RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Same-sex marriage

Same sex marriage | Result: No consensus, consensus to form did not emerge for over 4 months

Same-sex marriage (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Same-sex marriage is a common topic. It's not quite as relevant as it was in 2013, but there are still numerous countries where this is still banned. More importantly, after 7 years of it in the US, we are starting to see the results, which sadly do not include world-ending Earthquakes.

Demote to Fabulous Gold

1. I think this is worthy of front page CorruptUser 19:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Honestly I kind of agree. Andrew5 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
3. yas queens! Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Status quo

It is a good candidate for demotion, but the brainstar guidelines (RationalWiki:Article rating#Gold/Cover-level stories) should be followed, specifically "The cover status has been discussed and agreed upon on its talk page. This last criterion is the most important." And, there needs to be a cover story nominee abstract written that can be reviewed by others (Help:Cover stories). The abstract can generally be revised from the lede of the page. Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Article reads painfully heavy from an americentric/anti-religious right POV (like most of the site), but one that feels particularly dated given the block about the 14th amendment and the fact that the legal arguments described therein are not a problem there anymore since Obama made gay marriage A Thing That Isn't Going Away. The religious freedom paragraph is also tonally terrible (I get it, it feels good to tell shithead christian fundies to eat shit, and we do in many of our smaller articles, but this is not something that belongs on a Gold article; this is a part of bronze checks). Most of these can probably be solved with a good hedge clipper, but for now it's not Gold-worthy. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
2. wasnt gonna bother coming on either the yay or nay side, and im probably not going to defend views on the matter, just want say my piece. i am all same sex marriage. i remember when it went through parliament. i remember the debate in the commons (i seem to remember david lamy was particularly good in the debate). i remember when the 'ayes have it'. i remember being elated, like this really was (and it really was) a momentous moment in history, that this was journeys end for gay rights in the uk - that everything else around equality for lgbt folk after was both minor in significance and inevitably be corrected in our favour - just matter of time for specific issues to crop up just needing the relevant legislation to updated (just in the uk mind, and this was back when trans people were effectively invisible and no one knew anything of gender and identity or there was anything much to fight for that wasnt just a variation of a theme on the broad 'gay reights' already fought for and won). i feel personally invested in the topic is what i mean and im very much 'for' camp. the issue i have with the article is that it too is in the 'for' camp. much of the article reads to me like it is making the case for same sex rather than outlining the arguments made in its favour and those made in opposition. there is little reference to who is making what argument and often the various arguments described are very broadly put and sometimes poorly. arguments against same sex marriage suffer the most, seeming to lack any detail in their descriptions with little in the way of context or detail and barely any examination of what position is being taken, who is taking it or why. instead we mostly have very broad and simplified arguments made in opposition to a a degree that they dont quite capture or miss a great deal of just what it is people have argued just to be dismissed in a just as overly broad and simplified fashion. i do not feel i am enlightened by this, i do not it sheds light on why people have been or are so against marriage equality nor do i feel it informs me of good counters to such people. the pro section suffers much the same fate though instead being presented as being plainly ridiculous and hypocritical attempts to justify prejudice by bigoted people, the pro arguments are presented as incontrovertibly and objectively the morally and factually correct position, on the right side of history and on the side of all right thinking people. i have no idea after reading the article what lgbt people feel about it all, or what lgbt people hope to gain from same sex marriage or what we miss from its absence, what it means to our lives and our loved ones, what it means to for our relationships when we grow up knowing they will never be considered valid or be valued. all im really sure about from this article is if the breeders have it then gays should too and that the real injustice and hypocrisy is that we cant fuck our kids or purchase our significant others at a the pet shop. as is mentioned elsewhere its very us-uk centred, with the us even more heavily focused than the uk. i get no sense of world outside of these regions, and theres not really much of sense of what these regions actually look like either despite the huge slant. the bogeymen of the piece are broadly the 'religous right' and the 'socially conservative' - the american manifestations of these broad groups, so mostly the 'fundies'. allusions to the rest of world ring hollow when there is no mention of africa or asians views of homosexuality or homosexuals marrying beyond the offensively trite and vacuous canard 'the western christians invented homophobia' - stated in not as many words here there throughout, starting in that history section, one of the sections that refers to specific examples and not just broad opinions of vaguely defined 'somre people but are just wrong as examples in so many ways beyond factually to make a poor point poorly. else where reference is made vaguely to something to the uk (tories and pre-brexit eurosceptics) or digs at the republicans and fundies for vague examples from the us. where it does get into specifics and naming names it goes only for extreme positions like the fred phelps style fundies or references the us constitution, which for arguments around same sex marriage, or indeed and arguments around civil liberties, not only does not translate beyond us shores well, but makes much debate redundant, coming down to 'is it in the constitution?' answered with 'yes, fuck you its my right, ill do as please' or 'no, fuck you, you have no rights, ill do as i please'. another reference to a specific persons argument from the uk, justin welby of the c of e, one of the few times it does reference who is making a particular argument and a specific argument at that, fails to present that argument that would tell you it was more than something welby pulled out his arse and so monumentally dumb that he had immediately dial back. but it concerned the anglican churches in africa what was/are very real possible consequences the church supporting same sex marriage would mean for christians in africa. in the uk and the us there is no consequence for the heterosexuals if the gays can get hitched. its easy to laugh of the homophobic opposition in the west. we'd already won the big fights, and for many lgbt folk marriage equality was the end of a long road. people still struggling in other parts of the world just to be allowed to exist. trans people in the west still have a ways to go. its not as inevitable as seemed a few years back that we are near the end of the journey. to do this topic justice, this article needs to be framed in that context. it should not present the arguments so broadly and so simply. it should do more than just reduce opposition to dumb fuck talking points made by right wing religious nutjobs. it should be more than just an essay of why someone thinks we should allow same sex marriage. it should do more than just play to the crowd. it should present arguments accurately. fully with detail and context. for and against. it should tell us who making an argument, and it should not be telling why we think it is right or wrong, it should be telling us who is saying an argument is right or wrong and their reasoning for it. they should be referenced too, with specific real world examples and how they contrast with one another. its fine if the focus is heavy on the us or the uk even, but it needs the context of the wider world. it needs context of the wider struggle. since time has passed since uk and the us had this debate it should look at the effects and whats left to do. just what effect has it on a child growing up gay today, growing up seeing as future where your love is valued and worthwhile, you can fall in love and declare it the world, you can get married just like everyone else, instead of growing up seeing a future where your relationships are all disposable and meaningless, growing up and seeing themselves and their lovers as disposable as their relationships. i cant imagine growing up and not seeing anything but disposable love. has enough time passed that people have grown up seeing something more that we are able see differences from generations growing up with the possibility of marrying who they love? this article has nothing to say there. it has more to say about being able to fuck horses than it does about same sex marriage.

   sorry about the rant, kinda lost my train of thought. same sex marriage and the debates over it seem a life time ago, im not the only gay in the village and all but this topic this feels very personal to me ,from time of my life filled with so much more optimism. rambling bullshit though it is, im gonna have an opinion on this article. it aint gold. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

   someone might wanna do a collapse for all that noise. cant see the markup for that in box below AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

   @AMassiveGay We can't collapse it as it would mess up the numbering. You can make a statement like ("See Goat"), move this to goat, and collapse it there. Andrew5 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• Looks like someone already made a cover abstract way back in 2010? See Template:Cover abstract/Same-sex marriage DietMondrian (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  @DietMondrian It was promoted to silver following a discussion in May 2012. Andrew5 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I'll have a more thorough look at it. Bongolian (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  A problem that I'm noticing is that this article was motivated in the pre-legalization era, and the text that was written then has not necessarily been updated. E.g., civil unions is not an issue in countries where marriage has been legalized, but that was a big issue back then. Bongolian (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've gone through the whole page except the Status section. It would be good if someone went through the Status section to make sure that it's current. There may still be a few places where the text is written as if gay marriage was not legal in many jurisdictions. Bongolian (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  is the status section really necessary? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  and if it 'is' necessary, should it be organised into region where same sex marriage is legal and regions where it isnt? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  It needs more referencing, especially in the US timeline, I'll say that. Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are we going to demote it or not? It's been open for 3 months and the vote seems to be 3-1. Andrew5 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• I just gave this article a much-needed cleaning. This article originally caught my attention because much of it was clearly not updated since Obergefell v. Hodges, and given that the fight for marriage equality is still ongoing in many parts of the world, that made the article really America-centric. The article is now in a much better state than it was back then, but there are still a few issues I would like to see addressed before I'm willing to demote it to gold:
  1. The intro needs a rewrite; it was clearly written when gay marriage was illegal throughout most of the Western world. Perhaps it could be reframed to show which parts of the world have it legalized, which parts are still fighting for that right, and a basic summary of the arguments for and against.
  2. Much of the article still feels written in the early 2010s. For example, it largely glosses over the subject of education in the "People will be forced to accept gays" section, when that is a hugely relevant issue nowadays, especially with things like the "don't say gay" bill in Florida. And this is more of a nitpick than anything else, but there's also little to no mention of how this issue relates to trans and nonbinary people.
  3. The "Arguments against same-sex marriage" could use a heavier cleanup. Many arguments are repeated in multiple sections, and the section could stand to be better organized in general. There's also some sections that focus on the arguments of a specific individual rather than talking about the general arguments, and overall talking about the arguments more generally could help reduce the West centric-ness of the article.
  4. I'm not entirely sure what to do with the "American legal arguments for same-sex marriage", which feels outdated after Obergefell and doesn't even cover the arguments used in the case. Given recent events surrounding the Supreme Court, gay marriage may not be as safe as we once thought, so such a section could still potentially be useful, but it may need to be split onto its own page. General constitutional arguments can potentially be added to the "Arguments for same-sex marriage" section, as a number of court decisions have legalized same-sex marriage in various countries and it is likely to happen again in the future.
  5. The "Same-sex marriage resistance" section seems like it could use expansion, given that it only mentions two countries, and the US section was basically just a Kim Davis section until I added some information on how marriage licenses were being abused in Alabama.
• I won't vote against, since I think with a little work, this can get to gold, but it's just not ready yet, at least until the aforementioned improvements are made. Plutocow (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Closing as no consensus, it can be renominated when improved. No consensus exists to demote after 4 months. Andrew5 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)