've been maintaining the map but not the country articles. Things do need to be ref'd there. So far no-one's responded to the RFC on Commons. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an RFC at Commons is the appropriate venue. The map doesn't need to be sourced to be hosted at Commons, but it does need to be sourced to be used on Wikipedia. But to answer the question you asked there: Does anyone have arguments why these (or other) countries should be removed from the map, or to justify their inclusion? I think it's fairly straightforward: they should all be removed unless we have reliable secondary sources that characterize a country's laws as falling somewhere on the spectrum of SSM rights. Where we do have such sources, we should use them to guide how to describe the rights provided. Characterizing a country's laws by applying our own criteria to our understanding of the legalities of the jurisdiction is far into the realm of original research.
A country's individual article on same-sex relationship rights is the appropriate place to start; that content, with sources, should be summarized here, and reflected in the "Legal status of same-sex unions" template at the top of the article and the map.--Trystan (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several unsourced and irresponsible statements by kwamikagami:

1. "According to our article, the Namibian courts have already recognized SS couples for the purpose of residency." !CITATION NEEDED!

2. "In Thailand, the govt recognizes religious ceremonies establishing couples as couples." !CITATION NEEDED!

3. "Vietnam, as I noted before, quite literally has registered cohabitation." !CITATION NEEDED!

4. "I could argue that the US, NZ and Netherlands should all be removed from the list, because they all refuse to recognize SSM." !CITATION NEEDED!

5. "Because it took its wording directly from the laws of Canada and Belgium, which as we all know are popular with dog-fuckers." !CITATION NEEDED!

How can we tolerate these irresponsible statements?

To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an uncited claim.

By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia.

If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, then please add it! Cyanmax (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can leave a note on the talk page asking for a source. Please, present your evidence. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic;

It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify; It contains information which is ambiguous and open to interpretation, either due to grammar, or opinionated wording; Cyanmax (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A High Court in Namibia has ruled against two same-sex couples who were seeking to have their foreign marriages recognized for immigration purposes.

Sources:

1. https://76crimes.com/2022/01/20/namibia-high-court-rules-against-same-sex-couples/

2. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/namibian-court-rules-against-gay-couples-seeking-legal-recognition-2022-01-20/

I told you that we should avoid premature conclusions and to await the decision of the High Court. You see, I was right. The map is full of blatant factual errors. Take for example Cambodia, Nepal, South Korea and Vietanam. Not to mention these questionable "individual cases rings". The definition for so called "limited recognition" is still ambiguous.

The map needs to be reformed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanmax (talkcontribs) 06:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding change of Chile into the same-sex marriage list[edit]

Hi, This morning I changed Chile into dark blue in the image of the same-sex marriage list. User:Kwamikagami proceed to undo my change to make the same change afterwards.

Can someone explain me why ? As a Chilean this makes me quite sad to see how someone can take the change someone else made. I might be a noob at making changes into Wikipedia but still, this was a changed that was needed and someone took it out from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1239 (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide sources. Without sources you will be reverted. I could not verify that the law had actually gone into effect, only that it was scheduled to. That's no guarantee that it happened. When another editor provided a (German) newspaper acct of the first marriage, I restored your edit and updated maps as well. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Pblic Opion in Taiwan[edit]

Hello, After parctising same sex marriage for nearly 3 years, the public opion in Taiwan has changed quite a lot. Could the editor in charge of Public Opion kindly update it with many newest reliable and avaiable sources? Best regards,

Khhmel 08:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Khhmel 08:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khhmel (talkcontribs)

Marriage with full right vs partial rights[edit]

Which countries have SSM with full rights? E.g., in the USA, I believe that SS couples are simply married, and that there is no legal distinction. However, in Ecuador, SS couples may marry, and married couples may adopt, but SS married couples may not adopt. Thus SSM is not legally equal to OS marriage. (Somewhat similar in Taiwan.) I've been told that in Germany, SSM couples don‘t have access to IVF, as OS couples do, and in the UK divorce laws are different. So what are the countries where SSM couples have all the rights that OS couples have, and where are there exceptions? — kwami (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender[edit]

Kwamikagami, so you undid X-Editor's use of "or gender." The history shows that "gender" has long been used in the lead of this article and that it was an IP who recently removed it. At the homosexuality article, Wikipedia says "sex or gender." The heterosexuality article also does. And the bisexuality article acknowledges gender. You are aware that someone's assigned sex at birth can differ from their partner's assigned sex at birth and their union may still be a same-sex marriage? But if you still want a citation, I can provide one. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that's been the consensus, okay. And for a medical definition, sure. But legally, if a man, who feels he's a woman in a man's body, marries a cis-woman, AFAIK that would be allowed in countries that do not allow SSM. So "gender" feels off to me: AFAIK the law is (usually) predicated on sex. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Medical definition? You say "AFAIK that would be allowed in countries that do not allow SSM." And the countries that do allow SSM? You're concerned about a conflict between sources countries that do and don't allow SSM? There are still countries that don't allow it, but we still have an article about the topic and define it. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For countries that allow SSM, gender is irrelevant because anyone can get married. For countries that ban SSM, the law is based on sex, not gender. Nowhere among countries that ban SSM can two men get married because one identifies as a woman. So the critical issue is biological sex. (I'm ignoring people who've undergone sex-reassignment, which is a separate complication.) Similarly with the following sentence in the lead: "There are records of same-sex marriage dating back to ..." They're talking about biological sex, not gender. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But how does that mean it's a problem to define same-sex marriage in this article as also including people of the same gender regardless of their sex? For how we deliver the lead sentence, why should we consider that there are countries that ban SSM? Are we supposed to consider their definition that isn't even legally in effect (except to ban it) because they don't allow SSM? If they don't allow it, why should how they define it matter for the first sentence of this article? Are you meaning to say we should consider them for how we construct the lead sentence because of the definition for SSM that they use while banning SSM? If this is what you're meaning to say, none of that requires that we exclude "or gender" from the first sentence. Countries that define SSM as a union between two people of the same sex (but not two people of the same gender, if they even think of "sex" and "gender" as different) while banning it will still be represented by the word "sex." For the countries that allow people of the same gender who don't have the same sex to be legally declared as a same-sex union, "or gender" is more accurate than "sex" alone. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who would "legally declare" a marriage to be a same-sex union? It's just a marriage. The point of SSM is that marriage is open to SS couples, not to create special unions for SS couples -- that would be a CU, wouldn't it? Are there countries that have separate-but-equal laws for SSM and opposite-sex marriage? And do they define a SSM as between people of the same gender rather than the same sex? If not, I don't understand the point of adding "or gender". The entire opening para is about sex, not gender. I find adding "gender" to be confusing (what are we referring to?) and in conflict with the rest of the lead. Do you have any ref clarifying that it may really be gender, that the legalization in the Netherlands in 2001 was about gender, or that some of the SSM's dating back to the 1st c. were same gender but different sex? I guess I'm not getting what the point is.
I'm not sure it's relevant how we define homosexuality, if for no other reason than that it's not a legal issue, whereas SSM is legally defined. (For anti-sodomy laws and other legal consequences, I suspect it's also sex rather than gender -- I wouldn't expect a very nuanced legal consideration in such societies.) — kwami (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who would "legally declare" a marriage to be a same-sex union? A twist on that question is to ask: Who would declare that same-sex unions are legally banned? Those who have the power to do so, of course. If it was "just a marriage," bans on same-sex marriage would never have materialized. There would be no need to say "same-sex marriage" as often as it's called such. After all, "heterosexual marriage" was "just marriage" before the movement to legalize same-sex marriage gained momentum and a lot of debate about the definition of marriage ensued. You said, "I find adding 'gender' to be confusing (what are we referring to?) and in conflict with the rest of the lead." But I think you know that "gender" here is referring to "gender identity." One of the first things you said was, "But legally, if a man, who feels he's a woman in a man's body, marries a cis-woman, AFAIK that would be allowed in countries that do not allow SSM." After that, you said, "Nowhere among countries that ban SSM can two men get married because one identifies as a woman." And sources such as SOC 6, Introduction to Sociology say, "Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally recognized marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity ." Violence Against LGBTQ+ Persons: Research, Practice, and Advocacy, using the term "marriage equality," has the same definition. A source that is a few years older, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusive Education: A Voice from the Margins, says, "Same-sex marriage: Also known as gay marriage, legally recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender." Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've said you're "not getting what the point is." If there isn't a point, then why are there sources saying "or gender" and "or gender identity"? Same-Sex Marriage says that many transgender couples are legally the same sex, but that this may be short-sighted because "a marriage between a trans man and a non-trans woman might or might not be legally recognized as a valid different-sex marriage. That's because the standard for having a person's gender identity legally recognized depends upon where they were born, and where they currently live." It expounds on this further. So, by only acknowledging sex and not gender in the lead sentence, do you intend for "sex" in the lead sentence to refer to both assigned sex at birth and legal sex? If you do, how will readers know that this is what is intended? The sex article is about biology. If you don't, then you're elevating "biological sex" above legal sex when there are laws that allow people to legally change their sex and have a same-sex union. But, listen, this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. If, in the future, editors want to add "gender" to the first sentence, they can refer back to this discussion where I've provided reasons based on the ways of the world and sources for including it. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"If it was 'just a marriage,' bans on same-sex marriage would never have materialized." Okay, now you're being purposefully obtuse.

Your ref just proves my point: if a transgender marriage is legally same-sex, then it's a same-sex marriage. If legally it's not, then it's not. So again, what does gender have to do with it? If the couple are of the same sex, then they have a same-sex marriage. If they're of the opposite sex, then they don't have a SSM.

But you do have a point about the article on 'sex' that we link being inconsistent with the legal ramifications. I'll try to find a better link. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks aren't necessary.
Because of my most recent posts, I was certain that you might say that the very last source I provided proves your point, and that you may suggest the lead sentence say "legal sex" instead of "sex," but you made no point about "if a transgender marriage is legally same-sex, then it's a same-sex marriage." Indeed, you said, "So the critical issue is biological sex." and that "There are records of same-sex marriage dating back to ..." is "talking about biological sex, not gender." You seemed to be thinking of "sex" in only biological, not legal, terms. I provided this source along with the others to show you that gender, specifically gender identity, does have something to do with it. If it did not, there wouldn't be any sources that say "or gender," "or gender identity," and "or social gender." The sources usually do this to acknowledge that the two people may not be of the same assigned sex at birth but may still be a same-sex union. The last source that you claim as proving your point talks about legal sex in relation to gender identity.
I've no opinion on whether "legal sex" is helpful or will confuse readers. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack to call you out on bad-faith arguments. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt you know what "obtuse" means. Next time, maybe you should say "purposefully dumb" or "purposefully slow" to remind you that coloring language with less direct synonyms doesn't make the language any less offensive or a personal attack in Wikipedia terms. Your mistaken belief that I made bad-faith arguments is noted. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps you don't know what a personal attack is. A personal attack is attacking you as a person. Criticizing your behaviour is not a personal attack. It wouldn't matter if I described it as "purposefully obtuse" or "pretending to be stupid" -- it's the same unprofessional behaviour. When you say that same-sex marriages cannot legally simply be marriages, because if they were there wouldn't be any bans on them, you're pretending to be stupid. Either that or you didn't bother to read it. Either way it's unbecoming, all the more so when you double down and say I have no right to call you out on your behaviour. — kwami (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears it is you who doesn't know what a personal attack is. But I suspect that if you keep engaging in such behavior and thinking that using the words "being" and "purposefully," proclaiming "I was criticizing your behaviour," and assigning bad-faith intentions to an editor who has provided sources for what they say while you have provided none gives you a pass to act in such a way, you'll find out eventually. You said, "Either way it's unbecoming, all the more so when you double down and say I have no right to call you out on your behaviour." For some reason, you don't see how this line describes your actions. And for some reason, you think that saying you are mistaken in your belief that I was acting in bad-faith and saying that personal attacks aren't helpful here means I'm saying you have no right to call me out on my behavior. You have all the right if I'm behaving badly. But I'm not. You've taken what I said and shaped it into your own misguided understanding of what I was conveying. Continuing down this course instead of apologizing is doing nothing for you. Say more if it makes you feel better, I suppose, but I'm not checking back to read more of your defense. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support re-adding "or gender". Scholarly sources (like this one) frequently use "same-gender marriage" somewhat interchangeably with SSM, as do news media (an example). Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate sources don't mean we should be purposefully inaccurate. People may indeed equate "gender" with "sex", but the preponderance of sources treat them as distinct concepts. And if we take them to be distinct, as we do in other WP articles, then AFAIK the statement that marriage between two people of the ... same gender identity was legalized in all 50 states is factually wrong, because it was never illegal for two people of the opposite sex to get married because they were of the same gender identity.
I've yet to see an example of an opposite-sex marriage that counted a same-sex marriage because of gender. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article solely about legality of marriage, and same-gender married couples face many of the same challenges as same-sex couples. Many of the sources are referring to the same couples using both terms, which is reasonable given how many definitions there are of "sex". You are welcome to believe that you've caught an inaccuracy that slipped past the editorial staff of The Sydney Morning Herald or the peer review process of Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, but I can't agree. Either way, an editor's disagreement with reliable sources is a tenuous reason to keep the article away from the version with implicit consensus, and I've reverted to restore "or gender". Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine as far as it goes, but not when it make our article inaccurate or self-contradictory. Since we now say that same-sex marriage includes marriage of opposite-sex couples, I've altered the wording in those areas dealing specifically with marriage between couples of the same sex to "marriage of same-sex couples". E.g., we can't say that SSM is only legal in certain countries if opposite-sex same-gender marriage is legal in others, or if we don't know because our sources do not address the issue. It reads pretty much the same. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said X-Editor needed a source to add "or gender." You asked me if I had a source clarifying that it may really be gender. I provided sources showing that it is really gender sometimes. I provided sources that say "biological sex and/or gender identity." If you want more such sources, with the same or slightly different constructions, just say the word. But it appears that no source on this is going to satisfy you. Because you consider gender irrelevant to how we deliver the lead sentence, even though many sources don't consider it irrelevant, "gender" can't be added? So editor opinion has a step up on WP:RS? You also said, "If that's been the consensus, okay." Well, the history of the article and its talk page show that it's been the consensus for a long time. You can't just keep moving the goal posts. As for you altering "the wording in those areas dealing specifically with marriage between couples of the same sex to 'marriage of same-sex couples'", make sure you aren't engaging in WP:OR or making the article more confusing than it needs to be. Further, edits like this one aren't encyclopedic.
The lead sentence now says "legal sex or gender." Now that "or gender" is there again, it may be more sound to remove "legal." Or wording from one of the sources I provided can be adopted and we could say "is a legally recognized marriage between [...]" and remove the "legal" that is beside "sex." Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's no point to keeping the "legal". But as for the rest, this isn't about scoring points, or moving goalposts, or about whether you technically complied with a particular reading of some request. It's about whether the article is consistent, factual and supported by its sources. You want us to claim that opposite-sex marriage was illegal across the entire world in the 20th century, if the couple were the same gender. That the only countries in Asia and Africa where opposite-sex, same-gender couples can get married today are South Africa and Taiwan. That they'll be able to get married for the first time in Switzerland this year. You've provided no source for any of that, and I'd be very surprised if you can. We can't blindly conflate sources when they use different definitions. The sources that say that SSM includes same-gender couples of the opposite sex aren't claiming that the first such marriage occurred in the Netherlands in 2001.
As for the note you find unencyclopedic, I think it's rather obnoxious myself, but there was only so much time I was willing to put in. You could go through the article yourself and correct the wording throughout, if you like. Unless you have some simpler idea for how we could clarify when "sex" means "sex" and when it means "sex or gender"?
When I said, "If that's been the consensus, okay," I meant okay to include "gender" in the lead. I didn't mean okay for the rest of the article to be inaccurate. — kwami (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want "to claim that opposite-sex marriage was illegal across the entire world in the 20th century, if the couple were the same gender.", etc. That's an interpretation you have of what saying "or gender" implies. The word "or" is there, is it not? Are you invoking some belief about the inclusive or and exclusive or into this? There are also topics readers will generally be knowledgeable about. The way homosexuality has been viewed and treated in the past (and now), including whereas marriage is concerned, is common knowledge. It's taught in schools. New gender discourses and how they came about are also taught in schools. I think very few, if any, people who visit this article will be under the impression that same-sex marriage in many years past was about gender identity and whether two people had the same legal sex. It's not necessary to overcomplicate "or gender" when the sources don't.
Well, yeah, when you said "If that's been the consensus, okay.", you were talking about the lead. The lead sentence is what we've been talking about. When you undid X-Editor's edit, that was you changing the lead sentence. We didn't discuss adding "gender" anywhere else in the article.
As for anything else you do with the article, have at it as long as you aren't violating WP:PG. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, sometimes by no we mean yes and by yes we mean no, but that's okay because you've been taught about LGBT issues in school, so you know that we don't really mean what we say. Except that some people do expect an encyclopedia to mean what it says. As for being "common knowledge. It's taught in schools", not much longer for much of the US if certain state legislatures get their way. But more broadly, English is a global language. People come here from all the countries of the world. Many of them did not acquire that knowledge in school. Even in the US some went to religious schools and didn't get it, or if older were educated when homosexuality was still treated as a psychiatric disorder. Best, I think, to be professional and say what we mean, and mean what we say, as we'd expect any print encyclopedia to.

Inclusive/exclusive semantics is not the issue. The 'or' has to be inclusive, because if it were exclusive, then marriages of same-sex, same-gender couples would not be same-sex marriages. But regardless of which it is, when we say the first modern SSM was performed in the Netherlands in 2001, that means that nowhere in the world did an opposite-sex, same-gender couple get married in the 20th century. Yes, I expect most people to understand that we don't mean what we say. It's still unencyclopedic. — kwami (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a trip down memory lane in the archives. "Legal sex" and "gender" have been discussed multiple times here at this talk page. I saw you in one of those discussions. Decide what's best for the article based on sources and good reasoning from others. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heikocvijic, correct me if I'm wrong, but since you're in the edit history of this article (both the mainspace and the talk page), I have my doubts that you didn't see this discussion. At Talk:Same-sex adoption, you want to see what others think. But here, you get a supervote? Enlightening. You added two dictionary sources -- one about the meaning of marriage and the other about the meaning of same-sex -- when academic sources have been provided on this talk page for "or gender" and the acknowledgment of legal sex. If no one else is going to challenge it, I'm not going to linger on it any longer. Next time, though, don't use misleading edit summaries, such as "small change," when this is obviously a big discussion. If you weren't aware of this discussion, you wouldn't have added those inferior references your first edit back since March 29. You seriously added a reference defining "same-sex"? Well, I suppose that if one of the people complaining about "or gender" at Talk:Homosexuality tries something like that in the homosexuality article, I'll know where they may have gotten the idea from. Pretending that "sex" in "same-sex marriage" ever only refers to what is termed "biological sex" misinforms those coming to this page to read about the topic and don't know about the "or gender" and legal sex considerations. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a legal issue, it is of course legal sex that is relevant, however that's defined in a particular jurisdiction. The problem with the article is that sometimes "same sex" means "same sex", and sometimes it means "same sex or gender", and we're not consistent about that. E.g. because we have sources that same-sex marriage was legalized in 2001, we claim that same-gender marriage was legalized at that time, when AFAICT it always had been legal (at least usually). — kwami (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that argument doesn't justify Pretending that "sex" in "same-sex marriage" ever only refers to what is termed "biological sex", which is the POV your edits to this article have promoted. In jurisdictions where legal sex could be changed before same-sex marriage was legal, same-gender (corresponding to legal sex) marriages were indeed not legal before "same-sex marriage", in spite of what you personally might believe about biological sex vs. gender. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant of the history. Could you give an example of a country and era, pre-2001, where legal sex corresponded to gender? E.g. when two biological males could get married because one identified as female and consequently was legally declared to be female (without sex-reassignment surgery or medication)? Or conversely where it was illegal for a biological male and female to get married, because one identified as and was legally declared to be the opposite of their biological sex? — kwami (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what does sex-reassignment surgery or medication have to do with biological sex? By the most standard definition, neither surgery nor medication has any impact on "biological sex" at all (though they have been set as requirements in some jurisdictions for changing legal sex). So while I am not saying that legal sex corresponded to gender in a consistent way anywhere, prior to 2001, there were certainly many jurisdictions where legal sex could differ from "biological sex" (and from assigned sex, a different but related concept). What is more, there are currently countries, e.g. Italy, that do not allow same-sex marriage and that accept social gender as the basis for legal sex change - those jurisdictions, right now, meet your stipulation that two AMAB or AFAB people can marry, so long as one member of the couple is transgender and has changed their legal sex (and likewise, in Italy a couple where one member is trans and has changed their legal sex would not be allowed to marry, if the current gender is the same - male or female - for both partners: such couples would only be allowed a civil union, the same as other "same-sex couples"). Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about biological sex. We're simply talking about "sex". Change it back to "legal sex" if you want, but that's irrelevant to my argument.
Okay, Italy does allow two people of the same biological sex to marry if they have different social genders, based on social identity without any medical intervention. I didn't know that. Do we know that there were no countries like that in modern times before 2001? Because if there were, then the Netherlands in 2001 was not the first country with same-sex marriage. In addition, same-sex marriage is legal in Italy, in limited circumstances. However, we don't list Italy as a country with same-sex marriage.
Conversely, do we know that there were no countries before 2001 where two people of the opposite legal or biological sex were allowed to marry despite their gender identity being the same? Because again, if there were, then again the Netherlands was not the first. It might be there were no countries like Italy today before 2001. But there certainly were countries that were not like Italy, were a legal man and legal woman were allowed to marry despite being the same gender.
That is, whether there were or were not countries like Italy before 2001, the Netherlands was not the first country with same-sex marriage. That means that when we say the Netherlands was the first country in modern times with same-sex marriage, we're using a different definition of "same-sex marriage" than we start of with in the lead, that of a couple of the same "sex or gender". That's the contradiction that I'm trying to resolve. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think this hypothetical question, expressed by your interest in people of the opposite legal or biological sex, is relevant to this article. I am aware of no sources relevant to modern (late 20th and 21st-century) same-sex marriage that are concerned with anything other than legal sex and gender. Nobody defines "same-sex marriage" using your neologism, that would define it based on "biological sex"/sex assignment rather than legal sex and/or gender, in instances where sex assignment differs from legal sex. If you have any relevant sources, I am of course interested in seeing them, but to date your perspective seems to reflect an individual perspective on the matter, to AGF rather generously. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender [break][edit]

User:Newimpartial has repeated claims that opposite-sex marriage for people of the same gender was first legalized in 2001. This is a silly thing to say: such couples have always been able to get married, at least much of the time and in most countries. If same-sex marriage include marriage of opposite-sex couples, then we need to distinguish when we're speaking of same-sex couples. Otherwise the article becomes muddled. I tagged the lead for failing verification. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of what edit do you believe that I repeated claims that opposite-sex marriage for people of the same gender was first legalized in 2001? I don't believe that I have done any such thing. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kwamikagami, one version of the first sentence of the lead had specified "legal sex or gender". Would restoring this satisfy your concerns? I did not reinstate that version because it was in place for a much shorter time than the version I did reinstate, but it has the advantage of precision. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would matter much, though I don't have a problem with it. The problem is claiming that in the modern era, opposite-sex couples could not legally marry until 2001, if they were the same gender. I would be quite surprised if you were able to find a RS for that. There may be exceptions, but in much of the world it was only legal sex that counted when filing a marriage license. (By "marriage" I'm speaking of state recognition, not of the relationship itself.) — kwami (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But in this context, legal sex does not necessarily correspond to "biological sex", which rather the point. Please see my reply above. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly matters. We just say "sex". We can clarify the details in the lead or leave them for later in the intro, or even for the main text. The problem is not the sex part, but the gender part, where we claim that some couples of the opposite legal sex could not get married in the 20th century. — kwami (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But literally nobody is saying that. What people are in fact saying is that in some jurisdictions, legal sex can correspond to gender rather than to "biological sex", and (presumably for this reason, among others) reliable sources refer to same-sex marriage as relating to gender also, rather than only and always "sex". Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We say that, in the first paragraph! We say that SSM may be an opposite-sex couple with the same gender identity, and that that was universally illegal before 2001. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do not say that some couples of the opposite legal sex could not get married in the 20th century - that is not what "or gender" means. This is not a menu of options, it is a recognition that in some jurisdictions gender identity has become relevant, in place of sex. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If two people of the same gender count as SSM, despite not being same sex, then there was SSM in most of the world throughout the 20th century. But that's the opposite of what our sources claim, because they're using a different def of SSM. We need to rectify that. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by despite not being the same sex? The couples I am talking about are of the same legal sex in the jurisdiction concerned. It seems from your comments above that you are referring to something other than legal sex, but you have not provided any evidence that reliable sources on this topic share your interest in biological, as opposed to legal, sex. Also what is most relevant to this article is the evident fact that, in jurisdictions where gender is recognized as the basis of legal sex, marriages of two people of the same gender can be same-sex marriages even when the people concerned have differing sex assignment. The lead sentence of this article should not leave readers in any doubt about this: both your Talk comments and your proposed changes to the lead section have tended to promote such confusion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biological vs legal sex has nothing to do with it. How many times do I need to repeat that? You keep making that claim, which suggests you aren't reading my objections before responding to them.
If they're the same (legal or biological) sex, then we don't need to say SSM includes gender. That's the confusion. For clarity, we might want to specify legal sex, as I had added to the lead. But if SSM includes gender, then it includes people who are not the same legal sex, otherwise we'd simply say "same sex" and not insist on adding gender. So SSM includes people of the opposite legal sex, and this was not legal before 2001. That is almost certainly incorrect. Also, by that definition Italy has SSM, but it's not included in the list of countries with SSM. I'd like either a consistent definition, or at least to be clear where we're using contradictory definitions. — kwami (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem as I see it:
  • SSM may involve (a) couples of the same legal or biological sex, or (b) the opposite legal sex but the same social gender or gender identity
  • The Netherlands was the first country in modern times to legally recognize SSM. Prior to 2001, no SSM were recognized by any country.
  • Ergo, prior to 2001, there was no country in which a couple of the opposite legal sex but the same gender could be legally married.
I would like some evidence that that is true. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that I know of supporting that SSM may involve (b) the opposite legal sex but the same social gender or gender identity. But there are many, many sources specifying that a "same-sex" couple may include partners that are of the same legal sex or gender but who differ in "biological sex"/sex assignment. And these are "same-sex couples" for the purposes of the sources in this article - but couples that are of the same sex assignment but not the same legally recognized sex or gender are not "same-sex couples" in this sense, and are out of scope for the article. Nothing has been presented on this Talk page to cast any doubt on this, and it appears that the purpose of your objection, Kwamikigami, is precisely to create doubt about something that is clear in all sources. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time following that, as you conflate sex with gender. But if there are no sources supporting that SSM may involve the opposite legal sex but the same social gender or gender identity, then there's no purpose to adding 'or gender' to the lead, because 'sex' captures the entire range of people involved. The word 'gender' should therefor be removed again, as it only adds confusion, and contradicts our later sources. From your answer, it would appear that saying "of the same legal sex" resolves the issue. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, if we restored the definition "marriage of two people of the same legal sex", do you know of a single case of SSM where that definition would fail? Do you have a single RS that contradicts it? — kwami (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that many reliable sources on this topic use the term "gender" rather than "sex": some use it as part of the definition of same-sex marriage (as other editors have noted above) and some also use it when discussing specific aspects of the subject at length. Many of these RS dispute your (entirely unsourced and apparently POV) assertion that 'sex' captures the entire range of people involved - an assertion that I am not entirely able to decipher, since you have constantly been moving between claims about "biological sex" and "legal sex" without any clear recognition that these two concepts are as distinct from one another as "biological sex" is from "gender".
For example, lambda legal, an entirely reliable source on this topic, provides a definition of "legal gender" in its discussion of marriage:

This expression gets thrown around a lot, but there is no such magical wand to make you “legally” male or female when it comes to gender transition. Laws vary from state to state concerning the requirements for changing gender markers on birth certificates and other identity documents. Laws also vary concerning whether a state will accept such identity documents as conclusive with respect to your gender identity. Finally, context also can make a difference as to whether your gender identity will be respected. For example, a court might recognize your gender identify or the sex designation on your birth certificate as your “legal gender” in one marriage-related context, but then a government agency in the same state might deny you respect in another marriage-related context, despite the change to your gender marker.

This discussion is entirely relevant to the topic of this article - lambda legal offers many detailed observations about the interaction between the legal trajectories of gender recognition and same-sex marriage. It would be a severe distortion of this source's meaning to interpret it as "really" meaning "legal sex" when it says "legal gender", even though that distortion might seem to align the source with your own POV on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is disingenuous. Stop trying to pass off your arguments as mine, and then claim there is no evidence for them! You're the one who claimed that 'sex' captures the entire range of people involved; I merely paraphrased you to verify that I understood you correctly. As I said at the time. Now you say you have no evidence for your claim. Do you really not read the things you respond to?
And, as I've repeatedly told you, I purposefully do not distinguish biological from legal sex, because it isn't relevant. Whenever I say 'sex', that includes legal and biological sex, whichever is relevant in context. You say the difference is as great as the difference between sex and gender, but both are subsumed by the English word "sex", s.t. we can't do with sex and gender.
If we state that SSM includes people of the same gender but not the same sex, legally or otherwise, then we to verify that the Netherlands was the first country to recognize SSM by that definition, and that Italy does not have SSM by that definition. From what you've said, both of those claims, supported by multiple RS's, are false. This is the problem. I really don't care if we include gender or not in the definition, but I do care if the USA had limited SSM in the 1950s, or Italy does today, and we falsely claim that they did not. That is, I want our coverage to be factually accurate, without internal contradictions.
As for the Lambda Legal quote, that's claiming that legal definitions vary among jurisdictions. But that again is besides the point. When we say SSM is legal in a certain country, we of course mean according to the laws of that country. The fact that a different country has different laws is irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the fact that a different country has different laws is irrelevant, why do we even have this article, since this article is largely concerned with different laws in different countries? Reliable sources state that "same-sex marriage" is sometimes defined by legal gender rather than legal sex, and our article needs to follow the sources rather than insisting on our own pet notions. You have to date produced no sources at all to support your own preconception that biological sex is sometimes relevant to same-sex marriage and your related, unsupported presumption that gender is not relevant to same-sex marriage. Your only argument appears to rest on the fact that the phrase "same-sex marriage" contains the word "sex", but that point holds no weight when the sources themselves insist that legal sex and gender are the relevant factors.
As far as your STRAWMAN argument is concerned, I did not say anything that could reasonably be interpreted as 'sex' captures the entire range of people involved. To be clear, I have made two statements that contradict your summary directly: (1) "biological sex" does not adequately define whether a marriage is or is not "same-sex", and (2) the concept of "gender" is sometimes needed to define whether or not a marriage is "same-sex". And unlike your statements, these are actually based on reliable sources on the topic.
Finally, please do not accuse me of making disingenuous statements - that is both false and a personal attack, and isn't an appropriate statement to make on a Talk page, regardless of the strength of your feelings. You don't get to strawman my argument and then call me disingenuous for objecting to the mischaracterization. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making the arguments you repeatedly claim I'm making. Please read what you respond to.
In that context the fact that different countries have different laws is irrelevant. Obviously.
You have said that there are no cases where SSM is based on gender rather than sex, then reverse yourself, then reverse yourself again.
I don't care about biological sex. I've said that over and over and over, and yet you continue to make that claim.
LL says that SSM may involve same sex or gender. Fine. I accept that. But according to you, Italy allows marriage between people of the same sex. Does that mean that italy has SSM? The US and many other countries allowed marriage between people of the same gender in the 20th century, if only because the laws were based solely on biological sex. Does that mean that much of the world had SSM throughout the 20th century? Do you see what I'm getting at?
The problem with adding 'legal', which is not supported by your source, is what happens to a couple that considers themselves to be same-sex or gender, if their identity is contradicted by the legal definitions of their state? Are we going to tell them that they aren't what they identify as? If they have a summer vacation home in a country with different legal definitions, will they be in a SSM in the summer and an opposite-sex marriage in the winter? that might seem like a silly question, but i mean it seriously -- that appears to be the consequence of your wording. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no small irony in you accusing me of synth when you make statements - like Italy allows marriage between people of the same sex - which are pure WP:SYNTH. The only way to parse this statement as true would be to insist - without sources - that same-sex marriage is defined in terms of biological sex. You say I don't care about biological sex, and then you make statements like the one about Italy, which are blatantly false unless you slip in the assumption - without sources - that same-sex marriage is defined in terms of biology. What is obviously true is that the legal basis of same-sex marriage in Italy is legal sex/gender, not biological sex, and so two AFAB or two AMAB people can marry each other if one partner (but not both) have made legal transition. This is obvious, and I am currently unable to come up with a good-faith ground for you to defend your absurd position on this.
Clearly you are not understanding what I have been typing, since you claim that I have said they that are no cases where SSM is based on gender rather than sex but then I reverse myself. What I am actually saying is that SSM is based on the legal concepts of sex and/or gender that apply in specific jurisdictions. These are seldom if ever based on "biological sex", in jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage: they are actually based on legal sex and/or legal gender, depending on the context.
You make an obviously false statement when you say that The US and many other countries allowed marriage between people of the same gender in the 20th century, if only because the laws were based solely on biological sex. The topic of this article is same-sex marriage, and by the time the movement for same-sex marriage had any effect, laws in the US and many other countries were not based solely on biological sex. If you have some arbitrary interest in gender identities prior to the advent of legally recognized gender transition, that is fine, but none of that is relevant to this article, given the actual sequence of historical events.
I dont have time to address all of your misapprehensions, but one basic one: there is no relevance to a couple that considers themselves to be same-sex or gender - what matters is the sex or gender of the people in the couple. What each partner "considers themselves to be" is only relevant in jurisdictions that use gender self-identification as a legal framework (and only for a couple where a partner actually self-identifies in a way that carries legal weight). Perhaps this is now clear? This is how the reliable sources that I have read uniformly address the topic of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're accusing me of making your claims, and then deriding your own claims as synth, as if that were my doing. You're the one who claimed that Italy allowed marriage between people who are of the same sex as long as they're different gender. I don't know anything about that, it's all from you. Now you're conflating sex and gender again, while insisting they remain distinct. Your argument is completely incoherent. That's the reason for my absurd position: I'm trying to make sense of your argument.
So perhaps we'd better try again. In Italy, can two people of the same legal sex get married, as long as they're of different gender?
You now say 'legal sex and/or legal gender'. This is perhaps progress. Is there a difference between legal sex and legal gender, or can we safely conflate them? Does legal gender have anything to do with gender identity? You speak of 'making the transition', which suggests that perhaps some medical procedure is involved.
My point about the 20th century was that two people who identified as men were allowed to marry if the state considered them to be man and woman, regardless of whether that was based purely on biological sex. that is, because they were the same gender, they had a same-sex marriage, and our claim that the first ssm was performed in the netherlands in 2001 is contradicted by our definition of ssm.
The period before legally recognized gender transition is indeed relevant, unless by 'in modern times' you mean only the period postdating that development. in that case, 'modern times' starts in a different year for each country, and there may still be countries that are in 'pre-modern times' today. so what period is our historical section supposed to cover?
In your last para, you again conflate sex and gender with 'what matters is the sex or gender of the people in the couple,' but then say that gender identity doesn't matter in most jurisdictions.
If two people who self-identify as the same gender, but who are the opposite legal sex, get married, is that SSM? — kwami (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Italy, did you not read what I actually said initially? I was quite precise: What is more, there are currently countries, e.g. Italy, that do not allow same-sex marriage and that accept social gender as the basis for legal sex change. You are the one parsing this as allowing marriage between people who are of the same sex as long as they're different gender. That isn't what the sources on Italy say, so that isn't what I say - people who are of the same sex as long as they're different gender is a phrase that I never used, that isn't accurate, and that you keep repeating back to me as though you believed I had used it. Where I live, that action is referred to as gaslighting.

Perhaps you are not familiar with gender identity and transition, so I will AGF as best I can. You ask, Does legal gender have anything to do with gender identity? You speak of 'making the transition', which suggests that perhaps some medical procedure is involved. However, I have already helpfully answered these when I wrote, above, SSM is based on the legal concepts of sex and/or gender that apply in specific jurisdictions. These are seldom if ever based on "biological sex", in jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage: they are actually based on legal sex and/or legal gender, depending on the context. And, on "transition", I have already quoted lambda legal: Laws vary from state to state concerning the requirements for changing gender markers on birth certificates and other identity documents. ... For example, a court might recognize your gender identify or the sex designation on your birth certificate as your “legal gender” in one marriage-related context, but then a government agency in the same state might deny you respect in another marriage-related context, despite the change to your gender marker. So, whether not a "medical procedure" is involved is a matter of jurisdiction and of context, as I have been saying all along.

So I am no longer certain whether you are making your own original research, or if you are making a straw goat of (what you believe to be) my position, when you say that is, because they were the same gender, they had a same-sex marriage. As I have been saying consistently throughout, I don't believe any sources on this topic define gender identity as relevant to the topic when it conflicts with legally recognized sex and legally recognized gender. I keep adding words to expressions that already seem sufficiently precise, to me, because you keep misstatements my position. Is this clear to you now? This is actually the same position I articulated previously.

Why do you think that The period before legally recognized gender transition is relevant to this article? Are there any jurisdictions where same-sex marriage was achieved or even seriously pursued as a political objective, in which no legal provisions existed for gender transition? I am not aware of any.

Finally, please either substantiate your claim that I conflate sex with gender, which to the best of my knowledge I have not done, or withdraw the accusation. (My working hypothesis here is that you don't have an operational understanding of what "conflation" means.) Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone disagreeing with you or being unable to follow your argument isn't "gaslighting". Where I come from, that's called assuming bad faith.
I asked you for an example of when the definition of SSM as being between couples of the same sex was inadequate, and you gave Italy as an example. I then drew the obvious (to me) conclusion and asked if that's what you meant, and wasn't able to get an answer I could understand.
You now speak of legal gender, which is a change from earlier, when you spoke of just 'gender' and legal sex. That is a critical difference. You may have intended legal gender all along, but if so I would've realized that earlier if you'd given straightforward answers to the questions I asked to tease out what you meant, rather than dismissing them as being asked in bad faith.
As for why I think the period before legally recognized gender transition is relevant, because we say it is! In the lead we say that "In the modern era, marriage equality for same-sex couples was first legally acknowledged in the Netherlands." The "modern era" is generally accepted as being from 1500 CE to present; in the context of this article, it actually sounds like anything postdating the fall of the Roman Empire. Therefor something that occurred in the 1950s, or the 1850s for that matter, is in the "modern era" and is relevant to our claims of what has happened in the modern era.
But if we're speaking of legal gender rather than gender in general (such as gender identity), then that allays some of my concern, since the legal distinction between sex and gender is indeed relatively recent. So let me ask you this: if a couple identifies as being the same sex, but are legally the opposite sex, are they in a same-sex marriage, or does legality trump identity? (I suspect from your answers to the next thread that the answer is they are not.) And if they move to a country with different laws, does the nature of their marriage change, so that they're in a SSM in country A but an OSM in country B? (Again, I suspect the answer is it does, but I want to clarify.)
I was coming from the opposite POV, because the editor who started this thread, and who wanted to restore the word 'gender' to the def, said, "'gender' here is referring to 'gender identity.' [...] sources such as SOC 6, Introduction to Sociology say, 'Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally recognized marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity'." By that definition, which you'll notice doesn't mention legal sex or legal gender, the US had SSM in 1850 and Italy has SSM today. That is my concern: that our definition of SSM not contradict what we go on to say about it, that we don't covertly assume two conflicting definitions of SSM, each supported by RS's, without distinguishing between them.
As for you conflating sex and gender, I repeatedly asked you to clarify the difference in this context, and you repeatedly replied with "sex/gender". Just in case I didn't actually know what the word 'conflate' meant, I just looked it up. Lexico has "combine (two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc.) into one." Which is exactly what you repeatedly did with the wording "sex/gender". — kwami (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much more clear I could have been when I brought up the example of Italy: I was talking about jurisdictions where legal sex could differ from "biological sex": what I said was there are currently countries, e.g. Italy, that do not allow same-sex marriage and that accept social gender as the basis for legal sex change. I was not giving an example of when the definition of SSM as being between couples of the same sex was inadequate, I was giving an example of an instance where the legal sex/gender construct differs from "biological sex". And by using a slash just there, I am not conflating sex and gender - I am citing an example where they are in fact interrelated out there in the world (in this case, in jurisdictions where the construct of "legal sex" relies upon gender identity as part of how it operates in some cases). By referring to a case where the two are not mutually exclusive, but rather are complexly interrelated, I am not conflating them. You can ask me for a simplistic distinction between sex and gender as many times as you want, but I won't give you one, since the distinctions out there in the world are more nuanced than that. This is particularly true in areas where "legal sex" is relevant, because the latter concept has much more in common with "gender" than it does with "biological sex" (since legal sex is, when all is said and done, clearly a social construct). Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So since your Italian example is irrelevant, we're back to square one. If all your examples depend on legal sex, why do we want gender in the definition? It's superfluous. Just say, "SSM is legally recognized marriage between two people of the same legal sex."
Are there any cases where that definition would be inadequate? That is what I've been asking from the beginning, and have yet to receive an intelligible answer.
Now, if we clarified that we meant legal gender, as you switched to partway through this thread, then adding that wording probably wouldn't matter. Of course, we could have OR or SYNTH issues since AFAIK we have no sources that say that. The original definitions advocated in this thread by Enlightenedstranger0, to justify their restoration of the word 'gender' that I had removed, was "legally recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender" and (in the context of the US) "legally recognized marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity." That doesn't work, for reasons we've both pointed out. Yet it is reliably sourced. We therefor have RS's that define SSM in a way that is incompatible with the RS's we use for the history of SSM. This is the problem.
I don't have a problem with "legal sex", assuming it's in any source that we use (assuming we use any), nor with "legal gender" (or at least no problem occurs to me). But "biological sex" is a problem, as you've pointed out, and "social gender" / "gender identity" is a problem as I've pointed out. What I want to know is how to work this out. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gender is relevant because (1) the RS on this topic (same-sex marriage) report that it is relevant, and (2) more specifically, because in various jurisdictions, "social gender" and "gender identity" are used to define legal access to marriage (i.e., "legal sex" and "legal gender", depending on the context). There is nothing editors need to work out: we are obliged to follow the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But which sources? We have sourced definitions, advocated by an editor on this talk page, that mean SSM occurs in Italy today and occurred in the US in the 1850's, definitions diametrically opposed to the one you advocate. That is obviously something to work out. I don't want those definitions to appear in this article -- I want the one you use (legal sex and/or legal gender). So, how do we go about doing that? — kwami (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears to amount to "if we use certain available definitions for SYNTH, they break". So let's not use them for SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that certain RS definitions contradict other RS definitions, so that if we're not careful this article will contradict itself. As you pointed out, the definition we use in the 'gender' article is a social/identity one. We currently state that SSM can be a couple of the same gender. Since we don't (and never have) said we mean legal gender, the reader is left to infer that what we mean by gender is what we mean by gender in the 'gender' article, which is contrary to what we mean by gender in this article. For consistency, we need to clarify that we mean legal gender, despite RS definitions to the contrary. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is there actually conscensus for this?[edit]

Same-sex marriage has been defined in this article as that 'of two people of the same legal sex or gender.' Do most editors agree with this? That definition clearly does not match even the name of the article. Defining same-sex marriage as a simple legal procedure is a bit dehumanising to people in those unions. Legal gender is irrelevant because it first assumes same-sex marriage is solely a legal status, ignoring cultural and social contexts. The most objective definition should be only about sex. I believe we should change the current definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikocvijic (talkcontribs) 19:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most objective definition should be only about sex: do you actually have any sources that support this statement? I get that some editors believe this, but as long as sources don't, their beliefs are pretty much irrelevant. As far as I know, essentially all the RS on this topic are concerned with legal sex and/or gender. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
marriage is only a legal concept? If that's the case then this entire article is extremely flawed. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage Marriage is defined as an institution. https://www.britannica.com/topic/marriage 'The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship.' Even the article marriage does not define it as always legal. Still, 'same-sex' is a pretty simple concept which the definition of this article does not encapsulate Heikocvijic (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the concept "same-sex" when applied to marriage has always applied to legal sex and/or gender. Please note that the term legal is relevant to sex, not to marriage - this is not an attempt to specify "same-sex legal marriage" but rather "marriage of persons of the same legal sex or gender". I hope this helps. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully disagree with this. It is saying marriage is only a social institution if it applies to straight people. This is homophobic. It is also not true to assume that the term 'same-sex marriage' only applies to legal marriage since most coverage on it has been about the effort to make it legal, understandably. The words marriage and same-sex have definitions, and saying gay people can only experience the institution of marriage on a legal level does not add up to the definition of marriage. The article doesn't just talk about marriage as a legal institution either Heikocvijic (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the coverage of SSM assumes legal recognition of the marriage. A gay couple shacking up is marriage in the social sense, but is not considered a SSM.
I have friends, an opposite-sex couple, who lived together. They considered themselves married. After ten years, they decided to make it official. They asked the county clerk to recognize their marriage, and he said he couldn't do that, because they weren't married. That is, to the clerk, the legal recognition, not the social institution, was the marriage. They then asked to speak to his supervisor, and he said, "sure, we'll recognition your marriage", and stamped the marriage certificate. Legally I don't know whether they were married or not before that point, but all the coverage of SSM assumes that they weren't.
At a national level, "marriage" means legal recognition of marriage. I don't know about societies that consider shacking up to be marriage and accept same-sex couples who shack up as married, but we speak of countries legalizing SSM, and afaik that always means legal recognition of the marriage. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
then if the article is only about legalisation of same-sex marriage, then the title is incorrect. The article is not only about that, and the sections about it are in the article (e.g. the table of countries and territories that have legalised it). The article is not about marriage only as a legal institution Heikocvijic (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do RS's ever speak of a same-sex couple shacking up in the 1950s as "married"? We need to follow RS's. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already stated my position. The definition of SSM in this article is fully a legal one, implying the concept of marriage for gay people is only a mere legal status. That does not match with the definition of marriage, hence with the name of the ssm article. If this article will only care about the legal aspect fine, but it does not. I respect your positions but I disagree with them Heikocvijic (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A compound word may mean something other than the sum of its parts. If the 'same sex' part of SSM doesn't mean same sex, then the 'marriage' part doesn't need to mean marriage. SSM is a term for a specific cultural and political phenomenon. If you have sources which use the term for something more, then great, we can expand the article to include them. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is saying marriage is only a social institution if it applies to straight people. This is homophobic. What? You are replying to my comment, but neither I nor anyone else in this discussion has said anything like this.
It is also not true to assume that the term 'same-sex marriage' only applies to legal marriage since most coverage on it has been about the effort to make it legal, understandably. The words marriage and same-sex have definitions - I don't see the relevance of any of this to the current discussion, except the point at the end that "same-sex" has a definition. It does, and on the topic of this article, that definition is "of the same legal sex or gender". Nobody in this discussion has put forward any evidence to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe talk to more LGBT people? :) I don't want to get too involved but for what it's worth, I *am* in a SSM and it's very much about the legal status and implications for us and a lot of other people in SSM we know, especially those surrounding next of kin status, the legal status of a surviving partner and (though not in our case) that of children. While we enjoyed celebrating the event with friends, we didn't do it to somehow announce it (everyone who needed to know already did...) or because it changed how we felt about each other, we don't need a registrar who doesn't know us for that. If you look at the history of SSM and its precursors, it always was to a largel extent about the terrible positions the lack of a legal status put LGBT couples in when running up against anything where you need to prove this relationship is formal, not just casual. So no, I'm not offended by the legalistic aspects in the description. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Akerbeltz. You may be trying to keep out of it, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the thread above. We're just going around in circles. What is SSM -- is it only based on legally recognized sex or gender, or does gender identity play a role? If the latter, then our history section is wrong; if the former, our def needs to be clear about that and have a RS to back it up. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually get it why there is this furious debate above. To me, certainly in practice, SSM is about what it says in your legal documents (birth cert, passport, whatever) and your prospective spouse's and whether the combination of the two entitles you to (religious or civil) marriage and the entailed legal consequences. The sex stated in your documents may or may not coincide with your gender identity but I have never seen or heard of marriage paperwork that asks you what your gender identity is, it's all about what your legal sex is (whether that's the one you were born with or - where that is possible - what you changed it to) and whether the combination thereof in- or excludes you from marriage with your chosen partner.
As it's biology, which isn't as binary as humans sometimes think it is or would like it to be, I'm sure there is a grey area where you get combinations of partners which seem to defy the mixed-sex model of marriage, but I don't see what that should prevent the core definition of SSM being about people of the same legal sex being allowed to marry. It's in a way the same as other legal entitlements that are gender-based, take retirement age (in places where that is still different depending on your legal sex), which is also based on your legal sex, not your gender identity though of course you can change that - legally - since the gender recognition act. But again that's about the legal sex in your paperwork, irrespective of whether you identify with that or not.
Whether it should be based on gender identity is a different debate altogether to my mind. Not sure if that helps? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS the bit of the debate about whether the historic semantics of the word marriage mean it cannot be used for SSM, that's absurd. Sure, people who like language often study the derivation of words but every living language is replete with words which have shifted meanings, some over a long time, some abruptly. Not ever hoover is a Hoover and not every kleenex is a Kleenex but hey, genericization will do its thing. A deer used to be any animal, not just a cervid. Does that mean you can prosecute someone for shooting a duck and claim they shot a deer because a deer originally was any animal? Of course not. So whatever 'marriage' meant 200 years ago or 2000 years ago, the fact is that people use it in the term SSM to refer to two people of the same legal sex getting married. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, our sources covering which countries have SSM, and the history of SSM, use your definition or at least something close to it. If we consistently used that definition, there would be no problem.
(We could have a section on non-recognized SSM if we had sources to demonstrate its notability. My working def of 'marriage' is 'people in a sexual or romantic relationship move in together to form a family'. Move in together, you're married; move out, you're divorced. That is, same-sex couples have been getting married for forever, it's just usually been under the table. Everything else is social/legal recognition for communities that are too large for everyone to know everyone's business.)
But we have RS's with contrary definitions -- biological sex, social gender, and gender identity. By those definitions, Italy has SSM today and the US had SSM in 1850.
Do you think "legal sex" is adequate? Do we need to add "legal gender"? — kwami (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that this article's content must, as with all other WP articles, be based on what the reliable sources on the topic actually say, and not on OR definitions and SYNTH observations made by editors. Just a reminder. Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the OR that you insisted on making yourself, against the very source you used for it? — kwami (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re marriage' is 'people in a sexual or romantic relationship move in together to form a family I'm not sure I would concur with that, however, there's often a difference between the legal definition of a thing, common interpretations and individual interpretations. Take foraging, which is legal but what type of foraging is actually legal is quite a house of cards ... you can legally forage for private use and on private land, the land owner can't stop you but if you're doing it without their permission, they can kick you off their land and confiscate your blackberries. You can forage dandelion leaves but you're actually breaking the law if you're digging up dandelion roots because it's illegal to dig up 'wild plants' (however common). And so on. In contrast, most people have a much more simplistic interpretation of the right to forage - which is often legally wrong. And on a personal level, I think it's morally wrong to let apples (cultivated plants are excluded from foraging rights) rot on the ground even when on private land so my foraging is sometimes ... well anyway :) In many circumstances, these interpretations live happily side by side even though they're legally in conflict. But the bottom line is usually when two people disagree about something - whether that's about the apple someone just picked off the ground or in cases of, say, separation and the ensuing arguments over who gets what. At that point the only thing that counts is the letter of the law. And if that has no concept of unmarried cohabitation and does not bestow any rights on cohabitees (even ignoring the question of gender), then you may have considered yourself married for the last 50 years, but in the eyes of the law you're unmarried and can't take half the house and half the cat.
Personally I think the old lede was fine and should stay as it was, but we could by all means have a section (with pretty refs of course) about cases in the grey area where in the absence of a legal framework for SSM there were (isolated) cases of de-facto SSM. My brother's cat may know how to 'fetch', doesn't mean cats in general do fetching :) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, what the law recognizes may be different. But for most people and for most of human history, 'marriage' was simply moving in together. It still does mean that in much of the world, just not in modern law-based societies.
I don't know about any grey areas for SSM, I was just trying to provide for what to do if it turns out that Heikocvijic above has a point.
The problem with the current def in the lead is that we just say 'gender'. If a reader isn't sure what that means, they might read our 'gender' article. If they apply that definition to this article, they'll notice that the USA had SSM in 1850, contrary to our claim that the Netherlands was first in 2001 (as supported by all our sources), and that Italy has SSM today, contrary to our country list (and again all our sources). Therefor, it's obvious that we don't mean what we say. That's unprofessional: in an encyclopedia, we should say what we mean and mean what we say.
Similarly, we just say 'sex'. If the reader double checks with our 'sex' article, they'll find that 'sex' means biological sex. That means that the USA had SSM as soon as it developed sex-reassignment surgery or other methods of changing one's legal sex, and again that there's SSM in Italy today. Regardless of any RS definitions to the contrary, the sources used by this article assume a definition of legal sex and/or legal gender.
The easy solution is to say 'legal sex and legal gender' in the lead, and remove the wording that I added that by SSM, a section of this article assumes marriage between two people of the same legal sex. The more cumbersome solution would be to change the leads of the sex and gender articles to say, in SSM, 'sex'/'gender' mean legally recognized sex and gender, not what we mean by sex/gender in this article. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another option - to which editors often seem strangely resistant - is simply not to have wikilinks that might mislead the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would help, but of course any reader who wasn't sure exactly what we meant, or who had an understanding that seemed to be at odds with ours, might still look up those articles, which would then contradict this article. I just changed the links in 'sex or gender' to legal gender (which also has a rd from 'legal sex'). If that sticks, I think it should resolve my concerns. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But for most people and for most of human history, 'marriage' was simply moving in together. It still does mean that in much of the world did/does it? I have family in quite a lot of places and in some, the time when marriage did not come with an official document is within living memory but that never meant 'just moving in'. In fact, 'just moving in' would have constituted a scandal up until not too long ago, there was always some social procedure that had to be followed unless you wanted to risk being cast out. But I strongly concur with the position that if 'gender' is taken to mean 'the gender someone identfies as, whether it matches the biology or not' and if 'sex' means 'the (usually binary) choice of M or F made on official documents' then 'gender' has no place in the lede. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in places where that's the only kind of marriage there is. Set up house together and you're married. It would only be a scandal if others thought the relationship was inappropriate -- like if you were siblings or already married to someone else, both of which happen from time to time. Not a scandal but an object of humor if the woman's twice the age of the man. I've never heard of a SSM, and that would be quite the scandal, but presumably ppl would still accept that they were married.
Before we had laws and govts, the whole world was like that, though in some places there might've been ceremonies involved. Even in the US I've had friends who set up house together and considered themselves married (for a decade) and only eventually filed it with the county clerk because of the legal benefits of doing so. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"metropolitan"ism[edit]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the only Talk discussion I can find about the inclusion or exclusion of these terms is this one, in which only one editor supports inclusion of the term. I am unaware of any relevant sources for "metropolitan", and no documented consensus for its use. Presumably, therefore, it should not be used in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were several discussions, and this was the consensus a year ago. Of course, consensus can change, so I don't know if it's worth the effort to dig up the discussions, but we need some way to clarify when we don't mean the sovereign state recognized by the UN. The Netherlands legalized SSM in 2001, Belgium and Canada in 2003, and the US in 2004, but we don't normally give those years as the dates of legalization in Canada or the US because only some of the constituent states passed SSM. But the same is true of the Netherlands, where only one of the constituent states got SSM. Even today, the Netherlands as a whole doesn't have SSM. So we need some wording to clarify which "Netherlands", "Denmark" and "New Zealand" we're speaking of in any particular instance.
As for "metropolitan" not being in the sources, are "proper" or "itself" in the sources? We don't need to source the exact wording except in definitions that ppl might want clarification on. "Metropolitan" is used for these entities in the literature. (Metropolitan France is even the name of our article.) "Proper" has its own problems. When we say "France proper", we imply that the overseas regions are not properly part of France. That would be like saying "US proper" for the contiguous US, as if Alaska and Hawaii were not in the US itself, or the "UK proper" for Great Britain, as if Northern Ireland were not in the UK itself. Some of the overseas territories are not in France, but the overseas departments are. I think "France itself" and "New Zealand itself" would probably be better. — kwami (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You advocating something and another editor disagreeing with you - with no other participants - does not generate a consensus for your proposal. Newimpartial (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't checked the talk history very well. The discussion went on for quite a while with multiple editors. — kwami (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link (or diff). The last discussion I found was the one I linked above; the other discussions I found used the term "metropolitan", but did not discuss whether or not the term should be included in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's those other discussions I'm talking about. If there was no objection to including the term in the article by those discussing it, and it's been there for a year, then that's consensus. The objection you linked to was someone who thought the term was antiquated, so I provided some recent refs and they had no further objections. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: you are arguing that although multiple editors have removed the terms in question, the terms have consensus because the only time the issue was discussed, there was one editor on each side? And that editor didn't answer your most recent comment, so therefore consensus was reached to retain them? That isn't the way anything works, as you should know. Presumably I have misunderstood. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said you'd found the other discussions. How is that "one editor"? — kwami (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the other discussions I found, nobody was advocating that "metropolitan" should be used in article space. If you have any diffs where someone besides yourself expresses that argument, I'd love to see them. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that, while we do indeed have an article Metropolitan France, that article defines its subject as the area of France which is geographically in Europe. This collective name for the European regions of France is used in everyday life in France but has no administrative meaning, which makes it unsuitable for use in this article, doesn't it? Newimpartial (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it unsuitable? If you mean something else by "France proper", then your wording is quite obscure, and you should provide the appropriate link yourself. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What reason do you have for using "metropolitan France" as opposed to any of the other informal labels that could be used to indicate the continental territory of France? Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Common usage, and people know exactly what you mean. Which "informal labels" did you have in mind? — kwami (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But other editors have disputed tour "common usage" claim, and Metropolitan France indicates that there is no official definition. So really, any informal label seems as good as "metropolitan" (a term you are also inserting into the article in contexts where the term is not used at all AFAICT, and is therefore likely to confuse readers). Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a longstanding French policy to avoid having clear formal and administrative terms that divide France into a central part and what some might call colonial possessions, but obviously in practice such a term is often needed and it's commonly "metropolitan". AFAIK that's not a customary term with regards to the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom or other such states. They don't have the same stance as France and do have distinctive terms to which we could refer in footnotes, eg the Netherlands[1]; Denmark[2]; the United Kingdom[3] - assuming those are the desired exclusions. Would that approach work here? NebY (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do that in the list of countries already, and I suppose I'm okay with that. My problem is saying that SSM was legalized in "the Netherlands" in 2001 when we don't say that it was legalized in Canada in 2003 or in the US in 2004, which it was. The date we give for Canada and the US (also Brazil, the UK and eventually will for Mexico) is the date it was adopted for the entire country (or near enough). The Netherlands, Denmark and NZ are different -- there we give the date of the first territory to adopt SSM, rather than the the whole state. That's okay in the timeline, because we give flags to the Faroes and Greenland, and presumably will for Curacao and the Cook Isls as well, so the context makes it clear enough, but it is a problem in the lead, where we simply say that "the Netherlands" was the first country without explaining that it wasn't the UN state of the Netherlands, but rather the sub-national country of the Netherlands within that kingdom. The first whole state with SSM was Belgium in 2003. We have no idea when the whole of the Netherlands might have SSM. I'm fine with saying the Netherlands was first, because that's how our sources have it, but we should be clear that it wasn't (and isn't) the entire kingdom, and IMO a fn isn't good enough for that. Footnotes should be avoided, especially in the lead, if proper wording can accomplish the same thing. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if anyone disputes that "Metropolitan France" is common usage. That's why the article is where it is per COMMONNAME. But if you think the term is not used at all for the other countries, then you haven't read the threads you claim to have read. The complaint was that it was old-fashioned, and indeed it was much more common during the colonial era, when it was often used to distinguish the ruling country from its colonial possessions, but it's not hard to find modern usage. Not for the UK, because that would be a tautology (not even the Isle of Man is in the UK, so 'metropolitan UK' would just be the UK), but for Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, etc. It's not terribly common for countries other than France, but it is less loaded than words like "proper" or "itself". I mean, I don't know what country you're from, but how would the people of Hawaii or Alaska feel at being excluded from the US "proper" or "USA itself"? That's why we say "continental US" and "contiguous US" instead. "Continental" might work for the Netherlands and Denmark, since in 2001 Bonaire etc. weren't part of the Netherlands "proper". — kwami (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with "continental" or even possibly "European". I expect we can find either of those in sources, but (aside from France), I can't find "Metropolitan" in this sense in any sources.
A couple of additional points: it seems ridiculous to me to introduce any of these qualifiers when the only reason to do so is to specify the both/and: that SSM is legal in both the metropole and in the periphery. Why would we do this?
Also, you seem to confuse cases like the Realm of New Zealand (which consists of New Zealand and several other island nations and territories) and cases like Canada (which is a federal system composed of provinced and territories). The difference between one Canadian province having SSM as a result of a court ruling and the country having SSM as a result of legislation is obviously salient; you can't map that situation onto "mini-empires" where the European territory might enact SSM but not apply it to overseas territories. You seem to believe that when people refer to "the Netherlands" or "Denmark", they might be referring to the wider Realm, but I believe we should be following the sources and mentioning these distinctions only when relevant (and then, using language that follows the sources). Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they were territories, like American Samoa or Bermuda, I'd agree with you. But they're not: they're constituent countries within a UN state, like N. Ireland or Wales. These aren't empires like what the UK possesses, but confederations like the UK itself. We wouldn't say the UK had SSM if it were only in England.
The UN state of the UK comprises 4 constituent countries: England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. The UN state of the Netherlands also comprises 4 constituent countries: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten. The significant difference for our purposes is that one of those countries has the same name as the state.
That's like if "England" comprised 4 constituent countries, one of which was also called "England". If that were the case (as it actually is with some informal American usage), then when would "England" mean the country, and when would it mean the UK? That's what we're dealing with here. (And one of the reasons why Americans are constantly being informed that the UN state is not called "England".)
As for current usage, how about The Law of the European Union and the European Communities, published by Wolters Kluwer (a Dutch publisher) in 2018?
"The Dutch Antillean islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, although since 2010 more closely tied to metropolitan Netherlands as “special municipalities” are still OCTs (Overseas countries and territories) like the other Dutch Caribbean islands of Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curaçao."
Or A History of NATO: The First Fifty Years, vol. 3, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2019:
"it was hoped that a new deal over Greenland might improve the protection of metropolitan Denmark by a quid pro quo"
Or Circulation in Third World Countries from 2014:
"Already half of all Niueans live in Auckland and almost half of all Cook Islanders live in metropolitan New Zealand."
I just picked one each, but there are more if you're interested.
As for replacing "metropolitan" with "continental" or "European", "continental New Zealand" would be technically accurate, since Zealandia is a continent, but I suspect it would cause more confusion than it would avoid. "European" wouldn't work, of course. "Metropolitan" on the other hand is unambiguously correct. Either "continental" or "European" Netherlands would be fine. "European Denmark" wouldn't work because the Faroes are counted as part of Europe, but "continental Denmark" should be fine.
So if we wish to be consistent, the two options I see are "metropolitan" and "continental", if you don't mind "continental New Zealand". Another possibility is "mainland", but that might be confusing when it comes to offshore islands. If you don't like either, I don't see the problem with the perfectly acceptable word "metropolitan". — kwami (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to use the terms that are predominantly used in the sources in each case. As far as I can tell, that would probably result in "metropolitan France", "continental Denmark", the "continental Netherlands" and "New Zealand proper".

I also think it is misleading for you to refer to any of these instances as "confederations", as none of them exhibit such a structure. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Confederation" is perhaps not the best word, but they aren't "territories" either. They're constituent countries within UN member states.
"New Zealand proper" has the problem that it implies that Niue and the Cooks are not properly part of (the realm of) New Zealand, which they are -- they actually define the realm. But I have found reference to Angelo (2011) Constitutional Law in New Zealand, which evidently uses that wording. (I can't access it to verify.) So I'm okay with your proposed wording. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think -- I used your wording in the article, and also "continental Australia". — kwami (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "continental"'s better than "metropolitan" which for BrEng readers would be very confusing (except when used of France); metropolitan relates to large cities here, so legalising SSM in eg the metropolitan Netherlands would seem like legalising cannabis in Amsterdam. Current politics would make talk of "the UK proper" highly provocative, and might elsewhere. But states vary so much; there may well be more familiar terms for their components in some cases. In at least one, talk of "continental" or "proper" makes a false distinction. Whatever their previous statuses, the Cook Islands and Niue are not part of New Zealand; they are sovereign states recognised as having ffull treaty-making capacity and having membership of WHO, UNESCO, etc. We'd need to be explicit if we wished to speak of the Realm of New Zealand but if we only wish to talk of New Zealand without inculding the Cook Islands or Niue but including the hundreds of islands that are part of it, we simply speak of and wikilink New Zealand. NebY (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, NZ seems to be rather more devolved than Neth and Denmark. But sources do say that many Cook Islanders reside in metropolitan New Zealand, presumably to avoid the confusion of those residing in the Realm of New Zealand: New Zealand in the early 1950s was a realm of more than just metropolitan New Zealand ... are to be educated to succeed in two worlds — one the traditional Cook Islands and the other metropolitan New Zealand ... already half of all Niueans live in Auckland and almost half of all Cook Islanders live in metropolitan New Zealand ... a timely return to metropolitan New Zealand [after a 2-yr tour in the Cook Isls]. — kwami (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of instances! My searches for metropolitan New Zealand quickly threw up (church references aside) 2021/2022 instances: rural and metropolitan New Zealand alike; throughout regional, rural and metropolitan New Zealand and Australia; Rural New Zealand is ahead of metropolitan New Zealand, and also a 2005-2008 medical study at a publicly funded teaching hospital and a private day-surgical clinic in metropolitan New Zealand where it might have either sense. Now I'd be scared to use it either way! NebY (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami--I understand (though do not necessarily agree with) your take on the Netherlands and its overseas territories, vis-a-vis same-sex marriage, but the argument is far less clear to me when it comes to France. It is entirely possible that I am just ignorant here, but could you please explain that for me? If not, no worries. Dumuzid (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the Netherlands, they're not territories, any more than Scotland and Northern Ireland are territories of England. Saying that "the Netherlands" passed SSM when only one of the constituent countries had would be like saying "the United Kingdom" passed SSM back when only England and Wales had.
As for France, I think it's useful to clarify that SSM isn't just in what people might think of as "France". If you got a job in Guadeloupe and told your friends you were moving to "France", they might be confused. Likewise, if you say SSM is legal in "France", they might not understand that means it's legal in Guadeloupe. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the misapprehension, I used "territory" in its more neutral sense of "land under the jurisdiction of a particular sovereign." To that end, I think I would slightly differ from you here. Granted, I could not marry a person of the same sex in Curaçao; but would you agree with me that Curaçao would have to acknowledge my same-sex marriage performed in Rotterdam? Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, unlike in Mexico, there's no such requirement in the Netherlands. Curacao chooses to recognize Dutch SSM for residency purposes, but not as valid marriage. Rather like the situation in the EU. I don't know how much that may have changed recently, but if Curacao is starting to give more recognition, that's because of political evolution within Curacao, not any external legal requirement, and is not being followed by Sint Maarten. All three Caribbean countries are as much sovereign states as metropolitan Netherlands.
So when we say that "the Netherlands" adopted SSM in 2001, we don't mean the same thing as when we say that "Canada" adopted SSM in 2005. When we say SSM is legal in "the Netherlands" today, we mean that it's legal in one fourth of the Netherlands, politically speaking. (It's legal in 1 state out of 4, with the other 3 giving whatever degree of recognition to Dutch marriages they feel like, which isn't much.) That gets lost if we don't dab what we mean by "the Netherlands". I mean, we wouldn't say that SSM is legal in "the European Union" just because it's legal in some EU states.
If we still used "Holland" to mean the European Netherlands, the way we differentiate "England" from the UK, then that would solve our problem: Holland in 2001 was the first country with SSM; the Netherlands as a whole doesn't yet have it; England and Wales adopted SSM in 2014, and the UK as a whole got SSM in 2020 when N. Ireland adopted it. But since that won't work for the Netherlands, we need some other wording. Not differentiating between the two is like not differentiating between England and the UK. — kwami (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how your Dutch is (mine is rusty), but here's a decent source in English. I believe you are simply incorrect. Since at least 2008, my understanding is that marriages registered anywhere in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are valid anywhere in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That page is blank. Could you provide a better link?
If true, then the Netherlands would be more like Mexico. Of course, we don't say that Mexico adopted SSM in 2010 the way we say that the Netherlands did in 2001.
However, AFAICT, our coverage at Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands is accurate. It and its sources have been discussed many times over the years. We say,
"All territories of the Kingdom of the Netherlands register same-sex marriages performed in the Netherlands proper as a result of a Dutch Supreme Court ruling. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that all vital records recorded in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are valid throughout the Kingdom; this was based on its interpretation of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. However, subsequent rulings have established that same-sex marriages are not automatically entitled to the same privileges (e.g. social security) extended to married couples of the opposite sex."
and,
"Same-sex marriage became legal in Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, which are special municipalities of the Netherlands, following the entry into force of a law enabling same-sex couples to marry on 10 October 2012."
In other words, in 3 of the 4 countries within the Netherlands, vital records will show you as being married, but you aren't accorded the rights of marriage. That's not dissimilar to how Belgian marriages are treated in Latvia following the EU court ruling. Aruba now has registered partnerships, and AFAIK Dutch marriages are treated as registered partnerships in Aruba. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, proper link, I hope. I agree, I think we have the Netherlands basically correct, and yes, it seems to be pretty similar to Mexico. I personally don't feel your specifications are needed, but reasonable minds can differ. This may simply be one where we will have to see how consensus decides. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is from 07 Aug 2008, just three weeks after the ruling and before people had time to figure out what the ramifications were. I don't think the situation is like Mexico, and suspect that your legal source simply got it wrong, reading "recognition" as "equal recognition", since it's contradicted by later sources from after the consequences of the ruling became clearer. Our WP sources are all primary sources, and in legal Dutch; we should really have 2ary. I'd have to dig up 2ary sources for the arguments in Aruba and Curacao since then, but they revolved around inadequate recognition. — kwami (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ not including the other countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
  2. ^ but not the entire Kingdom of Denmark
  3. ^ but not the British Overseas Territories