Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive1

Personally, I fail utterly to see how two men or two women getting hitched damages the 'sanctity of marriage' in a way that Britney Spears' weekend-long marriage didn't. --Gulik 03:19, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

That was holy matrimony, dammit! --Kels 13:31, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Also, how does someone else's marriage affect yours? Seems kinda insecure to me if that's a concern. And at least Jason can say he got there before the whole K-Fed fiasco. Jrssr5 14:30, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

legal vs. religious, and tiny comment

"As with any other religious ceremony, these have legal significance only to the extent the government authorizes; that is, in most states, they have no legal significance whatsoever."

Likewise, the legal state-sanctioned contrat has nothing to do with religion. I hope this can be worked in somehow. leading to churches not being required to marry someone even if they legally can marry.

Also, infra sounds a bit legalistic (since I don't know what it means!). You could add a link to the section, or use (!) English? Like, "see below"? Nice to see the article finally getting some good work, btw! human^{be in} 13:17, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

On it!-αmεσ (!) 13:18, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Best of RationalWiki-ing

Once I finish fleshing out these sections, I'd like people to add on copyedit etc. I'd like to make this a best of article. So please jump in...-αmεσ (!) 14:00, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

LMK when you've finished the last five sections and I'll look it over... and can you add some funny to make it easier/more enjoyable to read? Hehe human^{be in} 14:12, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes indeed! Apologies :-)-αmεσ (!) 14:13, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Another minor wiki-issue - you have some headers that are the same (happiness). Can you make them different? The TOC works better that way. TX, human^{be in} 14:20, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Alright, I think I'm done. Please correct & go over, and tell me what's overly legal and unclear? And suggest things to add to make it funner?-αmεσ (!) 14:57, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Gotta run an errand or two, I'll look it over in the next few hours. As I'm sure others will, also. human^{be in} 14:59, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

I nominated it. Could it be improved? Always. Does it have any obvious flaws? None jumped out at me, except maybe offsetting the rebuttals to arguments a bit? human^{be in} 20:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Cover story

Please do not archive this section

• Cover story maybe?-αmεσ (tailor) 12:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)
• I think it needs some tweaking - the US discrimlaw template is a bit narrow focus, since this is a worldwide issue. And that needs to play better into how the article is organized. I added the cover template to the article. human 12:13, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Might it be best to remove the discrimlaw template, then? And reorg to make it more international with subject headers for United States vs. others?-αmεσ (tailor) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sure - feel free to do it ;) Perhaps the discrimlaw thing could be rigged somehow as a "see also"? human 14:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I moved the template. We also need to "uncap" all the headers... human 14:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)

What's uncap mean?-αmεσ (tailor) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, decapitalize all but the first word & proper nouns. human 15:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Not until the 'Other Arguments for SSM' section has some content. DogP 21:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to flesh out that bit as suggested and then we can come back to it. Otherwise it's a perfectly good article. ArmondikoV^gnostic 13:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Right, done a little. However, I'm concerned about the "it's yucky" section of "against SSM". Is that the kind of snark that's acceptable in a cover story? SPOV and humour is good, but I think we should hold the big, badass articles that we present as our best to a higher standard. ArmondikoV^gnostic 14:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Feel free to change if you think it is not worthy of a "cover story" - how about "It's unpleasant to think about"? ħuman 19:35, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Establishment of Religion argument?

I've been thinking recently that there's an argument to be made that the way marriages in the USA is a violation of the establishment clause. Namely, any religious argument, not carried by all religions, enacted into law naturally establishes that religion as a "state religion". The allowance of priests and pastors and other religious officials to act as state officers in order to bind two people in a legally recognized way invites this whole argument. If one religion's officials are allowed to marry two people legally, and another's are not allowed to marry two people legally, then there is a fundamental violation of rights of religion there. In one way, one could create a religion that refuses to marry anyone but same-sex couples, then being recognized as a religion by the US, would be able to hold an establishment-clause case against the US for establishing civil rules that confer greater rights to people of a different religion. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 06:37, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

As sorta mentioned in an above section, religious marriages in the US are all phoney. All marriages are completely secular civil unions. Officially, a religious figure empowered by whatever state the marriage is taking place in is no different than a judge, mayor, and such. Kinda opposite of Eira's point, but leading to the same conclusion, is that religion and religious traditions have nothing to do with marriage in the US. This is why I find objection to same-sex marriage as absurd.

Heck, thanks to the Universal Life Church on the internets, if I bothered to fill out the proper paperwork with the proper courts, I could perform marriages. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 07:54, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I assume that when you write 'phoney', you actually meant to write 'irrelevant in the eyes of the law' or something similar. There's nothing 'phoney' about it from the point of view of those carrying out or going through such ceremonies. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:25, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

The part that makes the marriage "legal" is not the religious nature or affiliation of the person performing the ceremony. Religious officials do the same thing, I believe, as anyone who wants to perform legal marriages - they become a notary public. To get married, the couple first gets a (state, secular) marriage license which allows the certification to be performed, then they go to the ceremony performer of their choice, be it a religious official or any random notary. The official essentially oversees the signing/swearing to the contract and the witnessing thereof and stamps the paperwork.

People even do both sometimes - say a couple elopes and does a JOP wedding. Now they are "legally" married. Then their parents pop up and say,"hey, we'll pay for a fancy church wedding". If they go through with that, they are then "bound in God" or whatever their religion calls it.

Eira's point would matter if somehow some state barred certain religious officials from becoming notaries (church of the convicted felon, anyone?), but that would fail constitutional muster so fast it wouldn't slow down any marriages. human 12:29, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I came to this section hoping for looniness and what do I find? Reasonable arguments on all sides. Damn you all! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:34, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I intended "phoney" to mean "the religious affiliation is irrelevant in the eyes of the law". Still, the brutally honest truth is that the religious aspects truly have no relevance. I believe the point I was trying to make was that the "tradition" arguement for denial of same-sex marriage rights has no weight in light of the above. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:06, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

They have significant relevance - not legally, but culturally, emotionally and religiously. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:41, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't seem to be explaining myself correctly. I think what we've been getting at is that if you strip away all of the smoke and mirrors, all marriages are exactly the same. The only aspect of a marriage that carries any "weight" would be the legal one. Denial of same-sex marriage rights comes from cultural, emotional, and religious reasons. Therefore, those portions are irrelevant to the same-sex marriage rights debate. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes I think that, if you found someone who would do it, you could marry a pumpkin and have hot pumpkin sex all day long, but it wont actually be recognized legally. Wut 14:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

It depends, in the state of Washington, the religious official doesn't become a notary public, they are explicitly granted by law the right to solemnize marriages. (RCW 26.04.050) "any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination". So the question is, what is required to be a licensed and ordained minister? Anyways, for the most part the "traditional family" people are Christians looking to protect the marriage as they see it being valid, even though such a course of action could easily pass the muster of "animus laid bare" used in many cases to, for instance, remove sodomy laws that specifically and exclusively target homosexuals. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling & "American legal arguments for same-sex marriage"

This analysis of the ruling points out some of the arguments used to strike down the ban, including the connotations of the word marriage, equal protection, etc. Can someone use this to expand on the American legal arguments section? The full 172-page ruling can be found here.--DysPerDis_{Talk to me} 14:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

CT

Interseting, but it seems the way this is going to get past the conservative Right Wing USSC is to have each and every state show that at state level, marriage is marriage, civil unions are something else, adn they can never be equal. Not sure how DOMA is going to be able to stand, saying that the Feds have the right to supercede the decisions of states, though. --En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 15:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be cool if all of New England + New York legalised it. Just the fact that MA and CT share a border is sorta cool, in a "freedom of movement" kind of way... ħuman 15:16, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

DOMA really isn't constitutional, at least the states don't have to accept contracts from other states nonsense. If That were to be argued before the Supreme Court, it would be very hard to justify defending it. It is a complete contradiction of the constitution. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 15:41, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

If they don't wanna recognize my marriage to Gabrielle, how about my state not recognizing their divorce from wife number two? (Huh Newt?)

  

22:28, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Sexuality?

I am somewhat confused as to why this article is in the "Human Sexuality" category, and I am considering removing the template from the page. If anyone can tell me a good reason to keep it, I will, but... well, I see no point... ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ edits from 99.98.28.208

Well, the sexuality tempalate is just a way of grouping things, it isn't necessarily strictly "sexuality" but it's related. ArmondikoV^gnostic 09:35, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I have a dream! A dream of when people's sexchual oriantatingshun will no longer affect how they are treated under law - a dream that one day, Rash'nal wiki will move this article to a subsection of marriage, as nothing more than an historical footnote! I say to you gain, I have a dream! ħuman 22:10, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I am soooo looking forward to the DOMA challenge, and watching prick-for-brains Scalia have to fight between icky bad gays and his "State's Rights/Federalism" mantra. He'll explode. it will be so lovely?!--En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 22:40, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Nations

When discussing Sweden, Yahoo said they would be the first to have legalized gay marriages, and not just Civil Unions. I'm not a big AP fan, as i think they don't research well, but does anyone in the EU know for sure if that's true? I'll change our page if it is. --En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 20:54, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Getting breaking news on the RW (the Vermont thing)...who'dathunkit?

  

21:18, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And they over rode a veto! puts on her shades and sings "oh the times, they are a-changing".--En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 21:35, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm thinking of the head Blue Meanie lamenting that it's not a blue world anymore while George Harrison sings "It's All Too Much"

  

21:51, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Best. Music. Video. Ever. ħuman 22:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

LIverpool's a lonely place on a Saturday night... especially when it's only Tuesday Morning". "Woe is me." "would you belive me if i told you I were being followed by a YellowSubamrien? -- No, No I would not.--Didn't think so..." "Submarines, splosions, ...Blue meanies." (i probably have every line of that memorized. sighs.--En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 22:38, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I used to watch it every year or so on KPTV channel 12 in Portland, now I have the DVD with the "Hey Bulldog" sequence restored.

  

22:43, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Status updates by date section

Is missing lots of dates, also, should probably not be the first section in the article (last, maybe). Keep in mind that this is a "cover story"... ħuman 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons I think status should be at or near the top is because that does change, regularly, and is important for both "activists" as well as simply understanding what is changing in the world. While it shoudl be under the "definition" per say, I think it deserves to be near the top... given how volatile this topic is.--En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is in the TOC. Also, it's not very well assembled right now. Perhaps if it were more complete, accurate, footnoted, etc. it would look better as the 2nd or 3rd header? ħuman 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just refactored the "nations" section to list them in order. The "updates" section needs to be merged into it. I guess I'll be doing it, but any help (keep your edits quick?) would be appreciated! ħuman 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly done. Would appreciate proofreading, etc. ħuman 03:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cut to discuss

"===Rejection of monotony in sexual relationship===

Nobody wants to commit to having sex the same way for a lifetime. Those who are against same-sex marriage are usually for variety-sex marriage."

This was under "arguments against SSM".

What does it even mean? ħuman 20:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It reads like Proxima at her worst. Mindless educated Hoover! 20:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That was me. Joke was based on the idea of having the same sex all the time. Whatever. Guess that attempt at humour didn't work out, but the article looked like it needed some lulz. Comedy non-WIGO. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanx DogP. A friend of mine wrote an article years ago about "same sex marriage" and made the same joke, only better (because he had 1000 words and no article to work it into) ħuman 05:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by same sex marriage?

As far as I'm concerned, no government should force a religious institution to 'marry' a same sex couple. Registrary office - fine - but no Christian blessing or any other religious blessing should be even considered without the religious institutions permission. People get caught up over the word 'marriage' - atheists get married in registrary offices all the time but are they actually married? For the vast majority of people marriage is a religious union, thats where it derived from and thats where it remains. Its just a word, no need to get so worked up about it. Gudlack. MarcusCicero 20:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Though it revolts me and makes me feel unclean - I agree with MC here. I think marriage as a religious tradition should retain the male/female union. Marriage as a legal binding is open to all. Ace^McWicked 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The NH law explicitly states that no-one has to marry a couple they disapprove of. Which has always been the case everywhere anyway, MC. IE, there's no way the local RCC branch office would perform a marriage for me - but some churches might. And, yes, the religious connotations (which of course vary wildly...) of the word "marriage" get a lot of peoples' panties in a twist, but for every aspect that matters "in this world" it's the civil aspects (law and custom) that matter. Of course, if one were married at the registrar or by a JOP, God might not let you spend eternity at his side as a couple. ħuman 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there has been any talk of making churches recognize any marriages they do not want to recognize, as that would infringe on freedom of religion. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At least, nothing beyond the occasional bit of fundie fear-mongering. I've seen that claim a couple of times, but it never seems to take long for someone to correct that point, usually using the RCC's policies on marrying divorced individuals as an example.DysPerDis_{Talk to me} 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Poking around:

Moved the status section lower because, I don't like starting the article with a list. I think that if someone goes to a rational wiki regarding same sex marriage, he'd expect immidiatelly the rational argument not the wikipedia like info. Also the article started with a "status" and ended with another "status" so I merged the two together!

Also changed the order of the "other arguments" and the "american legal arguments". (Which now put the second near the "Conflict of laws American & European" section). Sen (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This Quote

“”It's unfortunate that people think of this as something that is a political issue or a conservative or liberal issue. It is a matter of human rights and human decency and liberty.

—Ted Olson

I'm wondering if it can be put here or on another article.

Retrieved from here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2010/02/debating_samesex_marriage.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pbs%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal-blog+%28moyers%2Fjournal-blog%29

User:Mectrixctic 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

disgusting

i think it is disgusting how can you people support this filth omg marriage is one woman one man, this is an insult, disgusting picture of man kissing man oooo that soooo icky like why would you make this article what are you like some kind of perverted? Prejudicial (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on. Surely you can troll better than just an attack on gays. Try calling us "rational" wiki in quotes, that usually works wonders for your troll cred. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 17:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

what are you on about you fag this website is sick full of gay things you love the gays you dirty man haha Prejudicial (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, this is one of those times when I have a really hard time telling if someone's serious... Aphoxema (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

haha you lot are such poofs my dad says gays are sick and wrong and weird it doesn't suprise me yo poofs are all opver this site typical really you all come in like this saying you are so proud of yourself well you know what IT IS WRONG!!! haha i hope you get the message what you do is wrong and weird and i think we should stop the gays from getting together it is sick and corrupting our young you never know how they might turn up now what with all the gay chat show hosts on the airwaves propagandising their vile message makes me sick its so wrong and weird it should be banned. Prejudicial (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for changing that sick picture those two girls are sooooo hot omg i want to have sex with them they are so beautiful omg thank you for tasking down the pictures of gays Prejudicial (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

May I introduce you to my good friend punctuation? DickTurpis (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

is that some kind of gay humour are you calling me gay Prejudicial (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

i am not gay by the way so take that back Prejudicial (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this some sort of conversation you're having with yourself? If so, carry on. DickTurpis (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Never attribute to malice, et cetera, but the only problem I have is I'm not sure if this is the better part malice or stupidity. Aphoxema (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

shut up you fag enablor Prejudicial (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Methinks she doth protest too much. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I..

Move the "American legal arguments for same-sex marriage" section into a separate article of its own? That way, the same sex marriage article could be about "the concept" itself, universally so. (and it would also seem shorter) While the US specific things (or other nations in the future), could have an article of its own. Sen (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

equality

I understand this article isn't supposed to be neutral, but shouldn't it be based on a rational point of view? The "numerous arguments for, only bigoted or irrational arguments against" approach doesn't do it much credit. The article conveniently stops pursuing an argument just before it would break down. Take the "equality" argument. Sure, laws in modern democracies are designed to treat people equally, so why exclude one group of people ... such as homosexuals? So far so good, but taken to its conclusion, this argument deconstructs the notion of "marriage" completely. What is a "marital union" if it is to exclude nobody? Not homosexuals, not polygamists, not the promiscuous, taken to its conclusion, then, the "equality" argument turns "marital union" into something you should be able to select and deselect each morning depending on how you feel. In other words, make it irrelevant.

The rational conclusion of your approach is that egalitarianism applied to the concept of marriage means that marriage disappears. Your rational conclusion would therefore be not to allow marriages for homosexuals, but to abolish marriage altogether, even for heterosexuals. Either that, or else just leave "marriage" in place as a folkloristic custom of "hetero pride" with no legal advantages. --178.198.125.29 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally something rational! You won't be welcomed here, however. Everyone else are "progressive-ethical" pigs. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a homosexual couple who'd like to take a formal vow of fidelity are in the same situation as polygamists and the promiscuous here - why would they want to engage in a one-on-one partnership anyway? A marriage should simply not exclude anyone who wants to bind him- or herself to a partner, and the benefits society offers to couples should be available for all of them, regardless of their sexes. Röstigraben (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

But what if I want to marry my favorite cow? I really, really, really love him! All the white dots and, ahh, these black ears! And such a beautiful big mouth! Why do you evil people forbid me to marry him? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your entire argument is based upon the lazy, fallacious slippery slope argument. That argument is: "We should not make a logical choice today, out of fear we won't be able to make a logical distinction tomorrow." The issue is whether gays should be allowed to marry, not whether you and your cow should be allowed to marry. When that issue comes up, let's discuss it then. You and your love affair with your cow is a classic straw man, and not worth addressing as it's not an issue confronting society, only your own personal life. --Leotardo (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you stupid pig. I'm saying that if you think gays can "marry" each other on basis of equality, then reducing this equality to only human beings is clearly hypocritical. And after all, isn't it somewhat "discriminating" to say how many people can marry each other - why not 50? I'd like to have 12 mothers and 7 fathers, some of them cows.

The real thing is that gays aren't discriminated at all. Noone denies the right of any gay man to marry. He can choose any woman he wants. Because marriage is a bound between a man and a woman and there are nothing more than just some age restrictions to it. But to go on telling that men should have the right to "marry" men is nonsense, because that simply isn't marriage. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If we give the right to marry to creatures capable of communicating informed consent, it would be hypocritical to not extend that to species who can't! --Kels (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

anyone is free to make as many "formal vows" as they please every day. This is a personal choice. The question is not about "vows", it is about legislation; the question of which ways of life the state should officially sanction. If you want equality, the only sane reply is "none", or you will need to introduce special legal status for every conceivable way of life. The argument that same-sex marriage must be introduced for equality's sake is an expression of bias, i.e. of a sex-centered view of human life, and what's more of a false dichotomy assuming that there are two kinds of people, heterosexuals and homosexuals. This is a possible bias through which you can choose to view the world, but it is irrational to imply that it is somehow the correct way of looking at the world. Sure, it is the biased view homosexuals will take. If you are homosexual and you take pride in being homosexual and you think about your homosexual identity every day, you will end up thinking about the world in this way. But some people are either heterosexual or homosexual or asexual or what have you without basing their identity on this, so the idea that the state should sanction sexual relationships seems completely arbitrary and, yes, irrational.^{— Unsigned, by: 178.198.125.29 / talk / contribs}

OK, so you're arguing that a better way towards equality would be to abolish all of the benefits society bestows upon married couples instead of increasing the scope of who's allowed to marry. Remove tax credits for them, remove marital status as a factor in adoption decisions, and so on. I admit that this would be one way towards equality (let's call it "libertarian equality"), but there are two arguments against choosing this route: first, it's not very practical. Getting all married straight couples to give up their own benefits would be much, much harder that convincing them of allowing homosexuals, and maybe others, to enjoy them as well. Second, and more importantly, there's a difference between taking a vow in private and having it recognized by society at large through an institution such as marriage. The question is whether all relationships are indeed equal, or whether society has a right to privilege some of them. It's a difficult one, not least because those who want to uphold traditional marriages only deploy the same argument, though centered around the possibility of procreation - which is not and has never been a prerequisite of traditional marriage, so it fails in their case. I do think that society has the right to draw some lines and provide incentives for certain relationships, as long as they can be shifted based on the available evidence. A few decades ago, most people would've thought it ridiculous that homosexuals could establish families that are a good environment for child-rearing, but we now know it's very much possible. I guess polygamists can do the same, there are quite a few cultures that officially accept these relationships and they've managed to persist just as well. I still don't know why you brought up the promiscuous, because that lifestyle isn't based on any commitment to a particular relationship and would obviously be antithetical to a marriage. So it boils down to whether marriages that are recognized by society instead of being simple private vows contribute to a society's stability, in which case there's a good reason they should be supported. Societal stability arises from the stability of individual relationships, and they all require some amount of mutual trust and some expectation that society will intervene to punish cheating (that's obviously not just true for marriages or sexual relations in general, but also for business exchanges etc.). The taboo against cheating is much stronger when there's a formal commitment to fidelity that has been made publicly instead of just being a private promise, so it enhances stability. Lastly, I don't see how this view is overly sex-centered - sexuality is an important part of identity, but by no means the only one, and that very general notion of norms governs all of our relationships, in the bedroom, in the office, whatever. I'm also puzzled why supporting gay marriage would require me to be a homosexual who's obsessed with his sexual identity. I'm straight, which is nothing I derive either shame or pride from, and the reason why I support it has much more to do with my identity as a progressive ethical pig. Röstigraben (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, because we all know gay relationships are about nothing more than sex, whereas straight relationships are all about bonds and love and children and forever. --Leotardo (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If two, three or more people of whatever sexes want to call their relationship "marriage" I've got no problem with that. It certainly makes the word "marriage" less meaningful - but so?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How progressive! How ethical! Marry me tonight (just for fun!!) --Idiot number 59 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you a US citizen? --91.145.88.218 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I live in North Korea.... but it can't stop True Love!!! Yep, whenever I feel sexual desire or pretend to feel it, it's True Love!!!! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bob, it's hard to figure out how you mean allowing marriage for gays makes for certain the word marriage "less meaningful". How does it degrade the word, exactly? --Leotardo (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I chose that word badly as it carries a negative connotation. Nevertheless every time you broaden then meaning of a word you do tend to make it less meaningful. For instance, it is possible to broaden the meaning of the word religion to such an extent that it includes atheism or any other belief you care to mention. However I would have preferred to have written "makes the word "marriage" more inclusive".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Give it up bro (or sista), you ain't gonna get nowt but abuse for your very rational sentiments. Marriage is between a man and women, end of debate, job done. Should a homosexual couple be entitled to the same legal status as a married heterosexual couple? Erm, well, no; because there should be no special benefits for married couples either way. However if you present an opinion other than "homosexuality is fucking brilliant and homosexuals should be praised to the skies" you will be irrationally shouted down. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The contract of marriage though takes up certain issues that introduce legal responsibilities of government and others to recognize. This is the same thing as with a Power of Attorney. The government, and others need recognize the validity of the contract between the two people for that contract to actually mean anything. As income and property is shared, it makes sense for the federal government to treat the marriage as an individual rather than a group of individuals. We are also likely to admit far more things to our spouses than we would otherwise admit to anyone else, and thus it makes sense to recognize a marriage as a single individual for the purposes of determining self-incrimination. Even if we entirely strip out "marriage" from the legal system, then merely by generation of the contracts that these individuals can and should be able to construct, there enters a question of what and when the government will recognize those contracts. (e.g. An Attorney-in-Fact can file your tax returns, but they cannot represent you in court. If someone sues a marriage, can any party to that marriage represent the communal interests or are they—like corporations—forced to hire an attorney to represent them as they are only a "legal entity"?) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Marriage laws are state issues, not federal. So far, anyway. ħuman 04:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all marriage laws are state issues, c.f. Defense of Marriage Act. Although, the US government is oddly willing to defer to state definitions in some cases. The courts have ruled that as long as a marriage involving a transgender spouse is considered heterosexual, the federal government will recognize it as a marriage for immigration purposes. (This means a transman and a man would be recognized in Texas, but not Kansas, and a man and another man would be recognized in Kansas but not Texas.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean a homosexual marriage involving a transgender spouse (eg transwoman and born woman) is considered a heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman for immigration purposes, but not considered a marriage in any other case? Just clarifying. Chthonios (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to be more clear. In a few states (notably, Texas and Florida) there have been definitive court ruling declaring void any altered birth certificate for the purposes of marriage. Thus, a person who was declared male at birth, but later transitioned to being female cannot marry a man, but may marry a woman. In other states (notably, Kansas and Ohio) have declared that an altered birth certificate is expressly recognized, and thus a person who was declared male at birth but later transitioned to being female can only marry a man, and cannot marry a woman. So, a marriage between a transwoman and a "cisgender" woman in Texas is recognized as a heterosexual marriage and thus recognized by the federal government, but if that exact same married couple were in New York, then the marriage would not be recognized by the federal government. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to all of the slippery slope CRAP written here: animals cannot consent to contracts, thereby there is no reason why the government should allow a human and an animal to enter into a marriage contract. Also, the animal is incapable of owning property, has no tax liability, or any other such reason that creates a condition whereby the owner need anything other than ownership to achieve the same legal rights and responsibilities that a "marriage" would possibly confer.

Who cares if polygamy, and polyandry is allowed? This honestly shouldn't bother any one. Technically, people "incorporate" all the time, and produce a legal entity that represents the formal interests of many. As long as all parties to an existing marriage consent to be involved in the introduction of a new party to that marriage contract then I cannot rationally claim any error on any part. Is it weird? Maybe, but the law naturally allows for a lot of weird shit to happen.

The whole attempt to sound rational here on the part of anonymous IP is a horrible fail to understand that he is committing a hojillion fallacies a paragraph. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So do those who fully support homosexual marriage (in whatever form one considers 'marriage' is or should be) de facto support polygamy? Whilst the bestiality arguments are of course absurd, I think that this one is not. </JAQing off> DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't really speak for everyone else, who supports homosexual marriage, but the arguments are not necessarily bound together. The argument for homosexual marriage can take the position that only two party marriage contracts should be acceptable, because of mostly arbitrary reasons. As I don't really think there is any merit to objecting to polygamy or polyandry I'm not really the best person to ask to represent their position. But to answer your question broadly, support of homosexual marriage does not necessarily imply support for marriages of more than two people. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably each person will have their own ideas, but the "one man one woman" idea is simply the current social/legal norm. We tend to see everything in respect of that norm which we have grown up with. But I can see no logical reason why we should regard it is the only way to live, and certainly no reason to defend it as the "best".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has been in polyamorous relationships, I'm actually against the idea of extending the marriage contract past the two-party model. While poly relationships can be very stable, most are not, and adding a legal contract to that would likely make matters worse. I would consider a long-term, stable poly relationship to be uncommon enough as compared to a long-term, stable two-party relationship (without regard for gender) that it would apply as a separate issue. And, unfortunately, one I don't support. --Kels (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting and enlightening perspective. ħuman 06:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK - but the two-party different-sex model has a - what - 50 percent divorce rate? It's clear that the idea of the "permanency" of marriage is also in doubt. And why should we expect people to stay together for life anyway?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Then throw various BDSM-based relationships into the mix if you want yet another dimension of complexity that still falls within the informed consent barrier. I did put a WIGO up about someone who was showing how awkward it all is from a database perspective. It may seem nerdy, but it was a fascinating read and a great insight into how to judge such things objectively. If you want to consider alternative sexualities and inclusiveness you're probably on the wrong track; it'd be impossible to please every possible combination and ideal. The headaches really start when you need flexible inclusion of polygamous relationships there. Instead it would be best to redefine the concept in more broad terms; i.e., ones that automatically include everyone without having to specify what is and what is not allowed. The concept still can exist, but is defined by more realistic terms rather than traditional ones; describing what it does and not what tradition dictates it is. So I disagree that marriage must be made meaningless or is necessarily made redundant upon extending it. It is, as outlined above, and incorporation from a legal standpoint; you're extending rights and responsibilities regarding yourself to another person. And importantly, unlike family, it's a person you nominate and choose.It's a remarkably important step in someone's life and would be as powerful and applicable regardless of who it was "opened up to". ^{d hominem} 02:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem boils down to the fact that the thing we call "the institution of marriage" has changed over the years. Let's think "Why marriage?" for a moment. I'll try to do this chronologically.

• To enforce monogamy on females so as to ensure that a male can be sure that the children he is raising are his. (OK, one could express this in other ways.)
• Because God, the Bible, the Quran or the religion of your choice mandates and defines marriage. Your religion will not allow you to have sex unless you are married.
• Because of social pressure or the law of the land.
• To codify the financial situation of wives and legitimate children.

Clearly not all of these continue to be of prime importance. The question then may become: "What is the main purpose or reason for marriage in a modern society?"--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. ^{d hominem} 15:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I am at uni I seem to get a picture of a condom on the main page. You sure it has nothing to do with caching? - π 02:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right? I've never seen that image until now. --Leotardo (talk) 15:25, 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)

Women kissing women is more aesthetically pleasing, its true...but i could care less if 2 guys kissing was in the pic or branjellina....all about the article, peeps...Dorianin (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"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. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 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

“”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.

So, from my reading, what we're seeing is a cultural thing. Close knit immigrant populations tend to hold conservative (small c) views and that is reflected in their attitude to same sex marriage. Bad Faith (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. F_ucker^{talk 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 seconds minutes. [1] --★uːʤɱ socialist 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)

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)

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)

"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 afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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 arbiter^TM 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)

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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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;DR^{garrulous 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;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I agree (with Weasloid et al) insofar as marriage is such a highly specific institution. Gay relationships being recognized publicly does not equal marriage. This is why the whole "marriage" versus "civil union" issue exists in the first place. Blue (is useful) 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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. Blue (is useful) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pulled from cover. Тy^{Lonely. 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)

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)

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)

No, if it were characterizing fundies' position, it would be "other deviant", not "deviant", and it wouldn't be claiming that SSM is different from incest. And Eira wouldn't be defending it.Fdof (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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. Blue (pester) 09:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I'll probably have a bit about Obama added in this evening.

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)

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)

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)

"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)

restructure the list of nations with gay marriage

How about we split the list of nations with gay marriage in sub-categories (conducted and recognized, only recognized (e.g. Israel), limited recognition (e.g. "civil unions" similar stuff just below real marriage and other categories)) and sort the entries by date (the list as it is not is highly confusing).--Arisboch (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The "equality" argument...

.. is based on the false premise that the marriage social contract provides protection and support to a "loving pair" for the sake of the loving pair itself. Sorry to burst your bubble, but two adults together don't deserve any more protection and support than two adults alone. It's the quasi-certainty of helpless children being the result of hetereosexual unions what gave marriage the privileges it has. This social contract exists to to protect children and the resources assigned to it justify themselves as a necessary investment into the future. Homosexuals claiming the "right" to have society invest the same resources in them is just childish, unjustifiable and an expression of parasitism that's completely undeserved. 82.161.30.183 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoch is why childless couples, couples where one partner is wildly different in age from the other and couples who are sterile get no benefits to marriage whatsoever. Also, adoption is a thing.--Miekal 22:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The presence of free riders does not grant opening the doors for more. Adoption is OK as far as the right of children to grow up with both males and females is observed. Biasing them to become gay is a breach of reproductive rights and therefore child abuse. 82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We still let christians marry, thus biasing kids towards christianity. A breach of free thought, thus child abuse. Your point is fucking hogwash. The whole process of raising a child is abuse brought about by biased parents in some way or another.208.29.163.248 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Marriage establishes a legal relationship between marriage partners which fulfils a range of functions, whether they have kids or not. There's nothing childish or parasitic about this; only your attitude. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A range of functions? What "functions" of two adults deserve the extra societal investment that's denied to an adult alone? For partnerships there are sufficient legal frames already in place. 82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but if you want people to take an argument seriously here, slandering a whole population group by calling an important social issue to them "an expression of parasitism" isn't the best way to do it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse my for stating the obvious, but marriage is not an issue that worries "a whole population group". The percentage of homosexuals that abuse marriage is extremely low. 82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

One wonders if thats because they are both a minority and usually unable to get married--Miekal 23:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at Spain, the most gay-friendly contry in the world. The government claims 10% of the population is gay. The option of gay marriage exists since 2005, however, the mariage statistics of Spain show less than 4.000 gay pairs per year using this option. In contrast, heterosexual marriages amount to 170,000 couples pe year. If gays were as interested in marriage as heterosexuals are, there should be about 17,000 gay marriages per year (10% of 170,000). Instead there are 4.000 which means marriage is 4.25 times more wanted by heterosexuals than by gays. So much for the red herring of "a whole population group". 82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Or there arent enough gay people around who like somebody else to marry them.--Miekal 00:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Since when were people's rights decided by how badly they wanted to use them? Marriage equality isn't just about getting the gay couples that want to marry what they want, it's about making society and its laws less overbearingly heteronormative. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have fully explained the reasons marriage is "heteronormative", and it has to do with protecting children, not as a privilege of "love" be it hetero or gay. You lack reading comprehension, are you on AIDS drugs? 145.64.134.245 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarcastic apologies and willful ignorance also aren't part of the best way of making people take you seriously. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you in particular take me so seriously that you can't quit sniffing my ass. Whine baby whine! I love it! 82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pfeh, if you think I'm whining you have a peculiar view of reality. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, 81, you're demeaning my (heterosexual) marriage. When I married we both knew that children were not going to be part of the package but that didn't in any way detract from the public declaration of my undying love for my partner - and hers for me for that matter. If you think marriage is all about the kids then you haven't got a clue. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If he hasn't got a clue then explain why society has to favor two adults that live together more than adults that live alone. It's absurd, you're absurd. The privilege of marrage responds to the obvious need of protecting breeeding couples in order to ensure the future viability of society. Whether the couple feels love or not was never the point! Now why do gays want to kidnap mariage? they want to steal from the prestige of the institution to make their "pairings" look more acceptable. They don't give a flying fick about how that prestige got there in the first place, namely through the sacrifice of generations of breeding couples devoted to their kids. Selfish bitches destroy everything they come close to. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What the devil kind of horseshit is that?? What gets stolen from anyone, if the state recognizes marriages, where the spouses have the same plumbing (and don't get started with procreation, cause if it's two women, than they could use artificial insemination or if it's two men, they could use a surrogate mother (depending on whether it's legal. Stupid fucking Europeans and many other and their über-restrictive bio-so-called-"ethics" laws. Goddamn Luddites)).

The argument was never the plumbing dumbass, but the injustice of giving marriage privileges (which carry a burden on society) to people that don't fucking need them because their chances of having dependent children are nil. Even if they acquire kids by exploiting others (surrogate wombs, buying from China and crap) they will deprive them of their fundamental rights like freedom of sexual orientation. You're pushing the envelope so far that Islam starts looking like a desirable alternative to the societal destruction you progressive eunuchs promote. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how children raised by heterosexual parents have "freedom of sexual orientation" but children raised by homosexual parents do not. Also, what other "fundamental rights" are these children being deprived of? Your statement indicates there is more than one. Also, if you could, would you take away marriage rights from people who can't or won't have children on their own?--SpecialFFrog (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, how obtuse. Children with a mother and a father have the chance to experiment life with both sexes and therefore acquire a clear sexual identitiy pretty soon (save exceptional cases). Homosexual "parents" deprive them of that by default. I would take away marriage rights of couples that know before marriage that they have zero chances of having children. Since this is never the case for heterosexuals (there's always room for hope), only homosexual pairs are left unable to justify why marriage privileges should apply to them at all. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Except inasmuch as this argument is completely and painfully idiotic without a hint of truth, good point. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because your parents apparently locked you in a cupboard with no exposure to the outside world, that doesn't make it the norm. Also, I question your understanding of sexual reproduction.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, this is too funny. At first I was annoyed, but now I just find it hilarious. Life is just too rich and complex for some people to comprehend. Worm (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ikanTreed, SpecialFOg, Worm (self hating nick)... who raised you into hating families and your own biology so much? Are you residual products of an alcoholic-meet-crack-whore racial diversity relationship? 82.161.30.183 (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 14:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused how, if how my parents are helps shape me to the degree you mention, how it ended up i came out of a conservative fundamentalist household that is anti gay and became a pansexual democratic socialist with vaguely agnostic views. Explain this for me BON--Miekal 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

1/10, I'm afraid. Your pseudo-rational arguments were more entertaining.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There is always room for hope for homosexuals? How naive of science you are. I had myself sterilized at the age of 22. My wife was sterilized before we married. It would be impossible for us to bear children and we knew before we married that we would never adopt. There are zero chances of us having children, and we knew that before marriage - thus invalidating your statement that there is always room for hope for heterosexuals.

Furthermore, we didn't get married in a church, just before a judge. While I was raised Catholic, my wife is a 3rd-generation atheist. And the only reason we married was to secure the rights of inheritance, the rights of medical determination for the spouse, and the other 1000+ federally provided benefits of marriage.

Before you suggest that we should have gotten a civil union, I remind you that civil unions are legally inferior and subject to disruption by a blood relative, especially in the case of inheritance. Marriage would not protect my wife from having the will nullified by my rapacious uncles who seek my wealth. --Castaigne (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So, our friend's argument boils down to

• Marriage is about having kids
• Same sex partners can't have kids
• There fore same sex marriage is a sham.

However, the assertion that marriage is about having kids is flawed otherwise it would be banned for the sterile or those over child bearing age. A good friend of mine married knowing he only had a few weeks to live (about six as it turned out) - would our friend have banned that or would he have seen it as what it was, a man's dying gift to his partner, a declaration of his eternal love?

And, as soon as we accept that there are circumstances where those who are incapable of having kids should be allowed to marry - and we haven't even touched on Castaigne's story, then why should we limit those circumstances to opposite sex couples? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)