Talk:Same-sex marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Same-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
Date Process Result
June 24, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted
March 1, 2004 Featured article review Demoted
November 21, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article


New Zealand[edit]

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

But they're not members of the UN and are not countries. And their residents have New Zealand passports. Must be an identical situation as the UK and the British overseas territories. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

They are part of the Realm of New Zealand: not the same as the British Overseas Territories. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Colombia New Poll[edit]

A new poll conducted between November and December 2016 shows that support for same-sex marriage is 37% while 59% is against.[1]. So please update that information in your table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.18.52.36 (talkcontribs)

It would appear that Slovenia introduced gay marriage, please check and this to the lists - thank you[edit]

Taiwan same-sex marriage poll.[edit]

A recent poll conducted in november 2016 showed that 52% Taiwanese supported SSM:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/11/29/2003660214

Most polls show that a majority of Taiwanese support SSM:

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2273290

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201506270005.aspx

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/30/nearly-two-thirds-of-taiwan-supports-marriage-equality-survey-finds/

Map[edit]

Could someone fix this map and make all the territories of Australia yellow, not just mainland, as suggested by user Colonial Overlord? Ron 1987 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
EDIT: I consider an edit war by Colonial Overlord over little, barely visible error on the map really stupid... Ron 1987 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you started the edit war by reverting my explained edit, then reverting me again without appearing to have read anything in my edit summary. And I consider persistently removing accurate information just so the file can always have the same name rather stupid. Colonial Overlord (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This user keeps edit warring following a request to stop, if he continues doing this he should get a warning. Either way though, the map should be updated, another one shouldn’t be added and in any case this information is not even accurate as of today. The postal survey was non-binding and no laws have yet been passed. In order for Australia to be able to be displayed as gold/yellow on the map actual laws by the parliament have to be passed and that has not happened. So not only is it ridiculous to replace a map with a new one with worse quality (which should by the way be deleted), the information is not even accurate. I would recommend the user to stop edit warring or he will be reported. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone who knows how to could just fix the bloody map, we could end this discussion. I'd question how sensible it is to have these images in a format that can't be edited by normal image editing programs. And you seem to have missed the "announced intention to legalise" part of the caption for the gold colour. Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That map has not been used that way in a very long time and actual laws have to be passed before countries can be coloured gold. For a while that part of the caption was even deleted until someone brought it back for some reason. No country is coloured gold until their government has passed the law and it awaits to be enforced. Also the maps are very easily editable so don’t blame the website for you lack of knowledge on how to edit them. I would once again suggest you return the regular map back in place. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The reality is that the caption for gold says "government/court legalized OR announced intention to legalize". If Australia is not to be coloured gold, then that caption needs to be changed and doing so requires discussion and consensus.
That colour was originally created to model the situations in UK and France where there was government support but legislation not yet enacted. It was later used to colour US states where there were stayed court rulings subject to appeal, and in no guarantee of coming into force. By all means argue for changing the caption, but I'm not sure your proposal fits with the historical record. Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
For the longest time the map has been used to colour countries that have already passed marriage laws but aren’t yet enforced. The legend was already changed a while ago but someone changed it back without consensus. You are talking about events that happened several years ago, the situation of same-sex marriage has changed since then and so has the use of this map. Once again countries are coloured only after laws were passed.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, on the current caption not colouring Australia is simply wrong. As to changing the caption, why do you think it's better that way, aside from just having been done before (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)? Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the problem here. The government enacted this postal vote to authorize liberals a free vote on same-sex marriage (item 1). The Government of Australia has announced that they would authorize a free vote and Turnbull, himself as prime minister, says he wants to enact by Christmas (item 2). I believe that this combination warrants the gold color. It is a much more definite situation than Nepal, which was gold for years. If the situation changes, we can simply change the color back. Wow. Even the US government does not attempt this hard at semantics. Andrew1444 (talk) 07:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It’s a simple policy that requires an actual legal change rather than just promises. Jersey was coloured gold because it enacted an official legal comittment to legalize same-sex marriage. That is the requirement, Australia will very likely pass the law very soon so it will be coloured gold regardless. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Either way, what made you think that it’s okay to entirely replace a map that has been used for years with your png map of lower quality without any sort of consensus. This change should have been discussed on the actual map’s talk page. --
Did the government or court announce an intention to legalise? YES! That makes Australia and the territories gold and it makes you a child. Andrew1444 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:3C79:939B:6779:FAB (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The prime minister announced his intention however there are other parties that exist and they vote in the parliament too. Actual legal action has to be made. Personal attacks by calling me a child are absolutely innapropriate and there is no reason for you to say that, if you want to take part in a discussion then do so civilly. A government isn’t just one person, a vote has to take place.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:206B:FAAE:4B47:59AD (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

For reference, .svg files can be updated relatively easily using the free software Inkscape. I've updated the map to include the territories. Feel free to revert depending on the outcome of this discussion. Cheers, Delsion23 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! The file has now been reverted to no gold on Australia at all by (what appears to be) a different user to the one arguing above, making very similar arguments. Said arguments amounting to "this is how it's always been done", which is quite false. Let me break this down.
1. Gold was originally used for countries like the UK where there was "merely" a commitment from the government to legalise. It was later used for US states for stayed court rulings, which were even less of a committment to legalisation than a government announcement (since they could be reversed on appeal, and in fact American lower courts tend to be the most liberal and the Supreme Court the most conservative). And that gold colour is STILL used in the same way on an "other version" of the map for America listed next to it on Commons.
2. According to the current caption, Australia unquestionably fits the definition. Whatever is done, keeping the current caption for gold and not colouring Australia with it is right out.
3. Changing the caption is a change to the status quo and requires consensus. I won't revert again but I think Australia should stay gold (in accordance with the caption) during this discussion.
4. As to whether the caption should be changed, here are the arguments against it:
(a) It's been used this way for all the major western countries (UK, France, US etc) so why change its use now?
(b) The lighter gold colour simply says "government/court announced intention to legalize civil unions" with no mention of already legalized. For consistency gold should be the same (and this is more proof that that was the original purpose of gold).
(c) Gold continues to be used for stayed court rulings on the map of America prior to Obergefelle ruling.
(d) That a bill has government support (and ALSO the explicit support of the people in this case!) and thus almost certain to pass is very useful information. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You’re still talking about events that occurred a number of years ago. Even the most recent of your references, the USA state legalizing marriage, occurred during and before 2015. Policies do not always stay the same however in recent use, the map has always been used this way. Back when Britain and France were announcing plans for legalization, same-sex marriage was even more uncommon in the world than it is now and that kind of news attracted a lot of attention. The situation has changed since then and same-sex marriage has a more normalized status in the Western world and this map now require actual laws to be changed in order for countries to be coloured gold.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:DDBC:5C45:87FD:1C3 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry - when was a consensus reached that supported your statement? AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Australia[edit]

Why is Australia shown on the global map as a country where same-sex marriage is "legalized but not yet in effect"? As far as I am aware, no bill has been passed by the Australian Parliament legally recognizing ssm. What has happened is that a non-binding postal survey was held to gauge public opinion. While the expectation is that a bill will be approved, given the results of the survey, that does not mean that ssm has been "legalized". The law in Australia has not changed, even if the politics surrounding this issue has. It is likely that ssm will be legalized in the next few weeks, but the map is currently misleading and inaccurate. We've jumped the gun. --209.202.119.246 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Map change request[edit]

Could someone more skilled than I please update the map to reflect the recent Australian decision? The nature of the law being passed is federal: this means that the Australian territories also share the same status as the rest of the country. Let’s get more dark blue on the map! J43437 (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Bermuda[edit]

Bermuda is not an independent country and unfortunately its SSM Act has recently been abolished. Can anyone remove Bermuda from the Opinion Polling list or change its colour? The mistake has caused confusion, ex. Australia should be the 25th country to legalise SSM, however, most news report say Australia is the 26th which is incorrect.

Both Taiwan and Austria are currently in the same situation, but Taiwan has disappeared from the Title Page. Could anyone put Taiwan back on it?

Thanks and regards, Khhmel (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Khhmel (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Khhmel (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)