Talk:Same-sex marriage
[edit] Removal of passive-voice weasel words
Actually, the edit didn't affect the passive voice of the sentence at all. I think it reads better, but I must pedantically note that it is still in the passive voice. The sentence is still in the subjunctive mood, and still uses a "weasel word" form. "It should be"? Says who? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Is this article more featured than others?
It seems to me that half the times I open RW I see that disgusting picture of kissing men. I know you are really crazy about this gay-thing, but... --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- You'll just be selectively reporting the instances that you see it. Therefore the problem is with your own obsessions, not the site.
theist 15:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The simples answer (as Alexander Orloff would say) - donate pictures to RW. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had a problem similar to Idiot's, and I'll freely admit that I wouldn't have thought anything about it if the image weren't so incredibly gay. I purged the main page and the article changed. Syndrome (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, why do some straight men get so hung up about men kissing? It doesn't interest me, but it doesn't disgust me... its just, well, boring. Hey, show me some gay porn even... it doesn't disgust me, it's just rather boring. I guess probably the same way many straight women must feel about pictures of women kissing - neither arousing nor disgusting, just not that interesting. Where does this heterosexual male disgust come from? The only rational explanation that occurs to me is that it must be a product of repressed male-male desire. --Zack Martin
02:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't assume that women find women kissing disgusting. There are several other rational explanations, if you'd use your imagination. Kissing is disgusting when the people aren't pretty, and men aren't pretty, therefore it's disgusting when men kiss each other. Or maybe it's shocking because it's not a common sight. Or maybe it's something people don't care for unless you're part of that subculture, like rap music. At any rate, I wouldn't jump to the knee-jerk repressed homosexuality conclusion. Syndrome (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't assume that women find women kissing disgusting. I said "the same way many straight women must feel about pictures of women kissing - neither arousing nor disgusting, just not that interesting". Boredom, disinterest, I can understand. If kissing is disgusting when people "aren't pretty", and if men "aren't pretty", wouldn't that make straight kissing disgusting too? (At least half of it ain't pretty then). Disgust requires something more than just uncommonness - if you saw a chimpanzee wearing a suit and tie walk down the street, well that'd certainly be an uncommon sight, but would you call it disgusting? And as to a subcultural explanation, well a lot of people who aren't disgusted by men kissing aren't involved in the gay subculture. So all your other explanations seem wanting, which leaves the "knee-jerk" repressed homosexuality explanation as the only one left. --Zack Martin
08:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how trite, must be the truth." I see you're a fan of Oscar Wilde too.
- Yes, believe it or not, kissing is discouraged in public except in certain social situations like weddings or high school. I guess society at large doesn't find people mashing faces together attractive. I blame latent homosexuality. --Syndrome (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Attitudes to kissing in public vary alot, depending on where you are (which country, which part of the country), and various other factors. But none of that changes the fact, that men kissing men tends to be viewed more negatively than men and women kissing or women kissing women. If the problem was unacceptability of kissing in public in general, then it would apply to kissing in public regardless of the genders involved - so again, we are back to repressed homosexuality. (PS: I believe the quote you cited is by Sherlock Holmes/Arthur Conan Doyle, not Oscar Wilde) --Zack Martin
06:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Attitudes to kissing in public vary alot, depending on where you are (which country, which part of the country), and various other factors. But none of that changes the fact, that men kissing men tends to be viewed more negatively than men and women kissing or women kissing women. If the problem was unacceptability of kissing in public in general, then it would apply to kissing in public regardless of the genders involved - so again, we are back to repressed homosexuality. (PS: I believe the quote you cited is by Sherlock Holmes/Arthur Conan Doyle, not Oscar Wilde) --Zack Martin
- I didn't assume that women find women kissing disgusting. I said "the same way many straight women must feel about pictures of women kissing - neither arousing nor disgusting, just not that interesting". Boredom, disinterest, I can understand. If kissing is disgusting when people "aren't pretty", and if men "aren't pretty", wouldn't that make straight kissing disgusting too? (At least half of it ain't pretty then). Disgust requires something more than just uncommonness - if you saw a chimpanzee wearing a suit and tie walk down the street, well that'd certainly be an uncommon sight, but would you call it disgusting? And as to a subcultural explanation, well a lot of people who aren't disgusted by men kissing aren't involved in the gay subculture. So all your other explanations seem wanting, which leaves the "knee-jerk" repressed homosexuality explanation as the only one left. --Zack Martin
- I wouldn't assume that women find women kissing disgusting. There are several other rational explanations, if you'd use your imagination. Kissing is disgusting when the people aren't pretty, and men aren't pretty, therefore it's disgusting when men kiss each other. Or maybe it's shocking because it's not a common sight. Or maybe it's something people don't care for unless you're part of that subculture, like rap music. At any rate, I wouldn't jump to the knee-jerk repressed homosexuality conclusion. Syndrome (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, why do some straight men get so hung up about men kissing? It doesn't interest me, but it doesn't disgust me... its just, well, boring. Hey, show me some gay porn even... it doesn't disgust me, it's just rather boring. I guess probably the same way many straight women must feel about pictures of women kissing - neither arousing nor disgusting, just not that interesting. Where does this heterosexual male disgust come from? The only rational explanation that occurs to me is that it must be a product of repressed male-male desire. --Zack Martin
[edit] "Most black voters"
I agree that BoN's assertion is based on insufficient evidence. The reference given did not support the assertion about the parallel with racial equality. However, we shouldn't just dismiss it out of hand. Bad Faith (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- We could add it, but I think that, if anything, we should add it as some sort of logical fallacy used to dispute gay marriage. Anarcho Symphony Noise Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 07:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's the thing, it's an interesting quirk but I don't think it's enough to claim some sort of racial profile or extrapolate a motive like that from it. ADK...I'll pilot your pizza! 08:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- This NY Times article covers very much the same ground. From the article
- That's the thing, it's an interesting quirk but I don't think it's enough to claim some sort of racial profile or extrapolate a motive like that from it. ADK...I'll pilot your pizza! 08:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
“”The legalization of same-sex marriage in New York State has been embraced by many in the city. But in some neighborhoods heavily populated by immigrants from countries where homosexuality is less accepted, the idea is stirring feelings of unease or, at times, outright disgust.
|
- and
“”“Many in the Greek community are conservative and traditional, and marriage is viewed as a sacrament of the church, not as a civil right,” Mr. Sirigos said.
|
- However
“”The owner of Molly Blooms, Ciaran Staunton — a heterosexual married father of two and a Roman Catholic — said he was determined to be part of what he called “the last great civil rights battle.”
He said most in the neighborhood had welcomed the idea of a free same-sex wedding reception.
|
[edit] Ray Comfort
I can't make head nor tail of that Bananaman quote --Scherben 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)scherben
- They are almost on par with Fred Phelps in wingnuttery. --Sethpeck (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Cross your fingers, guys
Today, the Slovene constitutional court is deciding whether gay marriage is constitutional. Cross your fingers and hope that common sense will prevail. -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 15:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fuck 'common sense'. Reason should prevail.
- Yes, that is just a semantic quibble. Fuckertalk to me :D 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone know the outcome? It must have happened by now. Bad Faith (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing official at all yet. Not that I can read slovonian, but i figured the google translate was *ok* enough to see major news. http://www.us-rs.si/en/
GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 19:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fuck. It's going on referendum. That means it's practically failed. 50% of people are catholics and trust me, RCC will be more than happy to convince them to vote no, and if you count not-so-few percents of bigots and idiots, you've predicted the outcome. But let's wait and see, I didn't expect Zoki to win the elections, either. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 19:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Damn it. You beat to it by a few
secondsminutes. [1] --★uːʤɱ kant 19:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)- It's still unofficial, though. But my predictions of what will happen should law be put on referendum are unfortunately very possible. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 20:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 16:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! -- DasRationalpersone
- It's still unofficial, though. But my predictions of what will happen should law be put on referendum are unfortunately very possible. -- DasRationalpersone
- Damn it. You beat to it by a few
- Fuck. It's going on referendum. That means it's practically failed. 50% of people are catholics and trust me, RCC will be more than happy to convince them to vote no, and if you count not-so-few percents of bigots and idiots, you've predicted the outcome. But let's wait and see, I didn't expect Zoki to win the elections, either. -- DasRationalpersone
- Nothing official at all yet. Not that I can read slovonian, but i figured the google translate was *ok* enough to see major news. http://www.us-rs.si/en/
- Does anyone know the outcome? It must have happened by now. Bad Faith (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Former RNC chair apologizes for not speaking up re: gay marriage
It seems like we should have an article or at least a mention about Ken Mehlman. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] First in BC
lol...i hit this article by chance...a friend of mine growing up, Trina Richmond, was in what was, if not the first, one of the first gay marriages in British Columbia....they're now divorced...so now we know there is no reason at all to fear gay marriage, it doesn't last any longer than a straight one....Dorianin (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] "Homosexuals were excellent healers and astrologers."
Really? We think there is such a thing as an excellent astrologer? And that liking hot man-on-man action encouraged the development of those skills? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have a real problem with some of the recent additions. Besides the fact that they don't really make any sense as written, we don't really prove that there were gay marriages in other cultures, we just know dudes hung out together. Which might be the same thing, or might be dudes liking dudes better for buddies, but still being 100% "straight" per modern terms, sexually.
Godot 19:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- 1. tries to shatter the illusion that homosexual unions aren't 21st century thing
- 2. gets criticized as if he deleted the whole article and replaced it with sentence "homosexuals r gay lulz"
- 3. Theoryofpractice doesn't realize "Homosexuals were excellent healers and astrologers" was a typo, that I actually tried to write "Homosexuals were considered excellent healers and astrologers."
- 4. I don't know what's your point, WFG.
- 5. Citations are on the way, I didn't fucking finish writing the chapter. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) What sort of predictions does a gay astrologer make? "Make sure to bring some lube tonight—you're for a surprise."?
Radioactive Misanthrope 19:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Stabby, please learn what a typo is. You know, when you write something you didn't intend to write? It's 22.00 here and I can't fucking contribute if you assholes delete whole paragraph because of mistakes I could fix with two goddman words. I ain't finished, there will be more citations. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you're going to talk about abstractions like "Africa," "Europe," "Japan," you need to be way more geographically, anthropologically and historically specific. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't be if you guys delete the whole thing before I'm fucking finished. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- DRP - here's the thing. See that big edit notice that tells you that this is a featured article and to be careful" means don't save the page or make the edits until they are complete. Finish in a text document and copy-paste or something - to do otherwise just makes the page look like shit. Omar (gibber) 19:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- EC. Why not try writing something that isn't shit all in one go instead of making a fucking front-cover article look like shit in incremental stages? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- From your POW, everyting I write is shit. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Most of it is. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- When you will become the grand arbiterTM of what is shit and what isn't, let me know. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a history project to finish. -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- When you will become the grand arbiterTM of what is shit and what isn't, let me know. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a history project to finish. -- DasRationalpersone
- Most of it is. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- DRP - here's the thing. See that big edit notice that tells you that this is a featured article and to be careful" means don't save the page or make the edits until they are complete. Finish in a text document and copy-paste or something - to do otherwise just makes the page look like shit. Omar (gibber) 19:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't be if you guys delete the whole thing before I'm fucking finished. -- DasRationalpersone
- If you're going to talk about abstractions like "Africa," "Europe," "Japan," you need to be way more geographically, anthropologically and historically specific. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, can I make a ==history== chapter? Maybe at article on homosexuality, too? -- DasRationalpersone (Annoy me!) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Das, your comments didn't make any sense, they didn't really fit into the article where they were placed. If you want to write a history of gay marriage as an article, then link it, that would be a great approach. But when you suggest that Native Americans practiced gay marriage, same sex unions, or your 'brotherhood ceremonies', as part of "tradition", you really have to go into serious context. Cause it was not normal or traditional, for all it did happen. And like others said, if you write like me or you, probably best not to change a gold article - but rather put your changes up on a draft page first. Our writing is not clear, often. Our grammar and style usually need help. And while that's fine most places, Gold's are our cover stories. The face of RW as it were.
Godot 20:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- I agree with ToP & WfG. I think you are seriously bending the definition of same-sex marriage to shoehorn all these various practices into it + exaggerating how commonplace these were in their respective cultures. & Even if we did accept these as forms of SSM, that still doesn't make them "traditional" in any meaningful sense of the word, since traditions are continuous things within a given culture. You can't just list a bunch of examples of something from disparate places, cultures & eras throughout history and conclude from this that the thing is therefore traditional everywhere. When people (most usually in industrialised modern societies where same-sex marriage is a hot topic) say "same-sex marriage is not traditional", the statement is valid (IMO) since legalised SSM has been so rare historically in their cultures. The more pertinent question is whether this is valid as an argument against SSM. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with ToP & WfG. I think you are seriously bending the definition of same-sex marriage to shoehorn all these various practices into it + exaggerating how commonplace these were in their respective cultures. & Even if we did accept these as forms of SSM, that still doesn't make them "traditional" in any meaningful sense of the word, since traditions are continuous things within a given culture. You can't just list a bunch of examples of something from disparate places, cultures & eras throughout history and conclude from this that the thing is therefore traditional everywhere. When people (most usually in industrialised modern societies where same-sex marriage is a hot topic) say "same-sex marriage is not traditional", the statement is valid (IMO) since legalised SSM has been so rare historically in their cultures. The more pertinent question is whether this is valid as an argument against SSM. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- Das, your comments didn't make any sense, they didn't really fit into the article where they were placed. If you want to write a history of gay marriage as an article, then link it, that would be a great approach. But when you suggest that Native Americans practiced gay marriage, same sex unions, or your 'brotherhood ceremonies', as part of "tradition", you really have to go into serious context. Cause it was not normal or traditional, for all it did happen. And like others said, if you write like me or you, probably best not to change a gold article - but rather put your changes up on a draft page first. Our writing is not clear, often. Our grammar and style usually need help. And while that's fine most places, Gold's are our cover stories. The face of RW as it were.
- Perhaps a better refuation to the 'it's tradtion' thing is to outright say that the nuclear family that's considered the crux of the american family today is not a traditional family. I wish I had citations, but 'tradition' is mandated by culture and context. There are traditions where mothers did not raise their children and instead handed them off to midwives and governesses, which shoots a hole in the inaccurate 'you need a man to work and a woman to take care of kids' model of heterosexual domesticity.. There are families that lived together in an large colony, with the extended family being just as a parental figure as biological parents. Not to mention the fact that preventing same-sex marriage surely also results in rejection of their 'traditional' model : such as solitary people not starting a family at all. Unless they mean to somehow ALSO find a way to turn all of those gay people straight or force them to marry the opposite sex against their will. ±
KnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 20:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention 'traditional' male/female marriage are hardly traditional anymore. The woman isn't being sold off by her father for a dowry, for instance. ±
KnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention 'traditional' male/female marriage are hardly traditional anymore. The woman isn't being sold off by her father for a dowry, for instance. ±
[edit] Even without DRP's trash, this is not a Gold-standard article.
Lots of big, unsourced claims in the fisrt section, lots of "people believe" straw-man claims, not terribly well written. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I for one agree. It's written in one of the most confusing and disorganized ways possible, and really needs an update for the times. There's very little nuance outside of the legal bit, and if this topic is anything, it's nuanced. There's no discussion of marriage equality and other important definitional terms. And Wikipedia is kicking our asses, albeit without much snark.
Acer Blue 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Pulled from cover. ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I really like Blue's idea of highlighting not just the "he said, she said" facts, but the real core that is why is marriage different from Civil unions. what is marriage equality really about. I think those are much more juicy.
Godot 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I really like Blue's idea of highlighting not just the "he said, she said" facts, but the real core that is why is marriage different from Civil unions. what is marriage equality really about. I think those are much more juicy.
- Pulled from cover. ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Religions
For a silver article, the entire religion section (less the intro paragraph) should be dumped. First, nothing is cited, secondly, you are making statements for groups with no body to make that pronouncement. Fine in a bronze article, bad in a Silver, unacceptable in gold. Most individual churches have formal statements of their position, we just need to find them, quote them.--
Godot 05:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
[edit] problems with the article
They believe that if homosexuality deserves equal protection, then, logically, deviant practices such as incest or bestiality must be allowed the same equal protection. "deviant"? Seriously? We're using snarl words?
Incest, however, differs from same-sex marriage in that there is a higher than usual risk that a child born to the closely related couple could suffer genetic defects. Special pleading. And is eugenics really a good basis for laws?
Freely choosing one's own spouse, regardless of gender or status, is a fundamental human right. Except, per above, when they are insufficiently distant relatives.
the law protects (and should protect) individuals from discrimination on the basis of such deep choices (and it does, in the case of religion). The law doesn't allow polygamy, even if for religious reasons. This argument is not consistent with the meaning of "discrimination".
Divorce and widowhood are unforeseeable and thus cannot be compared to same-sex union intentionally raising children It looks like something got deleted, and now this is a non sequitur.
The easiest, most open-and-shut case for gay marriage goes like this: "prohibiting gay marriage classifies on the basis of sexual orientation. That's hardly an "open-and-shut case", seeing how prohibiting same-sex marriage does not, in fact, classify on the basis of sexual orientation.
As discussed in Lawrence v. Texas, homosexual conduct is protected at a high level That's an incredibly tortured reading of Lawrence. Protection of "conduct" does not extend to a requirement to give it official recognition.
Full Faith and Credit demands, however, that if one state says you cannot marry till you are 18, but you are legally married in a state where the age is 16, both states must equally recognize the marriage. No, there is precedence otherwise (and of course, when that precedence gets cited, the people citing it get accused of comparing homosexuality to pedophelia).
'Under the Defense of Marriage Act, states like Nevada and Georgia can prevent the widow of a gay marriage from receiving anything from his or her partner's estate... for no reason other than intolerance and spitefulness. Is the article seriously claiming that a will giving a same-sex partner part of the estate is null and void? Or simply that the normal, you-get-something-even-if-there-isn't-a-will rules don't apply? This needs clarification.
At a less dramatic level, there are many situations where being "family" provides vital legal rights, such as hospital visitation, approval of care, etc., I'd like to see some cites for that. Fdof (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Seriously? We're using snarl words?" you must be new here. To answer your question. YES.
- "Special pleading." Considering that special pleading is " Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.", and we do justify the exception... I don't think it applies here. Society follows all sorts of eugenics policies for some definition of eugenics. Why? Because it's just irresponsible to allow same-parent couples to breed.
- "Except, per above, when they are insufficiently distant relatives." Reason was noted why this exception exists. Just because we have the freedom of speech, doesn't mean that we can say anything. A) We cannot incite others to imminent lawless action (however we can advocate for non-imminent lawless actions, or imminent lawful actions.) B) Even when we are allowed to say something, we are still held accountable for the harm that speech does if it is untrue, and defamatory of another person.
- "The law doesn't allow polygamy, even if for religious reasons. This argument is not consistent with the meaning of "discrimination"." In fact, it is consistent with the meaning of discrimination. Most same-sex couples cannot legally get married, that is discrimination. Polyamorous couples cannot legally get married either, this is also discrimination.
- "non sequitur." It follows just fine for me. Widows raise children in a single-sex home, and so do at least some divorces. Many of the objections to same-sex marriage contain the sentiment: "a child deserves a family with a mother and a father."
- "seeing how prohibiting same-sex marriage does not, in fact, classify on the basis of sexual orientation." It's the very definition of classification on the basis of sexual orientation. You're saying that individuals with a homosexual sexual orientation are not allowed to marry their partners.
- "That's an incredibly tortured reading of Lawrence." Except that you agree that homosexual conduct is protected to a high degree by Lawrence... your argument that "protection does not mean it need be officially recognized" is a fair point, but unrelated to the argument that homosexual conduct is protected.
- "No, there is precedence otherwise (and of course, when that precedence gets cited, the people citing it get accused of comparing homosexuality to pedophelia)." Very well, present the precedence otherwise. Don't worry, we won't accuse you of comparing homosexuality to pedophelia, because we're simply discussing the full faith and credit application to pedophilia, not to homosexuality.
- "Is the article seriously claiming that a will giving a same-sex partner part of the estate is null and void? Or simply that the normal, you-get-something-even-if-there-isn't-a-will rules don't apply? This needs clarification." Yes, it applies to intestate estates.
- "I'd like to see some cites for that." Let's start with the first: http://www.pressherald.com/news/truth-test-misleading-statement-fails-to-cite-change-in-policy_2012-07-08.html Can't readily find anything for the second, but unless the person has established a durable power of attorney, then no, a state that does not recognize their marriage will refuse to permit the spouse to make healthcare decisions. This is a problem, if say, you're flying through Utah, and your partner slips and falls, and falls unconscious. Do you have your durable power of attorney on hand, because Utah won't recognize your same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, if I fall, and my husband is there, there is no question and no demand of any documentation at all in fact to prove that he has the right to function as my healthcare proxy. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- and we do justify the exception
- No, you just state the exception.
- Why? Because it's just irresponsible to allow same-parent couples to breed
- What about people with genetic defects? And don't SSM proponents reject the idea that marriage is about children.
- It's the very definition of classification on the basis of sexual orientation.
- No, it's the very definition of not doing so.
- You're saying that individuals with a homosexual sexual orientation are not allowed to marry their partners.
- You're playing word games.
- "but unrelated to the argument that homosexual conduct is protected.
- It is related, because you are wildly equivocating in the meaning of "homosexual conduct is protected".
- Very well, present the precedence otherwise. Don't worry, we won't accuse you of comparing homosexuality to pedophelia, because we're simply discussing the full faith and credit application to pedophilia, not to homosexuality.
- Wilkins v. Zelichowski Catalano v. Catalano Mortenson v. Mortenson,
- And Dan Savage did accuse Obama of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest for bringing up this precedence.
- Let's start with the first: http://www.pressherald.com/news/truth-test-misleading-statement-fails-to-cite-change-in-policy_2012-07-08.html
- It looks to me like that contradicts the claim.Fdof (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really want to bother responding to your entire Gish Gallop, but how is the second point "special pleading"?
moral 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't a "Gish Gallop". It's a list of areas where I think that the article should be edited. And it's special pleading because it simply asserts a difference, but doesn't present an argument for why that is sufficient for differential treatment.Fdof (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- F, you are missing something critical. we are talking about the Fundi's position, not our own.
- and frankly, you should legally be allowed to marry anyone you want, who is an adult. Including your own sibling. It is not the state's job to decide what incest is or is not. That said, it's probably never going to change, cause change requires a minium number of people requesting it, and i just don't see there are that many sibling lovers out there.
GodotIz a sekret Kristian 21:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really want to bother responding to your entire Gish Gallop, but how is the second point "special pleading"?
- "No, you just state the exception." I think I'm missing something, or perhaps you are. We state that it same-parent parents have a high chance of genetic defects. Being that "high chance of genetic defects" is a different reason than "society just doesn't want them raising children, because they think they would be bad at it," there is no special pleading going on.
- "What about people with genetic defects?" Many genetic defects result in infertility/sterility. There are cases where this isn't true, but anyways fertility/sterility are a side argument. I don't want you to think that I'm defending either position (refusal of marriage to incest/genetically defective people), I'm rather defending the LOGIC involved. The reasons for allowing same-sex marriage, and incestuous marriages are different, and thus it is not special pleading to bring up those differences as relevant issues.
- "And don't SSM proponents reject the idea that marriage is about children." Marriage isn't all about children. It's possible that someone could receive a dispensation from the government to recognize the incestuous marriage if they both undergo sterilization. At that point, the marriage comes into the same arguments as same-sex couples.
- "No, it's the very definition of not doing so." Wait... so treating same-sex couples different from opposite-sex couples is not an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation? WTF are you smoking? The very definition of discrimination is treating one group/person differently from another. When the decision is made that this difference in treatment shall vary strictly upon the lines of what the sexes are of the couple, that very clearly indicts it as discrimination based on sexual orientation.
- "You're playing word games." No, I'm arguing my god-damn point. Which is that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, based solely on the condition that both of them are the same-sex. This is discrimination based on the sexes of the individuals involved. It's TEXT BOOK discrimination. (Many argue that it is however not ILLEGAL discrimination. And in many states this is true.)
- "It is related, because you are wildly equivocating in the meaning of "homosexual conduct is protected"." ... no, it's a different argument. We're saying that because homosexual conduct is tolerated, that it should also be protected from discrimination. You're arguing that just because it is tolerated, it does not necessarily follow that it should be promoted/incentivized.
- Wilkins v. Zelichowski indeed, this is an example where a marriage was annulled based on the public policy ground that a party to the marriage was underaged.
- Catalano v. Catalano This is a case of incest. And while it can be read to possibly support your argument that the "full faith and credit" clause regularly doesn't apply to marriages, the problem is that the marriage were legal in Italy, which is not a US State, and thus not afforded full faith and credit. (Yes, it's a nitpick, but it can be used by a judge to refuse to follow precedent.)
- The only Mortenson v. Mortenson that I can find (http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19550712_0000050.MT.htm/qx) does not deal with the full faith and credit clause at all. It's simply a normal divorce proceeding, that did not end with the court granting annulment. If you have a more specific link, then that would be appreciated.
- "And Dan Savage did accuse Obama of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest for bringing up this precedence." I haven't argued that such behavior does not occur. I simply said that we will not follow that behavior.
- "It looks to me like that contradicts the claim." No, a quote: "It's a literal fact that people have been barred from visiting hospitalized partners." True, there are now policies in place that can be used to rectify the situation, but this year there have been at least two partners denied access. They were however able to appeal to the hospital administration that then corrected the situation. You are correct that it is a poor reason to call for support of same-sex marriage, as the federal government is enforcing regulations that require hospitals to comply. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Maine 11/6/12
Still not updated. When I used to work this joint daily, stuff like that got fixed seconds after it happened... what's up, kids? You want me back? ħuman
02:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Edits of 5 february 2013 (alternative title: "I don't know what to do when an edit isn't wandalism but it's dubious, HALP!")
This BoN edit isn't wandalism but it's...it adds a few things but takes some away too, smells more like someone having a knee-jerk reaction. [2]I'll let you judge[/url]. Just in case the link doesn't work because I'm clueless, here are the two sections that have changed.
1. Iowa's bit in brackets was changed from "(Iowa??? Yes, Iowa, miracles do happen, after all!)" to " (Iowa??? Yes, Iowa is not the redneck bigot behind the times state some pretentious folk would like you to believe, after all!)". The 'pretentious' bit in particular makes it sound like someone's mad, but having a jab against a state (well, considering it was the supreme court that did the work) especially when its own page admits it's a pretty moderate one I guess it could be reconsidered, taking out the brackets entirely maybe?
2. Towards the end of the same section, bigger change: "The issue is often used by American conservative demagogues to attempt to increase voter turnout among those thought to be likely to support Republican Party candidates - it is one third of the "God, Guns, and Gays" trifecta." changes focus entirely, turning into "The issue is often used by American Democrat demagogues to attempt to increase voter turnout for those who support libertarian values, as opposed to many Republicans candidates who are well known to be strictly opposed to it, regardless of flip flopping on the issue, as President Barack Obama did, during his campaign for re-election." Sure, true enough, he did (snag the pink vote to look compassionate, it'll distract people from NDAA), but it seems...kind of irrelevant to single out one person here while wiping out most of the clarification on the republican side of things.
tl;dr idiot doesn't know what to merge, needs to sit in the corner and silenty panic. Polite Timesplitter come shout at me for being thick 09:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neither of the changes should be implemented. The Iowa decision was very contentious and was, as you said, done by the state supreme court and not a referendum or act of the legislature (and several of the judges were voted out of office afterward). The fact that Republicans used gay marriage as a wedge issue and a way to drum up religious support is well established, especially in the 2004 presidential election. There is, however, something to be said about whether Obama's support for gay marriage actually helped him win in 2012, which we might want to add a bit about.
Liquid Blue 09:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I'll probably have a bit about Obama added in this evening.
[edit] Polygamy
I know opponents get them confused, but polygamy means "many marriages" (poly meaning many, gamy, from gamos, meaning marriage). Whenever I see polygamy/polyandry (polyandry = many men), I want to smack someone for not understanding English. Polygamy includes polyandry and polygyny (many women).143.119.162.28 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] New Zealand
I noticed that there is no mention on the page about same sex marriage in New Zealand (legal from August 2013).143.119.162.28 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Moonbat Identity politics objection to the racism/homophobia comparison
That rant about "equal opportunity murderers of people of color" doesn't actually seem to support the assertion that comparisons between racism and homophobia are false. If anything, it looks more like an attempt by a handful of fringe Jacobins to attack the LGBTQ rights movement for not meeting their standards of ideological purity. Even if you ignore the extreme worldview held by the movements making those claims and focus solely on the general idea that advocates for racial equality and advocates for LGBTQ rights don't always act in each other's best interests (with a far more reasonable example being the support for Prop 8), that still fails to prove that the two forms of bigotry aren't analogous. The One They Call Mars (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Years ago, Kinsey pointed out that retrograde ideas about sex became more common the further down the economic totem pole you slide. Medical, legal, and ideological arguments about sex are handier to the wealthy and educated, and public discourse on the subjects will be mostly them as well. This appears to hold true even though the content of the elite ideologies has been changing. It does sound like that "activist" is trying to use knee-jerk moonbat anti-military sentiment under the principle that any stick is good enough to beat a dog with. But the class dynamics, coupled with the fact that theologically conservative Black churches remain key institutions in the civil rights movement, mean that some tension there is likely unavoidable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] "No marriage" doesn't fix inequality.
The "No marriage at all" section states:
"A rare argument [...] is that [...] the state [...] should get out of the marriage business altogether. [...] However, this doesn't really solve the inequality problem. (Advocates of the no-marriage solution rarely seem to spend their time evangelising this view to married heterosexuals.)"
I'm a libertarian, and my biggest objection is: how does the so-called "no-marriage solution" not solve the inequality problem (I assume we're referring to marriage equality). First of all: to say that this doesn't solve inequality by attacking the advocates of this viewpoint rather then attacking the viewpoint itself is a blatant Argumentum ad hominem; who the advocates evangelize to is irreverent to the question of whether this solves inequality. Secondly, if the government gets out of the business of defining marriage and handing out marriage licenses, then the problem of gay couples not reseaving the same rights as straight married couples goes away doesn't it? Hence, marriage equality.
My secondary objection, is that this is not a no-marriage solution. The government does not issue licenses for friendships, boyfriend-girlfriend relationships, etc., yet that hardly means they don't exist. 96.241.169.252 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true, but as long as there are legal benefits to being married, then the "no marriage" solution is a protest that doesn't go anywhere--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)- That's kind of my point. As long as there are legal benefits to having a marriage license, all marriages that do not meet the government's definition of marriage will not receive a license, and thus will unequal. So the government shouldn't issue marriage licensees and shouldn't claim the authority to decide who can and can't get married. How's that "a protest that doesn't go anywhere", what does that mean? More importantly, the article isn't asserting that this solution is "a protest that doesn't go anywhere", the article is asserting that "doesn't really solve the inequality problem". 96.241.169.252 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- In point of fact I agree. Not only does the state define when you are married it also makes it the criminal offence of bigamy if you get married to more than one person.
- I don't really think this makes a lot of sense.
- On the other hand I don't think that law is going to change any time soon - but I agree with the idea.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point. As long as there are legal benefits to having a marriage license, all marriages that do not meet the government's definition of marriage will not receive a license, and thus will unequal. So the government shouldn't issue marriage licensees and shouldn't claim the authority to decide who can and can't get married. How's that "a protest that doesn't go anywhere", what does that mean? More importantly, the article isn't asserting that this solution is "a protest that doesn't go anywhere", the article is asserting that "doesn't really solve the inequality problem". 96.241.169.252 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)