Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a featured article.

It shouldn't be. It's biased as well as factually incorrect. I want it removed from "brillant prose" and labelled as a "disputed article". --Uncle Ed

Discussion @ Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. -- Kimiko 19:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive#same-sex marriage. --Conti|✉ 13:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

In this article, the inclusive term "same-sex marriage" is used throughout. Where necessary for clarity, the terms "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual," and "transsexual" are used.

There are a number of reasons for this:

"Same-sex marriage" is generally thought to be the most inclusive, most neutral term. It is the term preferred by those who favour the expansion of the definition of marriage to include couples of the same gender, and by those who are neither for nor against, while other terms (primarily homosexual marriage and queer marriage ) are generally favoured by those, both heterosexual and otherwise, who are opposed to such marriages on religious, moral or political grounds. It is also the title of this article.
Not all couples of the same gender are gay. The terms "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" do not recognise this fact. Also, while for many people the word gay also encompasses lesbian women, for others it does not. The terms "same-gender marriage" and "queer marriage" are rather rare.
The neutrality of the words homosexual and queer is disputed, both on Wikipedia and in the community at large. For more information please see homosexual and queer.
In the historical context, the words gay, lesbian, queer, and homosexual may not be strictly accurate. Gay, lesbian and queer are modern constructs with both political associations and connotations of identity. In many ancient societies behaviour was considered homosexual while people were not. In most cases there was no such thing as “homosexual identity” (there are some possible exceptions; please see berdache, hijra (India)).

Talk:Same-sex marriage/archive

Please note: "Reversion," "Reversion of homosexual marriage to same-sex marriage" and "Neutrality? NPOV?" moved to archive page.

Re-write

OK, I've been planning a re-write of this page for a while, and while I haven't yet managed that, I have added some definitions. I'm sure this'll cause anyuerisms in some people ;) but maybe it'll stimulate some constructive discussions and maybe even consensus too. Exploding Boy 02:13, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good, what's the plan in ur mind? :O --Yacht (Talk)Q 01:33, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Add more info, rearrange, expand. Feel free to go ahead and make changes obviously. Exploding Boy 02:59, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Definition

Removed from the article at another user's recommendation, but should be readiliy available.

This information has been moved to the head of the talk page, where it should probably stay so that the link from the article leads somewhere relavent. Exploding Boy 04:20, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

In the definition, it is between two people of the same sex. Is this always the case? There are heterosexual marriages between multiple partners, is this ever, or could it ever, be called same-sex marriage if there are multiple spouses of the same sex? It's probably more of an academic than a practical question. Mark Richards 07:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting question, but I don't think it applies. In polyandrous marriages, one woman is married to several men. The men are not married to each other (they are not each other's husbands), but they are all married to the same woman. In polygamous marriages, one man is married to several women. Again, the women are not married to each other (they are not each other's wives), but they are all married to the same man. Exploding Boy 08:07, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

But we could imagine (or maybe there already is) a situation where one woman is married to several other women, who are or are not also married to each other? You're right, it probably doesn't apply, but I wouldn't want to discount the possibility of this... Mark Richards 22:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again, it's interesting, but not too likely. I can envision, for example, a polygamous marriage between women. Again, though, in a polygamous marriage there is one person who marries a number of other people. In this case it would be a polygamous same-sex marriage. But once you get a web of intermarriages it becomes problematic. I'm not sure society has ever seen a marriage where X is married to V, W, Y and Z who are also married to each other.

Exploding Boy 22:31, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, without wanting to labor a somewhat irrelevant point, in heterosexual marriage, there are different definitions:

. Marriage between two people.
. Marriage where one person marries several others, but the others are not married to each other.
. Potentially, although I am not aware of any examples, several people, all of whom are married to each other, or possibly to others.

The current definition of same-sex marriage seems only to include the first type - is that our intent? Mark Richards 22:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, there have never been any "group marriages" such as you describe. As far as I know, there have never been any polygamous/polyandrous same-sex marriages. Unless anyone can come up with some concrete examples, I think the article is fine dealing just with marriages between two people of the same gender. Exploding Boy 02:20, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have an agenda for a re-write, I'm just asking whether it is our intent to specifically exclude that kind of hypothetical case? There are examples of one person being married to several others though (althouh in examples I am aware of they are of different sexes) are we deliberately excluding hypothetical same sex versions? It's fine if we are, just interested. Mark Richards 07:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there's any sort of polygamy/polyandry-phobia going on :) I'd personally love to see some information about that if it actually exists, otherwise it's just an academic exercise that probably doesn't belong here. I'm interested to know what you propose though. Exploding Boy 07:51, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

You're right - it probably doesn't belong here - just trying to get what I think about it all straight in my own head, and thinking throught the implications! Mark Richards 17:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't belong here, but I'm gonna gab anyway. There are several (many?) form polyamorous relationships can take. Some of these are linear (A is married/linked to B, who may also be married/linked to C, who may also...). Other forms (such as a 3 person fidelitous triad), where all members are married together, it would be hard to imagine the term 'same-sex marriage' not having some relevance. (Ignoring that there are really more than just two genders anyway....). - UtherSRG 18:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is correct that polyandrous relationships involving a variety of gender and intimate affiliations have been practiced in the US and worldwide at various times. The distinction of marriage is not about the nature of the relationship, but about what the community recognizes. Marriage, without waxing too eloquent, is a public statement and a public endorsement of an commitment between (usually) two people. Marriage has as much to do with who recognizes and pronounces the union as it does who enters the union. It is a statement to each other, to a community and by the community to the couple. (I now pronounce you..., certificate of marriage etc.) What is defined as marriage can be a result of community standards. Then the definition requires recognition of what is a community.

A commune or other isolated community might pronounce within its own membership marriages of whatever sort is prefers, and in the context of that community, the term marriage would have a specific meaning. More often, marriage refers to unions recognized by the prevailing civil jurisdiction, or by a religious institution. Civil jurisdictions often have been more generous in recognizing the establishment and dissolution of marriage as opposed to some religious instititions, which often recognize only marriages that comply with the doctrines of those various religions. SoCal 17:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should take this discussion someplace else, but doing a quick search, it seems like there is more of this going on than I thought. Obviously it is not classed as marriage, perhaps due to local laws - there do seem to be people engaged in long term, committed relationships with several people - see these links:

[1] ( Currently, polyfidelity is being practised by two groups in San Francisco (one with nine members; one with eight) and scattered other, smaller clusters in various other places) [2] [3] [4]

I would hazard a guess that some of these people might, if offered the chance, want to 'marry' each other. Mark Richards 21:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the links provided, and from what I could see from those, it's too loosely defined to include in an article on same-sex marriage. Besides that, there's again the question of who's having sex with who. If all the sex going on in the relationship is heterosexual..... Plus, in how many countries is polygamy/andry currently allowed? As far as I know, nowhere in Europe or North America, or in Japan, Korea, Australia or New Zealand.... Exploding Boy 01:43, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, and yes it is loosely defined, and yes, it certainly isn't allowed to be called marriage, but then, same sex marriage isn't really legal anywhere to speak of either (I know, some places, but very recent and very few). If the issue was what was allowed under current legislation I doubt this page would be a stub. I guess I was just surprised, when I looked, that there did seem to be some relationships where people of the same sex were having sexual relationships with more than one other of the same sex on a committed basis. Not really wanting to put it in the article per se, and, as said above, am happy to move this discussion elsewhere. Mark Richards 05:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is a fact in at least 3 countries, and there is movement towards, or intense debate about, legalizing it in a variety of other places, from Taiwan to America. This article is about marriage; the sections on non-marriage like relationships are intended, I believe, to show that socially sanctioned same-sex unions and, some say, actual marriages, have been a fact of history all over the world: they provide background to the current situation. On the other hand, too much information about non-marriage relationshiops would be out of place here, as you say. Exploding Boy 10:23, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Appologies EB, what I was getting at is that there are a lot of partnerships that are not legally recognised as marriage in their jurisdictions, whose participants are interested in their recognition as marriage. So far the debate has focused entirely on same-sex marriage between two people, but it seems like there are more people than I expected who are in 'marriage like' relationships that involve more than two people, at least some of whom are exclusively of the same sex. There seems to be no large movement to claim these as marriage, probably because they are a small number of people and these cases are unikely to be recognised in the current political climate. I'm interested in the apparent distinction between polygamy et, which seems to be socially recognised as marriage, even where it is illegal, and same sex poly relationships, which seem not to be contenders for marriage - maybe you can help me out on where to move this discussion? :) Mark Richards 17:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea. Polygamy? Polyandry? Exploding Boy 00:50, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Polygamy page mentions that no jurisdiction currently allows same-sex polygamous marriage. Mark Richards 06:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

SSM in different countries

Would it be a good idea to only list all the SSM in X links on this page and not also on all the SSM in X pages? A link back to this article is likely to be included in all of them, but a comment like "For SSM in other countries, see the links at SSM." could be added as well. -- Kimiko 10:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No objections? Okay then. The phrase I used is "For information on the status of same-sex marriage in other countries, see the links at same-sex marriage." -- Kimiko 20:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to not notice until now, but I object. {grins} Ok, no, I don't really. I do have another idea that might work better. SSM in X should be considered a series of articles. A simple Seriobox named 'SSM' could be created and added to MediaWiki and then {{msg:SSM}} added as appropriate. Then when new articles get created, they are simply added to the MW:SSM page and all the SSM articles get updated automagically. - UtherSRG 20:33, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, easy with all the technomumble there. I don't even know what a mediawiki is yet. If I understand what you are saying, it seems a Good Thing (TM). Could you make that msg thing? -- Kimiko 20:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done! :) Go check out all the pages, and Template:SSM. - UtherSRG 20:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aye, found it. Looks okay, but needed a little rewording IMHO. Hope you don't mind. Thanks for setting it up in any case. -- Kimiko 20:57, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Terminology

The article (along with the head of this talk page) is inaccurate (... if not plainly POV). Just some definitions ...

"same" = identitical

"sex" = either of the two categories (male or female)

"homo" = one and the same

"sexual" = involving sex

So ... same-sex is equilvilant to homosexual. "Same-sex" is just a recent euphemism (mainly held to and favored by homosexual proponents and associated liberal supporters). AND ... all couples of the same gender are honmosexual (from a external objective observation [see definitions again]). The word homosexual is mainly disputed by liberal (and homosexual activists). [Note, these points doesn't mention if "homosexual marriage" even fits as a "socially sanctioned" union defintion of marriage.] JDR 23:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Given that you're not sure if "homo" is a derogatory term or not (see this history), you'll have to excuse it if we don't just take your word on appropriate terminology. - Outerlimits 23:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Homosexual proponents and associated supporters see it as derogatory. JDR

Homosexual proponents such as Merriam, and Webster. - Outerlimits 23:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mabey ... as mostly all other defintions [5] (specifically google [6]) don't consider this ... JDR

You'd get a better sense of what the epithet "homo" means if you [A] use a real dictionary, and [B] look up the right word: homo not homosexual. -- Outerlimits 23:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As a male, if I'm having a conversation with another guy, am I having a homosexual conversation?

If I'm having a coversation with a woman, am I having a heterosexual conversation?
If I'm talking to both a man and a woman, is it a bisexual conversation?

IF the conversation is sexual in nature, yes, it is bi-, hetero, or homo-sexual dialogue. If the conversation is anything else, it is between members of the same sex. SoCal 17:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you want to be as technically restrained as JDR suggests we should be, then the answer is yes to all of these questions. If you want to be more relaxed and flow with how language is used in the common vernacular, the answer to these three questions is no. "Same-sex" works where "homosexual" is either too specific, inaccurate, or just doesn't work. Although some same-sex marriages are homosexual marriages, some are not. And yet, "same-sex" doesn't cover all of the issue either, because it doesn't cover transsexuals or intersexuals in marriages. However, it does come much closer. - UtherSRG 23:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those propositions are not analogous. This isn't a "conversations". It's a "union" (usually binding and of a sexual nature). It is specific, accurate, or works. JDR

Furthermore: "homosexual", "heterosexual", and "bisexual" are terms that mean "one who is attracted to 'the same'/'the other'/'either' gender". It refers to individuals. "Homosexual marriage" is a misnomer. - UtherSRG 23:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Homosexual marriage" is the correct or suitable name for this topic, though I doubt it will change. All for now ... JDR

We have discussed this topic ad nauseam. Please see the archives for that discussion.

Reddi, you are labouring under a few misconceptions of which I'd like to disabuse you once and for all (actually, I'm convinced that you are completely unwilling to be convinced. Be that as it may):

The "homo" in "homosexual" cannot be taken by itself. In other words, "homo" is simply a prefix; "homosexual," as a word, cannot be divided; it must be taken as a whole. As a whole, the word homosexual, according to Wikipedia's article on homosexuality,

implies an exclusive or predominant sexual orientation toward persons of

the same sex, and is distinguished from bisexuality as well as

heterosexuality.

Thus, same-sex is not equilvilant to homosexual, as I've gone to great pains to illustrate time and time again (see this page's header, this page's archives, the conflicts between users page, and several other talk pages dealing with sexuality topics).

As another user pointed out, a single-sex social gathering is not homosexual. There is in fact a special term for that: it's homosocial.

"Same-sex" is not a euphemism; the use of the term is not intended to obscure the fact that some people in same-sex partnerships may be gay or lesbian, but rather to clarify that not all people in same-sex relationships are necessarily gay or lesbian. All couples of the same gender are not homosexual, because "homosexual" and "same-sex" are not equivalent: homosexual is *roughly equivalent (*see below) with gay or lesbian, while same-sex means "of the same gender."

The word homosexual is controversial. Its neutrality as a concept is disputed, both by Wikipedians and by the community at large, essentially because the term originated as a way to describe people who were presumed to suffer from an abnormal pathology. In other words, it's really no different from the word "retard." Would you insist on using the word "retard" in an article on mental illness? Surely you see why that would be inappropriate? Then why insist on an equivalent term here?

Whether or not you think that only "homosexual proponents and associated supporters see it as derogatory," the fact that it is controversial is reason enough not to use it here. Even if we accepted your own view that it's seen as derogatory only by gay people and their supporters, that still makes the word non-NPOV. As another example, although the word "nigger" is seen by some as positive, its use in an article on black people would be inappropriate. Similarly, your insistence on using the word despite all other posters' support for not using it, to the point of substituting it for "gay" even in sources you're quoting, points to bias on your part.

As for discussion on whether or not same-sex marriage is a "socially sanctioned" definition of marriage, that's not the point of the article: the article describes same-sex marriage (which exists, whether people like it or not), and discusses both contrary and supportive views on the topic, but as is fit for an encyclopaedic article, puts neither view forward as correct.

Unless you have something new to add, I'm afraid your arguments have all been dealt with. To recap:

Homosexual and same-sex are not equivalent
The word 'homosexual' is considered to have negative implications
The best term (so far) for a marriage between two persons of the same gender is same-sex marriage

Exploding Boy 08:41, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

The "'nigger' analogy'" is not semantically equal; Sexual orientation issues are not equilivant to Race issues.

Points

1. Homosexual and same-sex are equivalent

2. The word 'homosexual' is an objective classification and more accurate than various euphemisms (despite any negative implications)

3. Union of two persons of the same gender = "homosexual marriage"

Sincerely, JDR

Reddi, out of curiosity, do you attribute the term homosexual to between persons of the same gender or persons of the same sex? Dysprosia 09:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sex [Sorry (if that is unclear) ... my ref to gender is not that of Gender identity, that is a inner personal choice (more subjective); It was to that of sex (and objective evalutions); ie that of XY or XX chromosomes ultimately [excluding, of course, natural intersexuals; which is an abbreation .. but usually even they have predominately more or less of one or the other category]). Sincerely, JDR

Then I see a large problem being that if the term "homosexual" is used to describe the marriage between a transsexual man and a woman, or a transsexual woman and man, it would offend these people, as implying that the transsexual woman is "really a man", or the transsexual man as "really a woman", which would be highly offensive and wrong to attribute to them.

(As an aside note/matter of interest, sex is not always easily to pin down by some biological characteristic. See also: Klinefelter's syndrome, Queer theory)

HTH Dysprosia 09:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Large problem"? YMMV on that ...

The term "homosexual" would not be used to describe the marriage between a Transgender man and a woman (if they are prdominately opposite sexes). No Transgender is equally woman and man (50-50). It would be erronous to presupose that, IMO.

No offense to the "example" people occur (being opposite sexes for the most part) ... the only one is to a hypothetical 50-50 individual ...

A Transgender "woman" is not "a man" (or the converse) [by the simple fact that the intersexual is predominately one or the other, thus being able to be classified as such; eg. have to be for the example to be set up].

~~Highly offensive? YMMV on that ... as they, usually, do possess more characteristics of one or the other ...~~ I'm sorry if transexuals get offended by objective analysis ...

An objective attribution of a Transgendered individual to one or the other is not incorrect.

I agree sex is occasionally easy to pin down ...

Sincerely, JDR [all for now ...]

[PS. I'll look @ Klinefelter's syndrome, [[Queer theory] articles]

Are you confusing transsexualism with intersexualism, or am I reading you incorrectly? Dysprosia 10:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"confusing transsexualism with intersexualism"? Mabey i was (and I'll edit my above lines accordingly). Transgender would include intersexual (objective classification is possible), but it different than the transsexual (which is a subjective thing; eg. orientation). JDR 10:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One additional thing, transsexuality with intersexuality are not common [read: rare]. So GENERALLY, the points are valid [exceptions will always occur].

Thing is, not all intersexuals change their gender or sex. Neither are all transgendered people transsexuals, though. A transsexual person usually has a singular gender identity (they assert they are either male or female), whilst a transgender person may not (they may feel they have elements of both genders).

What do you feel is subjective about transsexualism? It can be diagnosed professionally, but I suppose any digression into whether the doctor is being subjective or not gets too philosophical, and that's never been my strong point :) Dysprosia 10:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Subjective about transsexuality? It is an internal orientation ... not a verification of external characteristics (sexual characteristics) ... JDR 11:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) (I hope that I'm clear; if not I do apologize). JDR 11:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There has been some preliminary evidence discovered regarding the size of certain brain structures in transsexual women and "genetic women" being identical in size... [check out Male to female transsexual individuals have female neuron numbers in the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol 85. No: 5, 2034-2041 (2000), a copy online is here (google copy)] Dysprosia 11:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually there is some dispute as to the validity of the research and/or its results. The research was conducted on post mortem transsexual women - individuals who had many years of hormone therapy. It is unclear as to whether the brain structures are a result ofthe hormone treatments or something pre-existing. - UtherSRG 12:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But the report says: "Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood seemed to have no impact on BSTc neuron numbers."? Is what you are saying an independant analysis of that report? (we're getting a bit OT here though...) Dysprosia 13:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quite OT. I'll take it to your talk page. - UtherSRG 13:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even if you believe that sexual orientation and race issues are not equivalent, the analogy stands. In this case you insist upon using a word that some people see as derogatory. In the other case, nigger is a word that some people see as not derogatory. As usual, however, you've failed to actually address any of the issues and have instead tried to focus the argument on one irrelevant point. Please respond to the points above (and not just by saying "actually, I'm right." -- which is what you've done above.)

Additionally, you've been asked by several users to clarify your posts. Please avoid ambiguous acronyms (such as YMMV) and [snips] - whatever they are.

The problem with your defining "homosexual" as "of the same sex" is that that's not what the word means. Please see your own posts for confirmation of that!

Apparently you're not very well versed on certain issues, transsexuality being one. In some jurisdictions, a male-to-female transsexual (person X) is legally male. If X then marries a heterosexual man, that would, by your usage of the term, make their marriage homosexual, when clearly it is not. It would, however, by law, make their marriage same-sex.

By the way, your use of quotes (" ") above is quite revealing. In fact, by law, a transsexual woman can be a man, and vice versa. Please do your research before becoming involved in things you don't understand.

By the way, if exceptions are possible, then the use of a more appropriate word is warranted: in this case that word is same-sex marriage.

Exploding Boy 10:43, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

One last time same sex is less acurate and NPOV )primarily because it's a eruphanism). A male-to-female transsexual (person X) is legally male. If X then marries a man (heterosexual or not [which he would not be]), that would make their marriage homosexual ... yes ... and it clearly is. JDR 11:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) [End of discussion with Exploded; I believe that the points will never be acceptable to you ... so it is a futile ... "agree to disagree"] JDR

If JDR is agreed to disagree, can we remove the neutrality dispute from full faith and credit. Apparently the only dispute there is re:this debate which is only tangentally related to the vast majority of full-faith-and-credit activities practiced daily in U.S. courts. SoCal 17:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"A male-to-female transsexual (person X) is legally male." - not always: see Legal aspects of transsexualism#Australian law for one simple example. Dysprosia 11:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Exceptions do occur, but does nothing to the generality of the points. JDR

Same-sex is not a euphemism! Just because you keep repeating it, without providing any evidence to support your claim, doesn't make it true!

A euphemism is a more pleasant word for something unpleasant. For example, we say "pass away" instead of "die." Same-sex is NOT a euphemism! Why can you not understand this? It's really quite simple! The use of the phrase "same-sex" is NOT intended to obscure the fact that some people in same-gender couples are gay, it is intended to HIGHLIGHT the fact that people in such couples are of the same gender . Homosexual and "same-gender" do NOT mean the same thing .

A heterosexual man who has a relationship with a male-to-female transsexual would NOT be homosexual. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

It's becoming increasingly clear, from your stubborn insistence on promoting a biased point of view and your refusal to discuss matters that are raised, that you are trolling. Please refrain from altering this page to your point of view.

Exploding Boy 13:35, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Points

1. Homosexual and same-sex are equivalent

2. The word 'homosexual' is an objective classification and more accurate than various euphemisms (despite any negative implications)

3. Union of two persons of the same gender = "homosexual marriage"

JDR 16:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From Wikpedia's page on dealing with vandalism:

"Bully editing - When users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and when they repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else by resorting to reverting efforts to stop them, this is a form of vandalism."

Exploding Boy 22:09, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, when did this become a featured article? Exploding Boy 09:08, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

--

I we are going to describe "same sex" marriage as "homosexual" because the terms are equivalent, then we are taking "homosexual" quite literally, homo = of the same, sex = sex as in gender. This would be great: if I could alter history to make it so that this is all the word ever meant, I would do so.

However, to ignore the fact that the word has any other meanings (negative or not), even after being informed of those, the most common, meanings, is POV, no buts about it.

If, as some insist, the two terms are equivalent, we wouldn't be having this argument, either term would work perfectly well.

Until groups such as the Catholic clergy and the Boy Scouts of America, self identity as homosexual, marriage between two people of the same gender will be called same sex marriage.Hyacinth 22:35, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

And, by the way, what is a "homosexual proponent"? Would that be a supporter of sex segregation? Or a promotional agency which only takes on gay models and actors? Hyacinth 22:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

Homosexual is the euphemism for euphemisms may take the form of "Longer words (perspire, urinate)" and, I argue, homosexual. Considering that the words in the term "same sex" predate the word "homosexual" one can only consider that homosexual was coined to avoid a more specific and unpleasant description.-Hyacinth 00:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- To re-iterate and develop other logic already spelled out here, sexual is an adjective that describes the nature of intimate activities in a relationship, sex as used in same-sex marriage is a noun that describes the gender of participants in a marriage. Sexual activities of same-sex partners are sometimes regulated, or have in the past been regulated, by sodomy laws. Discussion of same-sex marriage is not the same as discussion of the legality of homosexual intimate relationships. Though alientation of intimacy is cause for divorce in some states with fault doctrines in thier divorce laws, courts do not consider the sexual activities of partners when granting marriage licenses, they consider their gender, or sex.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has redirected the adjective sexual to an article primarily about the noun sex.

SoCal 17:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Back to work, please

A lot of this talk seems more geared to debating the merits of homosexual relationships than to discussing ways of improving the article. Some of it even reads like rhetoric designed to convince other contributors to accept homosexuality.

Anyway, the main purpose of this talk page is to discuss changes to the article. Let's get back to that, please. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

see comments above.Hyacinth

Due Process and Equal Rights

The sections on proponents and opponents of same-sex marriages list only the Pro arguments, and these are poorly worded. It makes it seem as if these arguments are correct. For example, the statement that the US Constitution guarentees everyone exactly the same rights is not a fact, but a point of view. Ordinary citizens, for example, do not have the same right to bring firearms into a courtroom as bailiffs do. No one calls this a violation of due process or equal rights. (Note: I'm not saying we should replace the gay rights POV with the POV I just mentioned. Just that the gay rights POV should be attributed to its adherents, and that any significant opposing POV should also be mentioned and similarly attributed.)

The article as of Feb 20, 2004 is not "brilliant prose" in the sense of being a well-written encyclopedia article. It is as smooth and convincing a polemic as I've ever read, but it's biased. It must be rewriteen to make it neutral.

If it weren't already on the brilliant prose page, I would move several large sections of text directly to talk. But this seems to be a special case, so I hesitate to be so bold. --Uncle Ed 18:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Laying out your disagreements like this helps further the article, while your rant at the top of the talk did not. Stick around and let's get this all hashed out so it truely is "brilliant prose". - UtherSRG 19:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Either this is stupid, or I am stupid. Where is the problem? Tannin 19:20, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LOL, don't make me answer that, Tannin! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite serious, Ed. Where is the problem? Just give me the executive summary. Tannin

I cut the following interchange from the top of this talk page, for better thread continuity. --Ed

The entire article is a POV rant (in elegant prose, however) arguing that it's perfectly all right for two people of the same sex to get "married" to each other. --Uncle Ed 18:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's hardly true, Ed. I think it is quite close to being fully NPOV. It's a highly informative, broad-based article on the history and current status of same-sex marriage, including the most recent proponent and opposition views on the subject. What would you add/remove to make this NPOV for you? - UtherSRG 18:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See my answer at the bottom of this page. --Uncle Ed 18:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no acceptance of "homosexuality". To speak of such a thing is like speaking of accepting the sunrise, gravity, or the ground, things that will and do happen or exist regardless of anyone's consent or knowledge. (see ==Back to work, please== below)

Regarding your objection to this entire article, it is worth noting that Uncle Ed, you have indicated that you are an opponent to same sex marriage, much as it is worth noting I have indicated that I am a proponent.

I believe this article is a NPOV factual discussion of the history of same sex marriage, along with some discussion of its opponents and proponents. Since you have state you believe otherwise, but provided no explination or examples, I encourage you to edit the article so as to neutralize specific POV statements, but FAR more importantly, I encourage you to add more factual historical information about the opposition to same sex marriage and the paragraph on its opponents, as this should provide the NPOV balance that is missing.

Hyacinth 19:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uther, it's not informative: it's misleading. It gives too much pro-ss info and not enough anti. Most of the pro-ss info is insufficiently labelled as POV.

Tannin, sorry about the, um, stupid joke -- but the dichotomy thing made it irresistable. For the record, I think you're rather smart.

I spent some time at the marriage article, because I think the problem starts there and spreads to here. Basically, the gay rights strategy is to redefine marriage. There's nothing in the Wikipedia by-laws that forbids them to make this attempt, but we needn't help them. In fact, we mustn't. We should just observe and report.

If I could give an executive summary, I would also be able to rewrite the entire article. I don't think that way: I can't summarize without seeing the big picture, the thing that's being summarized. Maybe I have brain damage like Lucy in 50 First Dates, but that's how it is.

The article seems to confuse the various kinds of homosexual relationships, rather than distinguish or define them. This kind of confusion works to the advantage of gay rights advocates, although I'm not accusing any of my fellow Wikipedians of any shenanigans here. It just looks a mess. (Like the tussle last year over "Christian-sanctioned" gay unions from the medieval ages or earlier -- which turned out to be little more than a modern re-interpretation of a non-sexual relationship between monks.)

Tannin, I think we can work together -- even though I'm not into leather ;-)

Uther, I don't know you as well but you seem pretty calm. Let's do it.

Pace: I edit in dribs and drabs, so I'll come back every few days -- I'm not going to focus intently on this, it's a very difficult subject. In fact, it's just about the most hotly debated topic in America right now. We should take this slow. --Uncle Ed 19:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. (It's OK, sweetie, I'm not into leather either.) I know what you mean about having difficulty boiling something down to an executve summary: it can be very difficult to do that, and sometimes impossible. As for me, I can see the sunrise at this moment, and that means I am due to abandon the 'pedia for the next couple of days and head off into the bush with my camera, looking for birds. Where to? Hmmm .... Maybe north today. New South Wales, perhaps. Tannin

Uncle Ed, would you please explain how the "gay rights strategy" includes the redefinition of marriage, and more importantly how this article contributes to this supposed redefinition. I would argue, contra to the marriage article, that, in fact, western marriage was redefined as being only between a man and a woman in response to the rise of modern conceptions of sexuality including (later) the demand for equal rights for gay and lesbian people (whereas this definition was unnecessary beforehand).-Hyacinth 20:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth, you seem to have answered your own question. --Uncle Ed 20:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and perhaps I should be more clear. In my experience, marriage is a specific type of relationship, defined not by any characteristics of its members, but (at least primarily) by the nature of the relationship. By default, anyone seeking to allow same-sex couples to legally wed cannot be seeking to redefine the nature of that relationship. Thus equal rights "activists" may be trying to redefine what is wikipedia's current definition of marriage, but in actuality are only now asserting the primary definition in face of redefinitions by opponents of same-sex marriage and anti-gay activists. For example DOMA, and its state counterparts passed in many states, is a redefinition, despite the implication of calling itself a "defense", for if it were not a redefinition it would have been unnecessary.-Hyacinth 21:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand your objections, Ed.

The article states that same-sex marriage is a marriage between two people of the same sex. That's undeniably true, and in three countries such specifically named contracts are possible.

I agree there are problems with the history section. It's just not finished, and so there is not enough on marriages vs marriage-like unions in history (I also agree this should not be a featured article, for the same reason).

Still, I can't see your argument that this article is somehow pro-same-sex marriage.

Exploding Boy 01:51, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

China

In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies.

Can we get a reference for this? How about a description of the elaborate ceremony? (There's no mention of this in the linked Fujian article.) --Uncle Ed 20:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Answering my own question -- but poorly -- I found this reference which describes some same-sex unions as "marriage-like" but falls short of calling them "marriage". --Uncle Ed 20:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned above, at least some discussion of historical marriage-like unions between same-sex people is necessary as background in this article. By the way, there are several scholars who claim that there were actual marriages, even in Christian countries, between persons of the same sex. Exploding Boy 10:26, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that sure makes it controversial, doesn't it? If someone can edit this article so that it describes the controversy clearly and accurately, I might reverse my vote. But unclear or inaccurate article don't qualify as "brilliant" (as far as I'm concerned). --Uncle Ed 14:55, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um. What? And what's with these vague pronouncements about this article being "propaganda"? Exploding Boy 14:57, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep your pants on... seems like you can hardly contain yourself ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...because you object to the article being listed on "featured articles" and you complain it's biased, but you refuse to explain your position. It's becoming irritating. Exploding Boy 22:06, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Article about same-sex marriage

An article about historical evidence of church-sanctioned same-sex marriages http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

Examples from Yale history professor John Boswell's book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe [ISBN 0679751645]

Non-religious/moral arguments against

Their opponents assert that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, perhaps fearing a breakdown of society.

Not all anti-same-sex-marriage arguments are based on moral or religious grounds. One of the common arguments is that married people are allowed to adopt children much more easily, and it is claimed by some anti-same-sex-marriage people that children raised with both male and female parents do better than children raised with only male or only female parents (so therefore same-sex marriage is bad, unless a separate law is made to restrict adoption to opposite-sex households). That's more of a utilitarian pragmatic argument based on a (controversial) claim about child psychology, so not really a moral or religious one. I think there's probably a few other arguments in this category, but I'm not sure how to best work that in. --Delirium 00:19, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Source for one of the definitions

A socially sanctioned, voluntary, committed, monogamous, legally contracted union, of two adult people, which the government and/or society recognizes by conferring certain rights, privileges and responsibilities, such as finances, taxes, and inheritance, child-raising, adoption visitation, and medical decision-making.

This is described as "another definition of marriage used by gay rights advocates"... is it a direct quote from a particular advocate (or advocacy group)? If so, it would be nice to attribute it. If not, it's worded and blockquoted in a way that vaguely implies it ought to be a quote... --Delirium 00:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jredmond's reversion

I added a couple of words to the first sentence to remove the POV statement that marriage is between two people. This was reverted (with the claim that it was vandalism) by Jredmond. It is not vandalism, and while it may be that his/her point of view is that marriage is between two people, this is not universally acknowledged. Stating this as fact in the first sentance is misleading. I will replace it unless s/he can provide a good reason for this. Sir Trollsalot 17:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Where it's legal, same-sex marriage is only between two persons. Additionally, no published advocate of same-sex marriage also advocates polygamy; and the contention that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamous unions is discussed in further detail later in the article. - jredmond 18:26, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revised version is much better. Thanks. - jredmond 18:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good. Sir Trollsalot 18:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Marriage and Same Sex Unions. The issue is not the issue!

The single word that causes the issue before us to be so charged with emotion, causing all who discuss this case to miss the real issue, is the word - MARRIAGE! A brief review of how and why that word has been used to describe interpersonal relationships for thousands of years is important. I consider this review to be critical in enabling people to make a decision on these subjects free from emotional and irrational thought.

Authors Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels, along with many other researchers, conclude that thirty-six hundred years ago some Jewish men interpreted the Garden of Eden story. These men concluded the only reason for a man and woman to come together in a sexual union was to beget children. (This conclusion is still held by many organized religions today.) As the Jewish tradition continued there was a logical extension of their original logic by still more men. If procreation of children is God?s goal then any activity that interrupted that plan was unlawful. Therefore, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, etc., were made unlawful to members of the Jewish tribes. The logic of these desert nomads also concluded multiple wives were lawful, as well as children by women slaves, and a deceased brother?s wife. Cunnilingus was not considered lawful or unlawful. Women were simply not considered.

I don?t know when the word ?marriage? was first used to mean commitment between a man and a woman. The concept of marriage, as we know it today, began in the 12th Century. A Council of the Roman Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament of the church. The moving force to enact this religious law was to enable the priests to determine the legitimate from the illegitimate heirs of the concupiscent landed gentry. The Roman Catholic Church was the only keeper of marriage, birth, and death records. The Church also had total control over marriage because marriage was a totally religious concept. For the next 400 years the various rules of marriage we are familiar with today, such as annulment, preexisting impediments, divorce, etc., evolved into Church Law. The Roman Catholic Church had influence over the civil governments of England and most of Europe because the Pope owned more than a third of the farm land and crowned the Kings under the evolving Divine Right of Kings? doctrine.

During the middle of the17th Century, Henry the VIII became King of England. It was his singular audacity, for his personal reasons, to force Parliament to consider marriage a civil contract like any other contract between two citizens of England. To ensure his control over the issue, and with the impetus of the Protestant Reformation stirring the pot, Henry declared himself head of the Church of England, stripping the Pope in Rome from any power to regulate marriage in England, either civilly or religiously. All of the Cannon (Roman Catholic Church), law regarding marriage transported en toto to the English civil law. The secularization of the English marriage laws transferred to America and remained relatively unchanged through today.

Thus the duplicitous and confusing interaction between a civil and religious concept of what a marriage was, continued from Henry?s time until today. It is this long commingling of religious values, imposed on all American citizens through civil laws, that cause most people too only know one definition for the word marriage. A definition which was singularly created by organized religion. A definition which is singularly applicable to only man and woman.

Few citizens appreciate the complex social evolution of the concept of marriage. It is the commingling of religious and civil laws for eight hundred years which makes the word MARRIAGE, when applied to same sex unions, the emotional issue it is for us today. Only recently has our society been presented with the consideration that committed life partners can be other than a man and woman. Defining religious terms is not a job for the United States Government. Neither is it the function of organized religion to define civil terms used by our government.

More than one-thousand civil and governmental benefits are currently denied same sex partners because they do not meet the civilly imposed definition of marriage. Those of us with the responsibility of political leadership may appreciate Henry VIII?s reason to make marriage a civil matter, which he could control for his pleasure. We should not, however, tolerate the state and federal legislatures? failure to act timely and responsibly on this issue. All government should stop regulating personal relationships.

The word, MARRIAGE, defined by organized religion to denote only men and women in a conjugal relationship, has been totally assimilated into American culture. As such, the word, MARRIAGE, can no longer be used by our government to bestow benefits or impose obligations on social unions which are other than male and female. The word MARRIAGE is a totally religious concept. Our legislatures must see how this historically religious definition of the word MARRIAGE imposes religious values on the citizens of America through the civil power of the state.

If the United States Supreme Court doesn?t consider that unconstitutional then there is no separation of church and state in America.

During the past forty years, forty-eight of the fifty states have removed homosexuality as a crime against the state. We are evolving as a democratic multi-cultural country. Establishing a new definition of life partners, which does not include the word MARRIAGE, is a next step in that evolution. Same sex partners should not expect fellow citizens to consider them as ?husband and wife.? Such terms only denote the derivative words of couples producing children. It is a new time and new words will be found which adequately express what, I hope, is a tender and caring relationship between two people.

I submit that until the federal and state legislatures reverse the foolishness of Henry VIII and return marriage to the regulation by religious groups, I go on record that:

Any pair of citizens who come forward and publicly proclaim their partnership in the venture of life?s walk shall be entitled to all commercial, local, state, and federal benefits and obligations now, or hereafter accruing, to parties historically known as ?married couples.? entered on june 14, 2004 by user:lbmcg

While I generally agree with your position, I feel compelled to note publicly that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As such, long texts like this advocating one side or another of a social issue are not entirely appropriate here. - jredmond 19:29, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a talk page, and the discussion is not off-topic even if it is not POV-neutral, and does contain some historical and sociological claims that can be checked for factuality and added to this or other articles. Relax. — Miguel 22:15, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

I agree with Miguel that we should have no problem with this sort of diatribe on a Talk page. If it appeared in the article, there would be a problem. I will take this opportunity to respond briefly.

lbmcg has taken a very Eurocentric perspective, and has ignored the fact that human cultures around the world have had marriages for millenia. These have often been religious marriages, but also they have often not been. More importantly, the concept of civil marriage has existed in Christian countries for centuries. France, as I understand it, requires a civil marriage, and permits couples to also have a religious marriage if they so choose, but that religious ceremony does not supplant the need for the civil process as it does it many countries. Given that civil marriage is a long-entrenched part of modern societies, eliminating it in order to prevent same-sex couples from marrying would make it clear that the aim here is to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Furthermore, it would deny non-religious opposite couples an option they have enjoyed for generations.

Finally, it would not succeed in preventing same-sex marriages because many religious organizations are very comfortable marrying same-sex couples: The United Church of Canada (formerly Methodist), which is the largest Protestant church in the country, Unitarian churches, Metropolitan Community Churches, Quakers and Reform synagogues. So go ahead and force opposite sex and same-sex couples to marriages in houses of worship, but what do you achieve? (That is, unless your concept of the separation of Church and State somehow permits the State to prohibit the afore-mentioned groups from marrying same-sex couples).

I've been married under Canadian law to my same-sex spouse for a year now, and have not, to be knowledge, been responsible, directly or indirectly, for hte destruction of any opposite-sex marriage, or, for that matter, civilization as we know it. Kevintoronto 21:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inclusivity, neutrality

I disagree that "same-sex marriage" is the "most inclusive, most neutral" term. Many advocates prefer the terms "marriage equality", or "freedom to marry", to emphasise that they are talking about the same institution of marriage for both same-sex and mixed-sex couples. In that view, "same-sex marriage" has connotations of being some different institution from "normal marriage". To reflect this, the article should talk about "freedom to marry" instead of "same-sex marriage". JDLH 11:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I agree with you the only term we should need is "marriage," in this article at least we need to make a distinction. The article itself is titled "Same-sex marriage," and since that's what we're discussing it needs to be abundantly clear. I don't describe my own marriage as a "same-sex marriage," though in fact that's what it is, but it's clear to whoever's listening that it's not a mixed-sex marriage. Since same-sex marriage is as yet not recognised everywhere, we still, unfortunately, need this terminology. Exploding Boy 11:27, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The recent major rewriting by an anon seems very suspicious to me. Anyone recognize it as a copyvio? [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - Talk]] 15:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Picky grammar

"to marry whomever they choose" was correct. "whomever" is the direct object of the verb "they choose." - Montréalais 16:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categorical imperative

The Controversy section contains the following text, and I have removed the part in parenthesis:

The debate is often perceived as being same sex marriage advocates vs. religious (e.g. fundamentalist) or moral (e.g. opposing unions on a Kantian categorical imperative argument) opponents.

And then follows it with a discussion about corporations that don't want same-sex marriages because they don't want to pay health benefits. My problems with the section above are:

Most readers of this page aren't going to know what Kant's categorical imperative is. There needs to be some explanation if the phrase is going to be included. I'd add it, but...
One of the problems with invoking the categorical imperative here is that without explanation we don't know how it is supposed to be interpreted. Kant formulates the categorical imperative in three ways (lifted from the page categorical imperative), two of which have clear implications here:
1. The first (Universal Law formulation): "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
  1. This is by far the most famous formulation, and the one that I suspect is being referred to, though the argument thereby constructed is a bit absurd: "if you have a same-sex marriage the law you thereby create is that all marriages should be same-sex. Therefore, don't have a same-sex marriage, as that would lead to the extinction of the species." or something.
2. The second (Humanity or End in Itself formulation): "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
  1. This formulation would seem to require same-sex marriage. It is basically, treat people as people, not as things. Since it doesn't allow gay people to be reduced to homosexuals (non-people exclusively defined by their sexuality), it would require that we afford all the rights and responsibilities allowed to people (that is, heterosexual people), which should include marriage.

Since different results can be obtained using different formulations of the categorical imperative, and since someone else reading the article could construct two or three entirely different arguments with the same starting point (the article and the categorical imperative), the section invoking it needs to be explained if it is returned to the article. -Seth Mahoney 19:57, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Their opponents assert that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, or on the grounds that it will lead to a breakdown of society.

Really? Who actually says this? How will it lead to BoS? Mark Richards 19:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have personally heard the argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to the breakdown of society, though I don't think that arguments I have personally heard from ignorant folk on the street so much count as encyclopedia-worthy. The closest I've heard from a notable source is that same-sex marriage will necessarily lead to polygamous marriage (and possibly to marriages with animals - "and bestiality" is often tacked on to the end), which is presumably a bad thing. IMHO, this is why we should never use the "some people say...others reply (or their opponents assert)" sort of structure in articles. -Seth Mahoney 20:56, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

New laws on Same-sex marriages in the US

The new laws on same-sex marriages in the US are viewed by many as examples of tyranny of the majority. The statement of this should not be deleted without good reason. Please justify changing it. Barnaby dawson 22:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, here are the reasons for change:

1: Link was incorrectly to presidential election.

2: 13 states amended their constitutions during 2004, not only 11.

3: The amendments did not outlaw same-sex marriage, they defined what marriages would be recognized by the state.

4: Instead of saying "This is viewed by many...", that part should be written to cite who exactly views it that way.

Those were the reasons for the change. -CrucifiedChrist

This website states - It is the government’s responsibility not to uphold in this case the prejudiced will of the people, no matter how much of a majority they constitute. John Corvino of the independent gay forum States - The only way to stop the tyranny of the majority is for the minority to make its voice loudly heard.

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint" - Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum

3 examples in just a couple of minutes of surfing. I've put back the point about tyranny of the majority although I've left your other changes. The bottom line is that it is a true statement. Barnaby dawson 23:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe you tried, but in none of the three links you posted did I find the word "tyranny" I did enough surfing though to find several advocates who use this, so I have no real objection. -CrucifiedChrist

Sorry the link to the second example should have been more specific. I've updated it. Barnaby dawson 11:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello Arcuras - Please see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words - Saying "Many people view" doesn't make it NPOV, it makes it passive and unattributed. If you know who these "many people" are, then use them as references. If you don't know who they are, then how do you know what they think? Please, I'm not trying to whitewash an opinion, I'm just trying to shift it from a statement of opinion to a statement of fact. -CrucifiedChrist

While I am aware of the "Avoid Weasel Terms" page, the sentance "Some Gay rights advocates view restrictions such as these as being an example of the tyranny of the majority in action" is heavily POV, indirectly stating that no one person other then a gay rights activist would hold this view. Thus, it is not a statement of fact, and is further a statement in error.

As we want to keep the article NPOV, we must note that individuals who are not gay activists also hold this view. This can be accomplished in two ways, listing every individual who holds this view or their political/social/religious/fundamental affiliation, or using a sentance which acknowledges that a person doesn't have to be a gay rights advocate to agree with the view cited. "Many people, including Gay rights advocates view restrictions such as these as being an example of the tyranny of the majority in action" does this, toeing the weasel words line, but specifying a group of people to keep it from crossing it.

If you wish to start listing the various groups of people who may hold that opinion, your welcome to do so, as long as you can refrain from pushing a POV onto the article. Arcuras 03:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that you've accused me of pushing a POV on the article, how do we go about making it NPOV? I just tried switching the places of some and many, to address what I think are the points you made above. Now it is clear that this opinion isn't limited to only "gay rights activists". But to start with "Many people" implies that this is a widely held opinion, but fails to say who holds the opinion. A great way to start this would be something like "Many civic rights leaders, such as Al Sharpton and Noam Chomsky, hold that this is an example of..." -CrucifiedChrist

We could argue endlessly over whether it is more correct to say "many" or "some" with no real concequence. In my circles, it is most definitly most to all, while (judging from your name and "user" page) in yours it would be few to none. Either way, it doesn't really matter specifically to the message the sentance is carrying, so until someone can name some specific people, I have no problem with it left to stand as is during the interim. Arcuras 04:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

There are still problems with the structure of this article.

Though I believe I've improved the structure of the article a bit, there's still a lot that remains to be -- for example the sections "Controversy" "Definitions/Marriage" and the two argument sections all contain arguments and elements that belong together rather than be arbitrarily divided.

Aris Katsaris 03:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did some further restructuring work. Tell me if you have objections. Aris Katsaris 04:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)