|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Same-sex marriage
|
This Sexuality related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Libertarian case/No-fault divorce[edit]
I find the libertarian case misrepresented. Effectively it already makes no differences whether you are married or not since no-fault divorce was introduced and sex outside marriage legalised. Common law marriage assumes you are married when you are not. Child support does not depend on a kid being illegitimate or not. There is really no penalty for whoring around anymore, so I think the argument that the state should stay out of the business is legit.— Unsigned, by: 193.62.251.21 / talk / contribs
Legal arguments section outdated[edit]
The legal arguments section somehow does not include the actual arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, notably the "right to choice of intimate identity and beliefs". Any objections to adding them? Also the author of the text, Justice Anthony Kennedy, somehow does not have a page? Ramendik (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Why not gold?[edit]
Why not making this article Gold? It seems to me that it meets all criteria. -Lankaster (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Very poor research[edit]
| Ok Boomer |
|---|
|
All or nearly all the articles citied by this page attesting to the supposedly equal effectiveness of gay parents in raising children are broken links or do not actually contain such findings. One article, for instance, shows no difference in parenting by couples with one partner who has had at least one sexual experience with the same sex in their lifetime as compared to those couples which have had no such experiences between them. Yet, this page presents it explicitly as proof that same sex couples are just as great in raising children as heterosexual couples. This kind of misrepresentation of research would get you kicked out of most schools. In fact, there's little to no research showing gay parents to be just as effective as heterosexual parents. There is, however, a great body of evidence showing that children raised without mothers and/or fathers achieve vastly poorer outcomes in life, although we can go all day as to the reasons for this. I know that the users of this site prefer, like most people, to interpret evidence to fit preconceived beliefs, but this is just dishonest. You should be capable of presenting an honest account of the state of research and academics, even when it refutes (or fails to support, if you prefer) your own predetermined beliefs.— Unsigned, by: 96.55.149.216 / talk |
- You are wrong, you failed to cite counter sources, ad hominem, get over it and go away. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
What egdes where?[edit]
From the article: "According to the recent Gallup poll,the percentage of Americans favoring same sex marraige egdes high like never before!" I'd correct it if I could tell what it was supposed to mean. Vivisectionist (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think "edge" is misspelled. I think when they mean by "edge high" they mean there's a big margin. See edge out phrase. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"Forthcoming article from the NYU Review of Law & Social Change"[edit]
The Conduct or Status? section mentions a "Forthcoming article from the NYU Review of Law & Social Change" that, if I'm understanding it correctly (I'm no legal scholar here), will argue for framing same-sex marriage as conduct rather than status under the law. Special:Permalink/56676 It's been saying that since 2007. Anybody got a idea of what the article in question is/was? DietMondrian (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- no legal expert here, but it very much sounds like a legal tactic to use in court to support a larger argument being made rather than a argument in favour of same sex marriage in its own right. the conduct or status section reads like a argument was going to become a significantly important tactic. without the article in question or a more enlightening explanation as to what it actually means or it implications, then it just reads like semantics and by now probably outdated speculation. recommend delete that section unless someone has something more concrete to add. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)