Talk:Same-sex "marriage"/archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


A few problems with this. It's not exclusive to men, and Bush has pretty much given up on the Constitutional amendment. MountainDew 16:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

  • There are a lot of problems with this, which I've just tried to fix. The previous article seemed to be mixing up legal marriage and religious marriage. It implied that the President can amend the Constitution. etc. Dpbsmith 18:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Isn't this already kinda covered at Homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage? Maybe we should import content from that section and then link from there to a fleshed-out article here, or flesh out the section there with whatever may come up here. In either way, some kind of synchronization would be of benefit in my eyes. --Sid 3050 16:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Hey Colin what was wrong with Ed poor's version? --BenjaminS 08:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

For starters, this sentence was in the first paragraph: "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"." (no citation) ColinRtalk 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I protected my first page. I am now a total Wikipedia pariah, since I used editorial power to 'win' an edit war. :-( --Ed Poor 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone can provide a citation for "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"," I will relent on reverting this back. Do note that I was originally reverting to Aschlafly's version, now I am reverting to a modified Ed Poor version (Aschlafly's first paragraph, the rest Ed's). ColinRtalk 08:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had alrady removed the refrence to their intent. --BenjaminS 09:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It still included "very few want to marry each other" which is either a lie or an uncited fact, neither of which are allowed on Conservapedia. ColinRtalk 09:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, lets remove that sentence altogether. --BenjaminS 09:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There's also "has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality," which is opinion. Tsumetai 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What was wrong with the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph? It was hardly bad enough for the rollback button. --BenjaminS 09:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The rollback button is easier to use, my apologies. I doubt the truth of that sentence, but if that is the case, then surely a citation for it won't be hard to find. If you can't find one, I have no problem saying, "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)." This sentence isn't biased, doesn't have as much of a need for a citation (if one at all) and includes more viewpoints than the earlier sentence. ColinRtalk 09:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is fine except for one thing which I fixed. --BenjaminS 09:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The sentence "...because the marriage services of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman" contains a factual error. It should be corrected to "some Christian denominations"; many denominations of the UCC, for example, conduct same-sex services. Other parts of the article are not particularly encyclopedic, like the sentence "Morality cannot be legislated." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbjxc (talk)

I thought this was doctrinaire; morality cannot be legislated+gay [1] brings up 89,000 Google hits. Rob Smith 17:19, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Edit war

Under the section about domestic violence, the word "survey" is mis-spelt. As the text has been locked, I wonder if one of the Sysops could fix it? Luojie 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Colin's version: accurate and uncontroversial. Ed's version: contentious. Therefore, the current version should remain until this issue is resolved. As sysops, we should be setting an example and sorting this out through discussion. Are we agreed? Tsumetai 08:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Tsumetai and have reverted all but one of my changes. I think I was too 'bold' here. Thanks for everyone's mild response. --Ed Poor 09:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Agree re: 'contentious', 'until resolved' & esp. 'setting an example', that is. --Ed Poor 09:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I was only referring to the one paragraph, but OK. Tsumetai 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us parley

Okay...instead of the edit war-ette, let us hash it out here. I don't have an ax to grind here so you can count me as a neutral "referee" (bribes and plasticaccepted). Crackertalk 09:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Marriage as a right

  • "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)."

This is complex. It entails the idea that (1) marriage is a right and (2) homosexuals should have 'equal rights'. It involves the idea that (3) the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.

Maybe we should lay all cards on the table. --Ed Poor 09:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one. Yes, the Old Testament considers it an abomination, but the old testament also says quite a few other things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today. Moreover, the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity as only the New Testament really matters. ColinRtalk 09:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
You are wrong here, see the passage from the book of Romans, that i quoted below. --CPAdmin1 10:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
The passage from Romans indicates that homosexuality MIGHT be a consequence of idolatry and THAT a God goven consequence. Crackertalk
lol, now we must add the view that (4) 'only the New Testament really matters' to the list. How tall will this house of cards become? --Ed Poor 09:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not saying "only it matters," but clearly many of the Old Testament laws were deemed unnecessary; I mean, you don't keep kosher do you? And who's to say which laws can be dropped and which must be kept? (obviously I can see the need to keep the 10 commandments, as they even help live a Christ-like life) ColinRtalk 09:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Colin: you're not old enough to remember but years ago many states had what were called "blue laws" that made it illegal for business to be conducted on Sunday, (you could OPEN your place if business, that was okay, but you couldn't make any transactions). The effect was that people would do all of their shopping on Saturday. You couldn't get GASOLINE on Sunday! 1 out of ten stations were open. Nevermind "homosexuals" they didn't even get close to being mentioned when you could talk about "Sabbath breakers" all day. Crackertalk 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, but I am old enough to remember said blue laws, and to an extent some blue laws are still in place where I live. ColinRtalk 09:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh yeah, I failed to recall you live in the "land that time forgot". Crackertalk
Hahaha, yeah, that's rural Tennessee. :-P ColinRtalk 09:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally i don't beleive that anything from the old testament is nulified unless it is nulified explicitly in the new testament, e.g. the eating of unclean animals-- I love bacon :) -- The new testament does seem pretty hostile to homosexuality. --BenjaminS 09:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

So no polyester/cotton blend shirts for you, eh? Crackertalk 09:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Who says so?

Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin). [1]
  • The reference (to Leviticus) would certainly support a statement that "Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts." And, yes, a suitable New Testament reference would broaden this. I don't remember the passage in Romans offhand.
    • Romans 1:24-28

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that thier bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do these things which are not proper,

so yes, the bible is clear on this. --CPAdmin1 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't want to get into a game of "dueling Scriptures" but if a passage starts out with a "therefore" it ought to include what the "therefore" is there for. Hence:
Romans Chapter 1: 21-23(RSV). 21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
This would indicate, that the sin of homosexuality is begotten from the parent sin of idolatry.
So the Bible is "clear" about idolatry being bad, (look what it's gets you!), but not all homosexuals are idolaters, are they? Crackertalk
  • The reference certainly does not state that giving equal legal rights to male couples has any affect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony.
  • The reference does not support the statement that "some argue" this. Probably some do, but it is important to have a good reference here, because without it the reader can't tell why "some" would say this, or what their argument for such a position is.

Something like this can certainly go in the article, but not as a weaseled "some argue" that does not give any traceable link to who makes this argument and what their argument would be. Dpbsmith 09:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not see this sentence or anything similar to it even in the article, but I felt this was the best version to convey the particular sentiment. ColinRtalk 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Oh, I'd rather not see it in the article myself, but that's a different issue... Dpbsmith 09:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith that we should avoid weasel-worded statemints. Traceable links are useful and often essential.

I agree with Colin that we must not lie! Uncited facts can be a problem, but anything that's true should be pretty easy to find a citation for.

(Unsigned comments by User:Ed Poor)

What needs to be shown is that this is a) a reasonably widely-held position, and b) what the stated basis of that position is. Should it go in the article just because BenjaminS and his brother hold this position? Or is it a formal position taken in a paper published by some organization like (say) Focus on the Family? Or is there a Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans hold this position? It matters. And, frankly, as should be clear, I think this sort of material should go in the article after it's supported, not before. Dpbsmith 11:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


  1. leviticus 20:13

In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals. vs Poll data

In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals.

Poll data can be found at [2]

  Legal Illegal Amend
Leave to
the States
All 41% 55 38 58
Men 38 59 39 58
Women 45 51 38 59
18-29 55 42 32 67
65+ 21 75 44 50
Democrats 50 46 35 61
Independents 47 50 38 60
Republicans 24 72 43 52
Liberal 69 27 28 67
Moderate 44 52 30 68
Conservative 20 77 55 42
Evangelical 17 81 58 38
Non-evangelical 42 55 30 67
No religion 66 26 19 78
East 48 46 36 63
Midwest 40 56 42 53
South 35 63 42 55
West 49 48 30 66
Married 35 61 41 55
Not Married 49 48 36 62

Outside of the Liberal and Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections, support is fairly much split down the middle (do realize the large overlap between the Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections). I find the original claim faulty - most of the support is not from the liberals (though they support it the most). --Mtur 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Not an oxymoron, etc.

I changed:

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoronic phrase that depicts two people of the same sex attempting to gain the same legal status afforded to men and women.


A same-sex marriage is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that has the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman. Some regard the phrase as self-contradictory because they do not regard it as a true marriage.

It's not an oxymoron, because it's not a figure of speech made for rhetorical emphasis. In recent years a form of humor has arisen which consists of describing a phrase as an "oxymoron," causing the hearer to do a double-take as he gets the comic interpretation, e.g. "Government organization--that's an oxymoron." But this is not yet accepted as a real meaning for the word, although in a few years it may be. "Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron" could be a joke, but it is not a proper statement either of a fact or of an opinion.

Seconding, "attempting to gain the same legal status" is inaccurate, because same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries and one state of the United States, and these couples do have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex. (And couples joined in civil unions in states that have them have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex.)

To suggest that, from a legal point of view, same-sex marriages do not yet exist is to deny a plain reality. Dpbsmith 22:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "marriage" means a man & woman. There is no other meaning to the word. RobS 22:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Rob, please stop the business of stating flatly that what RobS thinks a word ought to mean is what the word means. It's a special case of stating that whatever RobS believes must be true.
"Marriage" is often short for Christian marriage, which takes place in a church, is officiated by a clergyman, is ordained by God, and is between a man and a woman; but there is another meaning to the word. it can also refer to the civil contract, which grants certain legal rights and is officiated by some kind of state official--most clergyman are also state officials--and is governed by state law.
The marriages between same-sex couples that take place in Massachusetts are "marriages."
The changes you made are a presentation of your personal opinion, and are not appropriate when stated as fact.
As for the word "oxymoron," I've substituted "ludicrous self-contradiction."
P. S. I would like to see some examples that show that the use of "same-sex marriage" within quotation marks is a widespread, standard usage by conservatives. Dpbsmith 06:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And yet millions of people feel otherwise. Czolgolz 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Among those millions are the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary:
1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.[3]
and those of Merriam-Webster:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross[4]
Believe me, I check the dictionary about a dozen times for every time I actually quote it, and I wish other contributors would do the same. Whenever I'm not really sure what the nuances or range of meaning of a word are, I check. There are many words whose meanings I think I know that, it turns out, I don't really know. Dpbsmith 06:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I consider the "oxymoron" PoV to be discredited.

This is the second time its been stated, dictionaries do not give definitions. RobS 13:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • "'Same-sex marriage' is an oxymoron" is an incorrect use of the word oxymoron.
  • "'Same-sex marriage' is a ludicrous self-contradiction" is correct usage, but inaccurate.
  • "Some conservatives consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction" is accurate, but should be sourced.
  • "Because the editors of Conservapedia consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction, the term will be used in quotation marks throughout this article" is something that could be worth discussion. I'd accept this if a) it really is the Conservapedia consensus opinion and b) the article identifies it as such. Dpbsmith 14:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Usage by conservative sources

Of the first hundred Google search of the National Review, ninety-eight of them simply use the term without quotation marks. This includes a 2005 editorial. One anti-Kerry article uses the phrase same-sex marriage without quotation marks numerous times, but uses same-sex "marriage" twice, I'm not quite sure why. one other uses the phrase Massachusetts same-sex "marriage". Dpbsmith 12:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Focus on the Family consistently uses Same-sex 'marriage' and same-sex "marriage". Dpbsmith 12:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Eagle Forum uses same-sex marriage, no quotation marks, 99 times, and same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts once. Dpbsmith 12:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Christian Coalition: 99 usages without quotation marks, one with. Dpbsmith 13:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT) Dpbsmith 13:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

How come when I click on these Google results I get these,
  • 2812 results from NRO for <marraige"> [5]
  • Dr. Dobson specifically refers to "same-sex marraige" and "gay marriage" in an article entitled, Marriage on the Ropes, where the word marriage occurs 90+ times. [6]
  • CC first result: California's Supreme Court Overturns San Francisco "Homosexual Marriages" [7] and that sirte consistently uses <"marriage"> in this context [8]
Also, the appears to be no uniform way these searches are configured to get results that are already in quotes. RobS 13:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I was exploring, Rob.
If you want to remove the second paragraph I just added to the article, on the grounds that you don't like my methodology, go ahead.
Is your point is that the phrase should be "gay marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage," i.e. that the phrase "same-sex" was chosen to play down the word "gay?" I wasn't even looking at that. I can't speak for others, but I personally would have no objection to moving "same-sex marriage" to "gay marriage" and revising the language accordingly. Dpbsmith 13:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

SSM as an attack on the institution of marriage

Any legal inroads to redefining marriage from one boy and one girl can only lead to the destruction of marriage as a godly institution. Holy matrimony, which also allows the non-religious to partake, is given by God. Legal perversions, such as bigamy, polygamy (for which they are raking Mitt Romney over the coals) and forced "arranged" marriages (where the girl has no choice, a kind of legalized rape), will destroy marriage if permitted.

This is part of the homosexual agenda. They don't really want to be "married" or "enjoy the benifits of marriage". The civil union already does this, allowing next of kin rights when you're in the hospital, etc. The purpose is to destroy marriage. What we need to be writing about is why and how the gay rights movement is trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I guess it has something to do with taking away the ability of pastors (and society at large) to condemn homosexuality. It's related to "hate speech" and hate crime legislation which forbid criticism of homosexuality as sin. --Ed Poor 13:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? DrSandstone 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-Speaker 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
All three of your points are false, and this is not a debate page. Try Debate:Should America permit same-sex marriage?.
  1. Your "inability to see a motive" does not imply that the effect will be harmless. A drunk usually doesn't want to have a fatal car accident.
  2. A desire to be subsidized for something does not validate that thing. Many drug addicts wish the government would give them free heroin.
  3. If there were a refutation, you would have given it. --Ed Poor Talk 06:08, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Courts are clogged enouogh with divorce and custody cases; with gay adoption, and what by first glance appears high rates of, let's call it, "extra-marital promiscuity" among homosexuals, the oft quoted 50% "divorce rate" appears to be much higher among gays. RobS 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The "extra-marital promiscuity" amongst gays might because they can't get married, dude. And administrative convenience is no reason to abridge liberty.-Speaker 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
It's just the other way around. Male homosexual promiscuity is so high that homosexual "marriage" would have no reducing effect. Rather, it's likely to encourage heterosexual promiscuity. --Ed Poor Talk 06:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
And we actually have valid survey stats the show the risk of AIDS infection in homosexual "domestic relationships" is the highest of all groups surveyed, higher than just random-one-stand homosexual relationships. And this is attributable to two factors: (a) "extra-marital promiscuity" in homosexual domestic partnerships, and (b) the extremely and disproportionately high incidence of rape in homosexual domestic unions (both male & female). None of this has been added to this article, or any other in CP, yet. Rob Smith 13:39, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I still don't understand how SSM will destro the insitution of marriage. Does two guys getting married render your own marriage null? It would be different if gays also wanted to pass a law outlawing heterosexual marriage, but last time I checked there was no such movement. Is there a serious fear that if gay marriage is made legal all the good straight Christians will suddenly catch a gay gene or something? Arguing that it is against your churches moral codes is one thing, but arguing that gays are out to destroy your entire way of life seems a little demagogic to me.Prof0705 13:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just for the record, Ed: Two weekends ago I was lunching with a lawyer—a judge, actually, who presides in a different state than ours. I was muttering something about our will. He said that "Everyone needs a lawyer three times in their life when they draw up a will, when they buy a house, and when they get a divorce." He then went on to say in a jocular way "It's just life. Sooner or later you need to shed a spouse, and when you do," etc. etc. I sort of blinked at that, and said that I thought at this point my wife and I were probably married for keeps. (And, yes, was relieved when my wife confirmed it).
I feel that remarks like that threaten the institution of marriage more than all the civil unions in Vermont. Dpbsmith 14:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Paris Hilton & Britney Spears, together or separately, are greater threats to marriage than all of the gay unions possible, past present & future.-Speaker 14:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, maybe you could explain your reasoning. I can't for the life of me understand how SSM could have a negative effect on anyone else's marriage. Are you worried that those sneaky gays will trick people into marrying them who'd otherwise be marrying opposite-sex partners? I realize that's probably not actually the objection, but what is it? Murray 19:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Murray...I know many gays who want nothing more than to have their unions legally recognized as marriages...some of these people have been together for decades, but still have to file taxes seperately. Maestro 16:11, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

What does tax filing have to do with it? A joint form takes just as much time to prepare as two separate forms. Perhaps you are suggesting that society subsidize homosexuality for some reason. But subsidies should be reserved for good things, things that need to be encouraged and nurtured. Homosexuality is an evil. It should not be encouraged, endorsed or accepted. --Ed Poor Talk 06:14, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Snipping Wikipedia-sourced long list

I'm removing this for three reasons. First, Wikipedia itself does not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, and neither should we... quite apart from issues of institutional rivalry. If someone wants to reinsert this, they should find the sources Wikipedia used, or do fresh research, to support the entries in the list.

Second, the topic of the article is same-sex marriage, so probably it should only mention places that allow marriage (under the same name, law, and institutional apparatus--same forms are filed, etc.--as traditional marriage.)

Third, the insertion of such a very, very, long list, including places that have only "registered partnerships" and places that are "considering" same-sex marriage, really looks tendentious to me.

In other words, the list should be limited to a) major countries (no need to mention the Netherlands Antilles) that b) allow same-sex marriage, and c) are accompanied by references. The references are important to allow the reader to verify what the country actually does or does not allow, and ensure that (say) someone doesn't say that "same-sex marriages are allowed in the United States" when they are only allowed in Massachusetts, or anything like that. Dpbsmith 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Material removed

Same-sex marriages are allowed in Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Monaco, Spain, Cayman Islands, Greenland, Netherland Antilles, Turks and Caicos Islands, Pitcairn Island, French Guiana, Falkland Islands.

Israel approves of same-sex marriages performed abroad, but does not perform them in the country.

Same-sex unions or registered partnerships are allowed in Hungary (from July 2007), Andorra, [[Italy]9 (some regions), Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, United Kingdom, Martinique, Guadeloupe, United States (Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Maine, District of Coumbia and Hawaii), Mexico (Mexico City and Coahuila), Australia and Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Argentina (Buenos Aires City and Rio Negro Privince).

Same-sex unions are considered in Hong-Kong, Philippines, Taiwan, Austria, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Greece, Gernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Lichtenstein, Poland, Bermuda, Costa Rica, New Caledonia, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay.[1]


I suggest also removing the last paragraph. It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter.

I am not sure it is correct to say that Mass. has same-sex marriage under the definition given in the article. Two Mass. people of the same sex can have the same Mass. legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman, but not the same under federal law. RSchlafly 15:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Your second comment: What did you have in mind to do about it? Qualify any statements about Massachusetts in the article, accordingly? Tweak the definition, which I don't think is quite right but didn't want to tinker with myself?
The article currently says only that Massachusetts is "the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses."
Or are you just pointing this out as relevant to discussions here on the talk page?
Dpbsmith 19:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Here is a link to the HRC page of international marriage status. Surely that is a good enough source to re-include the list of countries that do permit it?

Why not just add the link itself? I'd add that although I'd personally accept their information as accurate, HRC is not exactly a neutral source, and has an obvious interest in creating an impression that same-sex marriage is widespread. Dpbsmith 22:14, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Section on Line-Drawing & Gay Rights

(I tweaked the phrasing to read "Line-drawing and the slippery slope argument," because I think it's best to avoid the phrase "gay rights" here, as I don't think it's Conservapedian consensus that gay marriage is related to legitimate gay "rights.")

RSchlafly says "It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter." I agree. In its present form, on the face of it, it's a personal essay and unsourced opinion by User:SpeakerOfTheDead. It would not be allowed at Wikipedia.

Both paragraphs begin with weasel terms: "Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest..." and "Gay rights workers suggest..."

In order for it to be valid content in this article, SpeakerOfTheDead needs to show by citing sources that the slippery-slope argument is an important part of the same-sex marriage debate, not just a peripheral add-on.

That is, he needs to show that opponents are saying something along the lines of "The reason I oppose gay marriage is not so much because of gay marriage in itself, but because of what it could lead to." Rather than "I oppose gay marriage for these moral/religious/societal reasons, oh and by the way here's a bunch of other problems: it would also inevitably lead to legalizing bestiality, etc."

If this can't be done, I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. Dpbsmith 08:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The problems are worse than that. The section just gives a weak version of the slippery slope argument, as if that is the most important argument against same-sex marriage. It is not. I say that the whole section should be omitted. Maybe some real arguments could be put in later. RSchlafly 11:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I pretty much agree with you. Too bad that RobS and SpeakerOfTheDead and others haven't weighed in. I left a note on SpeakerOfTheDead's Talk page. I would not oppose cutting the text from the article and pasting it here for discussion. Dpbsmith 11:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed from article:

Gay rights activists claim they are seeking equality.

What does "seeking equality" mean? Is it a suggestion that sexual intercourse is in the same moral category as race? That's funny, because liberals keep saying "race is a construct" and also that "homosexuality is a construct". Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?

I'd like to see an argument from gay rights advocates which says why they think two men (or two women) should be allowed to marry. We can then see whether this argument leads to the idea that a man could marry his dog (she'd be his bitch!) or that three men could marry, or that adoptive homosexual parents could give their consent to a 14-year-old girl "marrying" a lesbian woman.

What's the distinction between same-sex "marriage" and other outrages like bigamy and pedophilia? --Ed Poor 12:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed - you asked "Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?" Last time I went on a camping trip, I saw some chipmunks engaging in sexual intercourse, I saw a fish eat a crawdad, and I saw a pair of birds engaging in a real bitter fight, or a hot night of passion. Nowhere in the woods did I see a pair of animals in front of a priest, exchanging vows and rings, and dancing like idiots near the open bar. Long story short - only humans get married, because, yes, marriage is a human construct. Care to try again? --WWillis 12:32, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Criticism of the "slippery-slope" argument is just an effort to denigrate the underlying argument. The first "criticism" of defenders of marriage must address the fact that these proposals upset a couple of milleniums of understanding what the idea of marraige is common to all cultures and civilizations. RobS 13:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

This is indeed a criticism (although I don't agree exactly about the idea of marriage being common to *all* cultures), but the same-sex marriage debate does often collapse into the slippery-slope argument. Santorum was mercifully mocked for making exactly that argument, for example. It's not the only argument, but it is a frequent argument and probably deserves some coverage here. Brainslug 13:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, once we get to current politics. But marriage itself must be defined first, and it is not defined by agenda driven activists seeking to redefine it right now. RobS 13:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, re your question a few posts up: 2 consenting adults is maybe the most important difference between SSM and the other things you mention. In your view, aside from the anatomy, what's the distinction between SSM and "traditional" marriage? Murray 14:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Let's call it the "anti-procreationist lobby". RobS 14:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Not sure I understand the objection. Could you flesh it out a bit? Thanks. Murray 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Dr. Dobson says,
Opponents of traditional marriage suggest legislative action to redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman simply masks the real homosexual agenda, the intent to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender.[9]

(undent)So it's the slippery slope argument. What's the evidence that the "real homosexual agenda" is to destroy marriage? Do you (or Dobson, or whoever) genuinely believe that the purpose of seeking to legalize same sex marriages is to allow bigamy? Sometimes a cigar is just that. Murray 15:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Dr. Dobson says,
For millennia, traditional marriage has been celebrated by every culture on earth as the cornerstone of society. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws, radical feminism and a sweeping sexual revolution combined here in the United States to rip open the fabric of the family. They left it shaken and wounded. It was a growing apprehension about this situation that led me to resign from my academic position in 1977 and start a fledgling new organization called Focus on the Family. In the 26 years since, we have been working tirelessly to bolster and preserve traditional marriage and parenthood. [10]
There is nothing there that cannot be supported by evidence, and there is no reason to not take Dr. Dobson's word for what he says about his life's work. RobS 15:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
But there's nothing in there about gay people being out to destroy traditional marriage. And there is good reason not to take Dr. Dobson at his word if he does make that specific claim without evidence, although I'm sure he sincerely believes what he says. Murray 12:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Worldwide Laws

Why was the section on worldwide laws on same sex marriage deleted? Maestro 15:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

(a) the sources (b) the sources refered to 'partnerships' and 'relationships', not marriage. RobS 15:23, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

"The word's definition"

RobS, what's your authority for the definition of the word "marriage?" I know you don't accept the dictionary, but I'd like you to cite the source for the definition you use.

And please revise the opening sentence. "Same-sex marriage" is not "also known as homosexuality." For example, homosexuality exists in all fifty states of the United States, but same-sex marriage does not. Dpbsmith 16:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Having received no answer, I am citing "the marriage services of Christian denominations" as a source for the definition, and specifically citing the language of the Episcopalian prayer book. I'm also noting that this definition was written into Federal law. Since marriage laws are primarily a state matter, I'm further noting that a few states permit civil unions and one allows same-sex "marriages" under that name, while noting that the Federal government does not recognize these marriages. Dpbsmith 18:43, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

"Line-drawing & Gay Rights" section

I'm moving this here, because although I think it's an arguable point, this section is, as noted a few weeks ago, basically a personal essay, and since that time it hasn't been changed. It doesn't cite or quote what opponents of same-sex marriage actually say, it doesn't cite or quote what gay rights workers actually say, and so forth.

It shouldn't be reinserted unless supporting material can be added clarifying these points. Dpbsmith 20:39, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Material removed

Line-Drawing & Gay Rights

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that allowing same-sex marriage will place society on a "slippery slope" towards allowing bigamy, incest, and other moral "wrongs." The argument rests on the idea that the only legal or moral "line" preventing same-sex marriage is morality, which is also the only "line" preventing acceptance of bigamy et all.

Gay rights workers suggest that such argumentation downplays the danger, though, of the evils at the bottom of the slippery slope, and society's interest in preventing these evils. The state has a compelling interest in preventing bigamous relationships, which are (1) a burden on state funding, since marriage triggers social benefits and (2) have a higher incidence of spousal abuse. These "lines" are not predicated on morality, but on facts. Similarly, incest is an evil that society has a factual interest in preventing, since incestual relationships often (1) entail abuse, and (2) result in unhealthy offspring. Since there are non-moral reasons to reject both of these "horribles", gay rights workers insist that acceptance of same-sex marriage (by abrogation of a legitimate state interest in preserving "morality") does not entail acceptance of bigamy or incest.
  1. Homosexuality laws of the world at Wikipedia