Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Same-sex marriage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

More undue weight

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

I think Jamesmichaelsf has misunderstood the tone and balance of an article like this one. After the excessive length on Rauch, s/he just inserted another excessively detailed discussion of another passing editorial opinion. While these various columnist have interesting enough opinions, characterizing one particular editorial writer at such great detail is really disproportianate. Moreover, even those particular opinions we quote or paraphrase should be used to present significant points-of-view, not just to biographize those who write them. LotLE×talk 07:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also... inserting needless <BR> tags is also strange. LotLE×talk 07:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree again, as per my comments above. Dayewalker (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the tone and balance of this article, if not to give the fullest expressions and arguments that are out there about such a topic. If you want me to take out the biography of Helminiak, I can certainly do that. However, I have to say that my quotations/paraphrases of these various editorial writers and authors are for the sake of presenting significant points of view. For many readers, it is important to know a little about the authors of where some quote has originated. This is an encyclopedia, for the sake of the sane, and thus, it is supposed to be accurate and complete, regardless of length. Brevity is a wonderful thing when it comes to the newspapers, but an online encyclopedia doesn't have to abide by those rules as much.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You might do well to read WP:LENGTH. We are most strongly not looking for the "fullest expressions" here. LotLE×talk 08:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You two (LotLE and Dayewalker) are just trying to be cruel and mean about this. You obviously don't like or agree with the arguments presented by Jonathan Rauch and thus are not allowing them to be posted on this page. However, his arguments deserve the treatment of a separate section on this page because it is an argument equal to all others and thus should be given the same credence/length as other topics have been given on the page. And you don't agree with the other things either, which is why you are deleting them. You are probably some straight white guys who don't agree with homosexuality and thus try to censor any arguments that threaten the status quo, etc. Sorry, but your opinions aren't the be all end all of this debate. Consensus is only worthwhile when it leads to justice and fairness of all points of view, especially on a page that discusses the controversy of arguments for and against same-sex marriage. You say that you are trying to be fair, but you allow the religious arguments against same-sex marriage to be lengthier than the arguments in support of same-sex marriage and take out anything that helps to even out the balance. And with regard to Rauch's arguments, I can only say that his arguments are the most promising ones that have come out in a long time and show that there is true diversity within the gay community, just as much as there is outside of it, when it comes to arguing in favor of same-sex marriage.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate place for a long discussion of Jonathan Rauch is in an article devoted to him. He is only relevant to this particular article inasmuch as he states or characterizes widely held or influential opinions (NOT because his arguments are "right"... that issue is completely irrelevant to a WP article). I know you are new, Jamesmichaelsf; a common mistake of newbies is the relentless pursuit of WP:TRUTH. That's not what we are looking for here: an encyclopedia is about neutrality and WP:Verifiability. Reading relevant guidelines and policies is a good way to understand the nuances of what WP is, and what it is not. LotLE×talk 08:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

JM, you seem to be new here, so I'll let that one slide. In the future, don't presume you know anything about another editor simply because they disagree with you, especially when they're being polite and discussing the matter. Here, we discuss edits and not editors. Please leave your comments to the subject at hand. Dayewalker (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is not "widely held" or "commonly believed" or "influential" does not necessarily mean that an opinion is not worth mentioning or being given the same amount of bandwidth as any other opinion or point of view. Just because some opinions are more accepted by the majority does not give them some special moral status that would make them more deserving of greater amounts of space permitted on this page. That is a question that is being debated right now in California, about how much a minority can be affected by the majority's opinions on a subject. From the standpoint of equality and fairness, neutrality or lack of bias is always the goal. Thus, when any particular institution, whether an online encyclopedia or state law, the goal of it's actions/representations should be toward equality and fairness for all points of view. Thus, Rauch's arguments and their enriching quality of this topic, should be allowed. I could probably find secondary sources that suggest Rauch's opinions are notable, but why must one do this? If something is printed in popular media such as magazines and newspapers, then that suggests it is "influential" enough to be given fair/equal treatment with regard to the topic of same-sex marriage. I am not trying to find the truth about this or evangelize about my point of view, just give equal representation to the side that is not as fully represented on this page - the pro-gay marriage side.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If an opinion is not "widely held" or "commonly believed" or "influential" is plainly and simply has no place in a Wikipedia article about a general topic. That really is it, full stop. It might well be that Rauch holds the rightest, cleverest, and most profound opinion of any we might ever mention... that in itself has exactly zero relevance for including it in this article. On the other hand, Rauch's opinions are definitely quite notable to the existing biography of him (assuming they contribute to his own notability); put some of the expanded material there. Similarly for other columnists or writers whom you have mentioned who do (or could) have Wikipedia articles. Analogies with what is just for civil rights law with what should be included on Wikipedia are just plain silly. An article does not serve justice, and it most certainly does not serve WP:TRUTH. There really is a point to the policies on WP:NPOV and WP:V that you would do well to read and understand. Secondary sources stating Rauch's importance in perceptions of same-sex marriage (assuming such exist) might be relevant here; but that would only be a starting point to evaluating the WP:WEIGHT of mentioning him (or likewise for the other columnists you have expanded upon). FWIW, I'd like to echo a rejoinder of Dayewalker's point, perhaps a bit more firmly even. Pay attention to edits, not editors! You don't know what you think you know about editors. In particular, I had a lot more connection with and knowledge of the gay-rights movement when you were in diapers than you are likely to during your lifetime (OK, I confess I'm making an informed guess about your age). This article is not supposed to be (must not be) either pro- or anti-gay! If you think those are the sides to balance, Wikipedia isn't the right place for you! LotLE×talk 09:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, Dayewalker and LotLE, but what gives you the right to infer such judgment about what is appropriate for Wikipedia? My interpretation of the WP:NPOV and WP:V, especially with regard to articles that are about controversial or "debated" topics such as same-sex marriage, is that when something is deemed "controversial" it inherently puts one side of the debate in a relegated status of less "widely held" and less "commonly believed." Is that not what causes the controversy in the first place? A majority deems the issue morally reprehensible, and thus, the side in favor of it is deemed as less important or not as noteworthy. When trying to give supportive citations for the various arguments in support of same-sex marriage, there is no way not to mention those that espoused the arguments themselves. Rauch's views, in and of themselves, are not necessarily important. But with regard to the debate about same-sex marriage, his view/arguments hold pertinence and give credibility to the arguments put forth by the proponents' side of same-sex marriage. You say that you want citations and sources. I am providing them with my references and summarizations of various people who have written about this topic. Thus, how am I going against the policies of Wikipedia? Well-sourced is the main objective. Whether something is deemed relevant is an issue that can easily be adhered to, and I don't think I am so "young" or "inexperienced" to understand that. You appear to be mocking me more with your "experience" than you are with any relevant delineations about this topic or policy of Wikipedia. I suggest that you look into your own biases about this, because they seem to cloud your judgment from time to time. Just a suggestion... Neutrality is a wondeful objective, but far too often we end up using "neutrality" as a way of holding up the status quo and not allowing the issues or institutions (such as the media) to progress forward. Why did it take so long for a major news media outlet such as NEWSWEEK to publish a story on its cover that debates against the literalist interpretations of the Bible that have dominated the cultural playing field for so long? It seems obvious that it is because the media had its own bias against the notion that same-sex marriage or gay-friendly Biblical interpretations were noteworthy enough to be put on the front page of news. But, it appears, that the times are changing.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not inferring judgement about what belongs on wikipedia, we're just trying to show you what wikipedia actually is. As LotLE said earlier, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not meant to be a repository for every single piece of information and every opinion piece on a subject. If you'll look at other topics, especially controversial ones, you'll see that.

Again, please comment only on the edits and not the editors. This is the third time you've referred to someone who disagrees with you as having some kind of bias. That doesn't help the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You accuse me of bias just as often, by your suggestions that my referring to opinions on a topic that is based on opinion (the controversy of same-sex marriage) is somehow flawed and biased. When one is accused of being biased, when in fact I am only citing the facts of others' opinions that are noted in mainstream media, suggests that those who accuse me of such are in fact not being fully "neutral" themselves. Neutrality is something that is very difficult to achieve, and I would argue that nothing can ever be fully neutral... Thus, when Wikipedia policy suggests neutrality as a guideline, that's exactly what it is, a guideline. Because those who wrote the policy know only all too well how neutrality is an ideal that can never be successfully achieved, no matter what the media source is. Thus, my idea is a philosophical point that is essential to this idea of "neutrality." Why do you worry so much about it? The fact is, that neutrality is only possible when the status quo is being challenged. And, that is why all opinions should be represented on Wikipedia, even the ones that are deemed "undeserving" by a select few who claim to be unbiased and able to discern what is important and what is not when it comes to a particular topic.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I'm not accusing you of bias at all. I'm saying you don't have a firm grasp of what wikipedia is and is not. You admitted as much in our early discussions about not turning this article into a massive dump of [1] quotes and copyrighted text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. It's a summary of a large amount of information. Every single opinion and comment doesn't have to be represented in its entirety. I honestly believe you're trying to help here, but I think if you'd take a moment to read up on WP policy (and maybe edit some other pages to see it in action), it would help you understand what we're all shooting for. Dayewalker (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nepal allows same-sex marriages?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I read in the article that Nepal now allows same-sex marriages (As of November in fact), so shouldn't Nepal be in the section that says 'Same-Sex Marriage' in the table at the top-right of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.186.204 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The status in Nepal seems to be roughly "pending". According to the article, the Supreme Court ruled, but is awaiting the legislature's adoption of suitable specific procedures. So the Nepal link is in the "debated" area of the infobox for now (I had myself put it in the top part, but closer reading suggests it's not in effect quite yet). LotLE×talk 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nepal should be added to the list since Sweden has — Nepal is officially going to recognize them, but the date has simply not been decided upon yet. The unions are permitted, but legal recognition will take place shortly. I think that Nepal should be listed with (?) or (TBA) ["To-be-announced"] beside it. Plus, it will balance out the page, which looks strangely uneven with Sweden listed on the right but nothing on the left. Nepal could easily fill that blank space, and I see no reason why not to include it in that section (with the (?) or (TBA)) talk 3:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Becoming too long

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article is tottering at the edge of a violation of WP:LENGTH. A number of very long additions by one editor in the last couple weeks have added much of this, but even before that there was definitely much more detail than is needed for this main article. We have child/sibling article for a variety of related topics, and more should really be pushed into those. Moreover, we should especially avoid long quotations and/or excessively detailed summaries of individual arguments and positions. As an encyclopedia, we are generally aiming for summary, not the detailed minutiae one might find in a book or in long academic articles. Scissors desperately needed here. LotLE×talk 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Too long... that's a bunch of bologne... It could go on indefinitely, since this is an online encyclopedia, it isn't confined to the usual concerns about length that are such a concern in print media. In the WP:LENGTH policy guideline, it even says, "for most practical purposes, Wikipedia has unlimited storage space." It suggests that longer articles should then be categorized and sub-categorized to improve navigability and readability. It does not say that length should be kept to a minimum. Thus, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, your objections are not valid.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When you've edited WP a bit longer, you'll learn to understand these matters better. Actually reading the various guidelines would help, perhaps most especially WP:AGF. The reason we follow WP:LENGTH isn't because of a shortage of electrons to store the words with; it's because we are respectful of readers who value and need good organization of articles.

In any case, much of the subdivision is already in place, and we just need to remove/reduce duplication. For example, the various articles on "Same sex marriage in <Jurisdiction>" are good places to put material about each such jurisdiction; we could definitely reduce description of jurisdiction-specific information in this main article. Also, especially in the material you have recently added, there is much too much detail on positions of individual editorial writers who have (or could have) their own articles to contain more detail on their specific arguments and positions.

There is a tendency among new and enthusiastic editors, like yourself, to believe that every possible bit of information should live in the very article they are working on, and a corresponding resistance to following sensible organizational principles in arranging material into child and sibling articles instead. LotLE×talk 18:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The major issue for length is the content is haphazard. Instead of dealing with same-sex marriage, as per the article title, there are countless reference to civil unions and domestic partnerships, which are already addressed on that page. These should be excised. A perfect example of the haphazard nature of this page is the History section, which jumps from ancient Rome to the Baker case, then mentions Denmark's domestic partnership law, then notes marriage in Massachussetts with no mention of the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, or Nepal whatsoever. Skyhawk0 (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Length and detail concerns

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A variety of information has accumulated in this article that is pushing it past WP:LENGTH limits. Much of this material is long quotes or detailed characterization of individual editorial arguments that would be more fitting for a book or academic article than for an encyclopedia. LotLE×talk 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How can this article be subdivided without taking away the content of the original article? How about we put the controversial section into a new page titled "Arguments For and Against Same-Sex Marriage"? That could help this situation of readability concerns.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While this is indeed a long article, it's not much longer than other FA's on complex topics (one exceedingly long FA that sticks in mind is Nancy Reagan). It's a complex topic, and no single category/chapter of the article seems to give it's topic (or the topic of the whole) any undue weight. I think that that is one goal of actually having a length guideline: to prevent articles from becoming trivial (which this isn't) or from giving topics undue weight (which this article doesn't). I would suggest leaving the article as it is and not split it up. Keep it as it is. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

History in Rome - Cited works appear to demonstrate craziness of the emperor rather than an accepted practice

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The cited works Suetonius Life of Nero 28-29; Martial Epigrams 1.24, 12.42; etc. for the history of SSM in roman times seem to demonstrate the weirdness of the practice rather than support. The impression I get from reading the statement "Same sex marriages took place during the Roman Empire" leads me to think SSM was an accepted practice, but the impression I get from reading the cited works is that the persons involved were crazy and lewd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandjks (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vermont 3-year study

Latest comment: 15 years ago54 comments9 people in discussion

I took out this new paragraph:

“

In the United States, a study ^[1] was conducted of a 3-year follow-up of 65 male and 138 female same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont during the 1st year of that legislation. These couples were compared with 23 male and 61 female same-sex couples in their friendship circles who did not have civil unions and with 55 heterosexual married couples (1 member of each was a sibling to a member of a civil union couple). Despite the legalized nature of their relationships, civil union couples did not differ on any measure from same-sex couples who were not in civil unions. However, same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples. Compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, and intimacy and lower levels of conflict. Longitudinal predictors of relationship quality at the end of the 3-year study included less conflict, greater level of outness, and a shorter relationship length for men in same-sex relationships and included less conflict and more frequent sex for women in same-sex relationships at the beginning of the 3-year study.

”

The problems I had with it were that it was written in a way that didn't make it clear to the reader what was discovered.

First, "who had civil unions" should be "who formalized" or "who filed for" etc.
The sentence that says "...civil union couples did not differ on any measure from same-sex couples who were not in civil unions." is disproved in the very next sentence.
The sentence that starts "Compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality..." is a sentence that is not related to the marriage/civil union question; it's related to the gay or not-gay question. Off topic.
'Longitudinal predictors' is needlessly opaque to too many readers. Lay it out more clearly.
Everything after "Longitudinal predictors..." is a complete cipher: which of the five groups are being discussed? It says "men in same-sex relationships" but the context seems to mean "men in same-sex legally-formalized civil unions". The same problem repeats with "...women in same-sex relationships..." seeming to refer to legally-formalized unions composed of a pair of women.

With so many problems, the whole paragraph is not worthy of inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your problems with this paragraph are invalid and completely irrelevant to whether it should be included or not. Your opinion that the study's conclusions are confusing, opaque or contradictory is not based on intelligent or rational argument. The paragraph is very clearly understood to most intelligent readers. Thus, it should be included. Your argument that the sentence "compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality..." is not relevant to this issue, is entirely bogus. It is VERY MUCH related to this issue of whether same-sex unions are just as good or socially acceptable as opposite-sex unions/relationships. So stop pretending that the issue of why you want this taken out is anything but your own agenda to keep perfectly good studies from supporting the idea of same-sex marriage or civil unions off of this page. You appear to be interested in having only data that goes against same-sex marriage. So stop it already.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Binsternet. The paragraph is rather obscure and wonky; it might fit in an academic research paper, but is not the right tone for an encyclopedia. LotLE×talk 20:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jamesmichaelsf, please discuss matters civilly. It seems like every disagreement you have on this page, you accuse the other editor of being biased. You don't help your case when you resort to accusations. It's entirely possible to disagree with someone without being biased. Dayewalker (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the paragraph, I agree with Bink. It's confusing, and completely the wrong tone for an encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So whatever you disagree with, you claim that it is the "wrong tone" for an encyclopedia. Or "obscure and wonky." That's very objective of all of you... And I am the one who is lacking in civility?!! To me the paragraph I added sounds perfectly normal and adds a lot of strength to the article. Thus, the moral majority has spoken... I am in the minority, and thus my input doesn't count as much. No matter if the research study cited is a scientific piece of scholarly work that I summarized for the benefit of those interested in reading about this topic. But, I guess people don't care about actual scientific evidence on here. They are more interested in religious or "widely-held" notions about such topics. It's a travesty that our society has dumbed itself down so much that it can't even understand a simple paragraph summarizing a social science study on the topic of gay marriage versus heterosexual marriage. I guess the bell curve just won't go away, not even on a website devoted to objective knowledge and information.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So that's the way to show that you can make your point without resorting to insulting the other side? Dayewalker (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my new edit of the above contested paragraph I added previously:

In the United States, a study ^[2] was conducted of 65 male and 138 female same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont during the 1st year of that legislation. These couples were compared with 23 male and 61 female same-sex couples in their friendship circles who did not have civil unions and with 55 heterosexual married couples (1 member of each was a sibling to a member of a civil union couple). Despite the legalized nature of their relationships, civil union couples did not differ on any measure from same-sex couples who were not in civil unions. However, same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples. Compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, and intimacy and lower levels of conflict. Relationship quality of same-sex civil union couples was predicted by less conflict, greater level of outness, and a shorter relationship length for men in same-sex civil unions; and predicted by less conflict and more frequent sex for women in same-sex civil unions.^[3]

--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)And I just reverted you, since the edit appeared on the page with no consensus before you came here. Please discuss here and gain consensus before making major additions to the page, especially when there is a discussion ongoing. Dayewalker (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So what's the "consensus" about the new version? And, if you want to criticize my additions, please indicate some constructive ways to change it so that it would be more "suitable" to your views of what this online encyclopedia should conform to, since you seem to have so much more insight about this... Criticism is only good when it is wielded with suggestions for improvement. Thank you. Oh, and just so we're clear about this, neutrality is a point of view that cannot be easily defined or achieved, and thus the attempt to do so is pointless.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are clear in your own mind only. Abandoning any concept of maintaining neutrality isn't a good way to win friends and influence people around here.

My initial criticism of your actions is that you respond to other editor's good faith discussions with personal attacks and accusations of bias. On this page, you were well aware that consensus was against you on that block of text. You responded with another accusation, then reinstating the text in a form that didn't significantly change the problems editors had with the text. It still looks like a big chunk of scientific research that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't the place for drawn-out descriptions of scientific experiments.

We may have gotten off on the wrong foot here and if so, I apologize. I am only trying to help, because I don't think you've fully grasped what wikipedia is all about. It's an encyclopedia to briefly summarize subjects, not to go into great scientific detail or list every possible opinion on something. Dayewalker (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did a fair job of summarizing a multiple-page research study into one paragraph. And, I don't see how I was listing every possible opinion on this topic by citing a relevant study to the topic at hand. Neutrality is something that doesn't exist. No matter how hard we may try to be neutral about anything, there is never any possibility of reaching that ideal. I'm not suggesting that we can't be balanced in our presentation of something; however, when attempting to give scientific support for something, I fail to see how that is being biased. If anything, something that is based in science and empirical evidence is more objective than any "widely-held" notions about such a topic. Surely you would agree...--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your earlier edits (and our discussions) when I spoke of listing opinions. Your response is a good example of what I said earlier, wikipedia isn't for scientific proofs, especially for non-scientific articles. Wikipedia is for material taken from reliable secondary sources. Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A scientific study is a reliable secondary source, is it not??--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by my understanding no. A scientific study is a primary source, an article written about it that explains or refers to the research would be a secondary source. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So then, why are there other places throughout Wikipedia that have primary sources entailed, summarized and cited in order to support or not support a particular statement. There are several primary sources in this article itself, so why am I unable to also contribute with such primary sources. Why are secondary sources somehow deemed more important than primary ones? Peer-reviewed academic journals are more reliable in many ways than anything reported or published in the popular media.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Versions

<=Jamesmichaelsf, you have no knowledge of my personal position on the greater politico-social issue which makes it that much more of a disappointment that you'd assume the worst about my motives when the topic on the table is about the accuracy of your WRITING STYLE, not how much weight is thrown where. I continue to think that any mention of heteros in general vs. gays in general is absolutely not appropriate to this article. What should be contrasted are the differences and commonalities betweenn married heteros and married/legal union gay people. I also continue to think that a very clear writing style will always be preferable to one that obscures with a needlessly scholarly tone.

In your second version of the paragraph, you retain the conflict between two sentences wherein the second disproves the first. Can you see it? "Despite the legalized nature of their relationships, civil union couples did not differ on any measure from same-sex couples who were not in civil unions. However, same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples."... Why look—there's a confirmed difference between same-sex couples who weren't enjoying legal status of their union and same-sex couples who had such a legal confirmation. The first sentence is therefore disproved; the two groups did differ on at least one measure. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so here's a different way of saying it: "Despite the legalized nature of their relationships, civil unions did not differ on any measure from same-sex couples who were not in civil unions, except for the fact that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples." Does that pass muster?--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with just using the pared-down "Same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples"? Binksternet (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a different revision of my previous edit. What's the consensus about this?

In the United States, a study ^[4] was conducted which showed that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples. As well, the study showed that compared with heterosexual married couples, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, and intimacy and lower levels of conflict. For men in same-sex civil unions, higher levels of relationship quality was linked to less conflict, greater level of outness, and a shorter relationship length. For women in same-sex civil unions, higher levels of relationship quality was linked to less conflict and more frequent sex.^[4]

--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's getting better. If you use the word 'outness', it will be the first such use in Wikipedia article space outside of a direct quote regarding spaciness in jazz. This makes me think your word isn't yet accepted by mainstream writing practices. I think we could instead substitute "openness in their homosexuality" or some such phrase. Secondly, do you really mean that the gay married men had shorter relationships? Did this group separate sooner? I don't quite get it... As it is a negative factor, it should not be listed in sequence with the positive ones without being highlighted as negative. Finally, it's "higher levels ...were" rather than "was". Here's my version:

“

In the United States, a study ^[4] was conducted which showed that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples. As well, the study showed that compared with heterosexual married couples, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, intimacy and lower levels of conflict. For men in same-sex civil unions, higher levels of relationship quality were linked to less conflict and a greater level of openness in their homosexuality, however, their relationships didn't last as long. For women in same-sex civil unions, higher levels of relationship quality were linked to less conflict and more frequent sex.^[4]

”

Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that revision, except for one point. I think what was trying to be conveyed by the phrase related to length of relationships was that gay married men's relationship quality was higher when they were shorter in length, not that their relationships/marriages/unions were shorter in general than the other groups. Thus, when gay men's relationships/marriages were longer, the quality of the relationships/marriages suffered or was lower.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How about

“

In the United States, a three-year study^[4] was conducted which showed that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples. As well, the study showed that compared with heterosexual married couples, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, intimacy and lower levels of conflict. For men in same-sex civil unions, higher levels of relationship quality were linked to less conflict and a greater level of openness in their homosexuality, however, the level of relationship quality diminished over time. For women in same-sex civil unions, higher levels of relationship quality were linked to less conflict and more frequent sex.^[4]

”

? Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that. Sounds good. I think this is resolved. Any one else care to suggest whether or not this was resolved?--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess this trimmed version is OK. But it still feels like it has a lot of extraneous details. While it might be interesting in a general way that same-sex couples report greater relationship quality, it's not at all obviously why that belongs in this article. Moreover, these higher level of relationship quality for men might be linked to less conflict, etc., but there is no statement that that has anything to do with length of relationships or whether they are in civil unions. And what does whether relationship quality diminishing over time have to do with any of this? It feels like the whole thing is trying to make some political point about same sex relationships being generally good for those in them; that's nice to know, but is not the topic of this encyclopedia article. LotLE×talk 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think whether or not the participants benefit from legalization of their union is absolutely on topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If we had a study that stated, e.g. "same-sex couples whose unions are recognized are better off" that would be great to include. Notice, however, that the study does not present this claim in any direct way. The "relationship quality" bit contrasts same-sex with opposite-sex, but doesn't give information on how recognition affects this. Actually, it's unclear what the sentences stating "were linked" are intended to say. I read them as "there is a correlation", in which case it's only among the groups of same-sex partners in civil unions (no comparison with those w/o civil unions). I guess that a reading of "is linked" as "and also" is conceivable, but not obviously stated. LotLE×talk 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, LotLE, what do you propose as the version that would be best suited to this page? I don't see anything wrong with the paragraph as revised by myself and Binksternet, and not sure what is confusing about "is linked" - it's another way of saying that the two are correlated or significantly associated with each other.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If "is linked" just means a correlation, then it's really not relevant to this article. Let's be clear. This is what the passage indicates):

corr('relationship quality', 'homosexuality') = positive
corr('relationship quality in civil unions', 'conflict in relationship') = negative
corr('relationship quality in civil unions', 'more openness about homosexuality') = positive
corr('relationship quality in civil unions', 'more sex among women') = positive

All of those correlations are abstractly interesting, but none of them have any particular bearing on the topic of this article, which is y'know "Same-sex marriage", not "Relationship quality of homosexuals" or "Openness as correlate of relationship quality". LotLE×talk 08:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor becoming a problem

Unfortunately, the contributions of Jamesmichaelsf have become far more harmful than not, and his compative and insulting tone on this talk page certainly does not help matters here. The material he has added—a very large amount of very lengthy material—is simply not the right type of thing for a Wikipedia article. As I have stated many times on this talk page and in edit comments, this same material might well be appropriate for a book or academic journal publication on the same general topic. However, it simply misses the point of what a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia is. It's all reasonably well written, reasonably well cited, and relatively objectivly and accurately described. But it's just not the right material for this article (or any within this pubication, most likely). I don't know what to do about this. The editor is obviously not stupid, and is obviously both knowledgeable and concerned about the topic of this article. Good intentions, however, don't make inappropriate material right for Wikipedia, and Jamesmichaelsf seems unwilling to accept this... and especially unwilling to read the WP policies and guidelines that describe what Wikipedia is and what it is WP:NOT. LotLE×talk 05:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read the policies... What I have done is not a problem. In your opinion it is, but not in mine. Just because you don't like what I put on here doesn't mean it is inappropriate and I have never put anything in the text of this article or any other (for that matter) that specifically goes against anything written in the WP:NOT guidelines. I am only a problem if others make me a problem. I have posted information that is VERY PERTINENT to the topic at hand and anyone who argues that what I have added is harmful to the article is particularly lacking in neutrality, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. I have added multiple references and citations to bolster various contributions of other editors. I have contributed my own information on here in an attempt to give greater balance, validity and verifiability to this topic. To suggest otherwise is merely petty disagreement. Encyclopedias are not dumping grounds for every detail, I agree. However, when something is written on this article that is biased or refuted by scientific or scholarly work, one does a disservice to the readers to make no mention of those refutations. To single me out, and not see how other editors including yourselves contribute to the "problem" is suggestive of discrimination and lack of neutrality, subjectivity and outright defamation. Let me be clear, I don't mind when other editors edit my contributions (to make them shorter) with minimal elimination of content/meaning, however it is abusive for other editors to take out what I have added just because they disagree with it or think it is "inappropriate." Majority rules arguments can only go so far. The minority views and contributions are just as important for this article as the majority views. Is there some arbiter over this domain? Who owns Wikipedia? Who gets to decide when someone is being a "problem" or is deemed a "good" vs. "bad" editor? All of this suggests lack of neutrality, which is what you keep insisting is the utmost importance with regard to Wikipedia articles.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And now we've returned to what I originally said, I don't think you fully grasp wikipedia. Contributing to other, non-controversial articles might help you understand. Describing other editors adjusting your edits as "abusive" isn't accurate. Every editor can edit on wikipedia, and every change is subject to further edits. If someone disagrees, especially if the edit is against consensus, they can change the article. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the idea of consensus about controversial topics is not something that is supposed to occur. Reaching consensus is basically the same thing as "majority rules." Is it not? I am not suggesting total anarchy, but what I was trying to say is that deleting or reverting my contributions without even allowing the content/meaning to be imparted due to it's inherent pertinence and relevance to the topic at hand, goes against the nature of Wikipedia's desire for neutrality.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't, and your call to insert material which is disputed while it is in discussion is out of line. That simply isn't the way things work on here. As to the neutrality of the subject, the material which is subject to the dispute has nothing to do with article neutrality. The desire, and policy, of article neutrality refers to points against, and for a subject, not a scientific study on the subject. Have you read our manual of style? If you haven't, I'm certain you would benefit from it. Simply put, we are an encyclopedia, not a collaboration of lengthy scientific studies. Our goal is to provide an easy to read, easy to load(please read our policy on article length, WP:LENGTH) collaboration of generalized knowledge. For specific things, we usually have a few specific wikis, such as WikiSpecies.

Finally, to your WP is not a democracy note, no, it is not a democracy, consensus is not majority rules, it is an understanding between all the editors of the article in question, on the material the article has been created with. Article consensus is about coming to compromise on material, or, if the material does not meet inclusion policy, then consensus has nothing to do with it(citing vandalism here people, ie, a whole bunch of 4chan users agreeing that an article should be vandalized is not consensus). Back to what I was saying, consensus is about compromise, but consensus is also governed by existing wikipedia policies and guidelines, ie, MOS and page length. At the moment, you have yet to really convince the people that have worked long an hard on this article that it needs to increase in length, or contain scientific research.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not involved in the original discussion, but from an outsider's viewpoint, it seems this entire exchange regards one or two passages added by Jamesmichaelsf. One of these was not so much adjusted as belittled on semantic/grammatical grounds, dismissed as "not worthy of inclusion" and deleted outright by User:Binksternet. The addition may have contained awkward phrases, but wouldn't a simple edit, rewording or writethough have been more constructive—and less labor-intensive—than formulating a bullet list of grievances? To make matters worse, the opinion of one or two other editors was taken as "consensus." It's not hard to see how, from Jamesmichaelsf's point of view, this may have seemed unnecessarily hostile—certainly, it did not assume good faith, and it got the whole exchange off to a bad start.

Jamesmichaelsf's apparent intent has been to refute political arguments against gay marriage—which are allowed to stand mainly on the basis that they are political arguments—using scientific studies and citing exhaustive sources. His critics seem to be accusing him of providing too much documentation. It may be that an exhaustive description of a study's methodology is unnecessary--but its findings, boiled down, are at least as relevant as the claims of some political group. I propose we assume good faith. Rangergordon (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to Rangergordon: I removed the paragraph and pointed out its multiple problems without fixing them myself because I didn't have access to the study in question (didn't have a copy of Developmental Psychology from a year ago) so I was not able to get in there and correct the syntax—there was too great a chance that my creative writing effort would misinterpret the study results. That's why I pulled the paragraph, brought it to Talk and pointed out what needed to be done by the editor who most likely still had the study sitting on his desk. Simple as that. Binksternet (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranger, please take note that he editor in question has actually been uncivil a few times of note, such as suggesting that anyone who disagreed with him had a bias.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)If I may, JMsf's difficulties on this page stretch back much farther than his single edit today. Numerous times editors have tried to help him understand the principles of wikipedia, and his responses have ranged from incivility to indifference. This is a controversial topic, and his insistence on making wide-sweeping edits against consensus is a long-standing problem.

That said, tonight he was actually discussing his edits with me, so I was holding out hopes we could explain things in a way that would help the encyclopedia. I think his hearts in the right place, his execution just needs to be tweaked a little bit to fit in the wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to say that I am being uncivil (Daedelus, et al) by saying that I was claiming that others were being biased is a stretch. Bias is in everything we say and do, edit or not edit, read or not read, react or not react to. For example, just because you claim to have no bias in your positions or that you are being "neutral" is in itself a biased perspective. It is the bias of assuming that you are free of bias, which is never possible for any human being. Now, if you have some kind of perfect quality that other humans do not possess, and thus are able to determine what is and what isn't acceptable, appropriate, etc., then I guess there is no point in trying to argue with you about the changes I have tried to make. Rangergordon seems to sum up my position quite well... Thank-you Rangergordon for your thoughtfulness about my expressions about this topic. To suggest that scientific studies are inappropriate for this article is just absolute nonsense. Perhaps my tone is not the best, and that is something that I continue to work on, but for people to revert things I contribute without even trying to suggest alternative wordings, etc, is just not fair or the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. It is difficult for some people to understand that fairness is more important than neutrality when it comes to a topic as controversial as this. Especially since neutrality is something that continually fails to be evident throughout this article, which is why it was tagged by various editors previously for having problems with neutrality, etc. But, I think that I have been putting forth various revisions of my contributions and I never got an answer to the last revision I suggested. Consensus may be a compromise, but it seems that I am not the only one who has had difficulty with this issue. The other editors on here seem to be unable to compromise with me at times and for whatever reason, perhaps due to my newness to editing on here, they have continually acted with indifference or belittled my contributions as against wikipedia policies/guidelines without giving positive constructive feedback. Thus, I am calling a truce. What I have said previously to editors, especially early on, I will concede that I am in the process of learning the culture of wiki and thus have made mistakes, etc. However, my inexperience should not be grounds for harsh criticism.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, let me be more specific, telling an editor that his or her edits are subject of some kind of agenda, or such, is uncivil; linking the editor's comments to a specific kind of bias is uncivil, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. That aside, let us address the fact that we are reverting your work, first, let us go to the fact that this material has been challenged, and is under discussion. As I have said twice now in edit summeries: disputed material is not added when it is under discussion. This of course also works in reverse, giver or take a few requirements: disputed material is not removed from the article while it is under discussion. The former is when general article consensus is against the addition, while the latter is when general article consensus is against the removal.

But back to other things, several times specific problems with your material was pointed out, and what did you do? You didn't address those problems, you instead just shoved it right back in. That doesn't give you many points, and just makes it look like you're pushing to have your material in there, without any discussion. And in fact, low and behold, you have done just that. While disputed material is under discussion, you've re-inserted it many times into the article during the discussion, and, as I have said above, when the addition of material is disputed, and under discussion, it is not inserted until the discussion is finalized, and of course, the discussion out-come is that it should be inserted. To give an analogy: the article state reflects upon the final, agreed state, and therefore, inserting said material, even while an action has not been finalized, implies that this material has been agreed upon, when, in reality, it has not, and is still under discussion. That is why I keep reverting you, and I will keep reverting you, until you can learn to compromise on here.

Yes, I did say that science has no place here, what I meant was, scientific studies regarding the subject matter explained in great detail do not have a place here, because, as said, wikipedia has policies regarding article length. If the article is above a certain length, it gets hard for browsers to load the page, making it impossible to read for some people, others, it won't load at all. Some may even crash because of page size, hence, policies were implemented to prevent such from happening.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to those who can't load a page due to article length or people crashing due to page size, who are you referring to exactly? Most people today use high-speed internet such as DSL, etc. However, perhaps there are a few people who are using dial-up that might have problems loading a page if it's length exceeds a certain level. However, people using dial-up are used to this and there are many websites and pages that are even worse due to graphics and so forth. Thus, a text article such as this is less likely to cause loading problems, despite it's length, than a website that has sophisticated graphics, music downloads, ads and videos, etc. In an effort to compromise, I will suggest briefer summaries of scientific research studies in the future.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Most people? That is hardly true, if it were, we wouldn't have this policy in the first place. The truth is, however, that many people still use low-speed connections, as they can't really afford otherwise, and since wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to a, that poses a problem, now doesn't it. I do see that you are now going to try to compromise, but you also need to understand why we have policies in place regarding size limits. Just because you think an article loads fine for various people doesn't mean that it does.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 15:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a statistical source to back up your claim that there are many or more people who use dial-up than DSL to access wikipedia? Perhaps there is a very small minority that use dial-up. But how can we know without some kind of sampling or survey being done to find out.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Here's some information that I've found: In European countries, technological developments in both the cable and DSL platforms have extended broadband from its limited PC-based function to a main component of household entertainment through services such as Video-on-Demand and IPTV. Major operators have also offset their eroding voice telephony revenues by investing in IP services. The main growth driver remains DSL, followed by cable, though fibre has enjoyed an improving footprint in certain markets, notably Scandinavia, The Netherlands and Italy. In the US broadband market, while cable modem still retains the majority of broadband subscribers, DSL trails close behind. With DSL growing at a higher rate than cable broadband, DSL subscribers are expected to exceed cable subscribers during 2008/09. Broadband competition in each region is generally limited to one DSL and one cable operator. The DSL segment is dominated by AT&T and Verizon, which account for around 80% of DSL subscribers, while cable broadband is less concentrated with Comcast and Time Warner accounting for around 62% of cable broadband subscribers. DSL and cable modem growth rates are expected to decline over the next five years as household penetration reaches saturation and fibre networks become widely deployed. The fixed-line market has been liberalised in Brazil and Venezuela; although the incumbents continue to dominate the fixed-line infrastructure in both countries, they are slowly losing market share to smaller operators. Guyana and Suriname are preparing for fixed-line liberalisation after years of failed attempts, while Paraguay continues to function in a monopolistic environment. Brazil’s fixed-line market has been privatised since 1998, while Venezuela’s was privatised in 1991 and renationalised in 2007. Suriname and Paraguay’s incumbents are wholly state-owned. Guyana’s incumbent telco has been privatised since 1991, but holds exclusivity over all fixed-line services. Mobile telephony is highly competitive in all five countries, with several operators offering services. Mobile penetration ranges from around 60% to 80%, and the mobile market continues to post double-digit growth. Prepaid cards have played a significant role in driving growth, making mobile phones accessible to many customers who do not meet credit requirements for postpaid services. Broadband penetration is low but on the rise, varying from about 4% in Brazil and 3% in Venezuela, to less than 0.5% in Suriname, Guyana, and Paraguay. There is good investment potential in this market. Triple play strategies combining voice, Internet, and video services have been adopted in Brazil and Venezuela, but the small markets of Suriname, Guyana, and Paraguay are still behind technologically. Asia’s share of the global broadband subscriber base stood at 37% by end-2007, with 128 million of the 350 million broadband subscribers in the world being in Asia. At the same time, the dominant fixed broadband technology continued to be DSL with 66% of the market. However, in a number of the more advanced markets of Asia (South Korea, Taiwan) DSL as a broadband platform was in decline as the number of FttH services began to expand. The Middle East mobile market goes from strength to strength, reaching dizzyingly high penetration levels in some countries, while growth remains surprisingly solid, spurred on by increasing competition and economic growth. In response to greater competition at home, incumbent telcos have expanded rapidly, becoming major players not only in the Middle East but also in Africa and, increasingly, Asia by buying new licences and established operators. The Internet and broadband sector is much less developed with the very notable exception of Israel and to a lesser extent some of the Gulf countries. Greater market liberalisation is gradually opening the market. ^[5]^[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmichaelsf (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)No offense intended JMsf, but this again shows you don't have a firm grasp on WP policy. If you have a problem with WP:LENGTH, please open up a case on the relevant policy board. Making a case to disregard long-standing policy on an article's talk page won't help. You can't gain consensus here and override policy. It doesn't matter how much text you quote here, it's not going to change the policy. Dayewalker (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The main thing, as Dayewalker indicates, is that policy reflects longstanding and well-reasoned consensus. But in particular, it is somewhat offensive to just disregard he needs of poor users, users in the third-world, or even users of lower resolution/bandwidth devices like smartphones. Whether or not Jmsf's speculations about where broadband will be in 10 years for readers in Brazil or India are true, those readers may well want to read this article today. This isn't to say, however, that WP:LENGTH is solely to accomodate technical restrictions: even if everyone in the world had big screens and fat wires, they would still want well organized and interlinked articles of digestible lengths. LotLE×talk 20:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to read all of that, James, but before I continue, let me just note that when I say something large, I at least have the courtesy to break it up into easy-to-read paragraphs. Either way, back to my point: As I have stated before, wikipedia is suppposed to be accessible to all. This means that we watch out for the little guy, however little his minority may be, period.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'd like to jump in a second time to point out that this exchange seems to have gone far afield of the original topic, regarding Jamesmichaelsf's highly descriptive contribution about a scientific study. But, on the bright side, it does seem that everybody involved is making a sincere attempt to be civil (although there do seem to be a lot of resentments lingering under the surface).

Daedalus969: I'd like to take the optimistic view that any apparent incivilities on the part of Jamesmichaelsf—accusations of bias, etc.—stemmed from his perception that his contributions, which he made in good faith, were being reverted by editors based merely on opposing viewpoints. With this controversial article, such things have been known to happen—quite often, actually—and it's not always easy to tell who is acting in good faith and who isn't. (Also, to be realistic, the addition of a 200-word paragraph—no matter how dense and technical—is unlikely to crash a browser or add significantly to an 11,000-word article's download time, even at dial-up speeds.)

Jamesmichaelsf: Your call for a truce should suffice to demonstrate to your critics that you have a sincere willingness to participate collaboratively in the Wikipedia community. I think most of the others share your willingness; the best editors really do just want to help build as comprehensive and readable article as possible. Misunderstandings can easily happen, though, and it's not always easy to tell the trolls from the genuine folks. The edits I most regret have mainly been made in the heat of the moment, before I gave myself the chance to sit back, breathe, and objectively consider.

Everyone: I don't agree that edits are subject to the prior restraint of talk-page consensus. If every addition required approval by committee, Wikipedia progress would come to a halt. See WP:BB—be bold in your updates. But, if your boldness results in a dispute, don't take it personally. Rangergordon (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this paragraph in the Arguments about Equality section

Some opponents of same-sex marriage (including some ex-gay organizations) argue that the opposite-sex definition of marriage is not unequal, unjust, or exclusionary because homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] Same-sex marriage opponents support this position with research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.^[12]^[13]

The above passage has some flaws. I have tried to add on several occasions this sentence with references that are pertinent to the statement I make (below). What is the consensus about this sentence? Should it be added in order to give greater balance to this section?

However, several analyses and social criticism of such studies supporting these views toward same-sex marriage and gay sexuality have shown the statistical, methodological and validity flaws inherent within them.^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]

--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question on the talk page before making the edit. The language seems a bit POV to me. Perhaps a sentence such as "Scholars and advocates in support of same-sex marriage disagree with these assertions" would suffice?

208.105.149.80 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, "too POV"... I don't think so. These studies were not done by some politically-motivated group of people. They were done with scientific rigor. Thus, I don't think that "scholars and and advocates in support of same-sex marriage" would fairly describe the references I've included. As well, to paint every study that comes up with evidence in support of same-sex marriage as "POV" is nonsense. Obviously, any scientific study can show negative results, but rigorous studies have almost always found positive results with regard to the effects/impacts of same-sex marriage on societies/states/communities that sanction them. Thus, this is not merely about agreeing or disagreeing, it is about scientific peer-reviewed studies showing the positive impacts that same-sex marriage has on society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmichaelsf (talk • contribs) 05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. How about this:

"However, several analyses of such studies have argued that they contain statistical and methodological flaws."^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33] BoulderCreek12 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your version BoulderCreek12. What is the consensus? Is this a good replacement for the current sentence?--75.42.65.102 (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection, I am going to go ahead and make the change.BoulderCreek12 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence seems OK, but the use of a dozen footnotes next to a brief statement is really excessive. We should either extract the one or two most relevant citations, or use a longer "discussion" footnote that mentions several sources at the same time. LotLE×talk 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Graff

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This mention of political arguments by a writer named Graff was just removed:

E.J. Graff states that marriage has not been formally recognized in the United States as justified solely by reproduction since 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut.^[34]^{[clarification needed]}

I tend to disagree with this removal. The analysis indeed only presents the argument of one editorialist, but the same is true the majority of the arguments presented, both pro- and against same-sex marriage (whether legal, religious, social policy, etc). Although it may be true that subsequent court cases have not cited Griswold in this way, my understanding is that we are simply presenting the idea that Graff thinks it should be used that way. LotLE×talk 07:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me taking Graff out. I don't believe her conclusion is worthy of this article—it's too poorly formed. For The Nation, she wrote an article entitled Retying the Knot in which she said "Formally, U.S. marriage hasn't been justified solely by reproduction since 1965, when the Supreme Court batted down the last laws forbidding birth control's sale to married couples". She does not describe which 'formal' lack of justification was under discussion. Griswold v. Connecticut was not cited in the piece. If the Graff bit is reinstated here, connecting Griswold to her quote would be synthesis, described and discouraged at WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you have a point on WP:SYNTH. As stunningly obvious as it seems that Griswold is the 1965 case alluded to, I confess that was a jump I need to make in my own brain, not merely by reading. LotLE×talk 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious that Graff was talking about Griswold. Even were we to be allowed to make the connection for her, the formation of the Graff quote leaves something to be desired, in my opinion. In it, she doesn't connect the dots so that everybody can understand how she thinks Griswold changed the playing field. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Informational Images

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Everyone loves to see pictures or informational images. It’s easier than reading all the text if you’re in a hurry and don’t care about the details. On the page Status of same-sex marriage, there is an image of the world’s countries and the laws on homosexuality. My thought on it is “great!”, but it shows same sex marriages AND homosexuality laws. Those are two different things. There needs to be a replacement for the black image (mine) with one like that image on the other page, but it needs to only show relationships; NOT relationship status AND penalty laws. The talented person that has the proper tools to make the fancy images that look the same could please make 2 separate images. One depicting relationship recognition and one depicting penalty laws.

The black image is a rough example, but I don’t much care for my work. I used AutoCAD to make it and I'm not sure what others use for the other images.

Understand what I'm suggesting?

I think it would make more sense to have separate images. Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey also recognizes same-sex marriage? Like New York?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A judge in New Jersey recently ruled that same-sex couples legally married in Canada can divorce in New Jersey, doesn't that means that New Jersey recognizes out of state same-sex marriages? More on it: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5i3yn1obczMQ2KmSJeQsOnZRI5ehg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.6.100.113 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil unions in Colombia

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the graphic named SSM Recognition-Model, that ilustrates the global recognition of same-sex relationships, I see a mistake. It shows that in Colombia the recognition of same-sex relationships is in debated. But now (february 2009) the civil unions are recognized in Colombia. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Colombia aprobbed the civil unions for same-sex partners.

Please, correct that mistake.

Leonardo Grajales - Colombia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.214.60 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal status “exactly the same”?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

“The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain and Norway are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws.” is cited in the page.

My understanding is that the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain have residency requirements for same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage. I'm unaware if this has changed, but remain pretty sure it has not.

24.83.17.52 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar to this, there are some differences between civil partnerships and marriage in the UK. One is that the civil partner of a knighted man does not get an honorific title. A more important one is that infidelity does not grant one the automatic right to the equivalent of a divorce.

A more general issue (applying to all non-marriages) is the right to nomenclature, i.e. if one cannot legally say that one is married, then one does not have all the rights of someone who can. Salopian (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Austria Needs to be Updated

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am the same-sex spouse (US citizen) of an Austrian citizen. We recently inquired about my taking out Austrian citizenship as the spouse of an Austrian citizen. It turns out that I can become an Austrian citizen as long as my spouse has resided for some years in the venue where the marriage was contracted. So Austria does recognize same-sex marriages under at least these limited circumstances. A minor point about a relatively minor country, but of interest, I think, nonetheless.

71.107.66.246 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Ken Clark, Long Beach, California

Sweden - same-sex marriage bill

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you know when will be a final vote in the Swedish Parliament? Ron 1987 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

It is supposed to come into effect May 1st 2009. *waiting* ¨¨¨¨

Serbia

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article / map is incorrect. Gay marriage is not banned in Serbia, in fact the whole 2008 and 2009 are dedicated to the discussion on gay rights, which are being popularized.

The Serbian Government has just drafted a law, proposed by all Ministers except the Religion. Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church and the Islamic Community (I can't remember the 4th, there was also one other religious community) have objected this law strongly, leading only to its slight stalling and amendment. The country's homophobic public is also the fear of such legislative reform.

The Law on Discrimination, now in parliamentary procedure, will ban any discrimination against anyone for his sexual beliefs, in all sectors in the Republic of Serbia. This de facto means that the religious communities will have to accept things like sanctioning gay marriage or baptizing children from same-sex marriages, open to lawsuit.

The info in this article is lacking / incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.200.79 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and help improve Wikipedia —EqualRights (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fix Nepal

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the map it says Nepal has same sex marriage. But on the side bar it isn't included among nations that perform it Lemniwinks (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Nepal_allows_same-sex_marriages.3F Nepal is in "flux". They have stated that same sex marriage will be legal; therefore citizens have already taken steps to get licenses and “pre” married. It is unsure currently, but the illustrations are not perfect due to the fact that there are so many forms, variances and positions of same sex marriage. Azcolvin429 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Maps over same-sex unions in North America and South America

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you make maps over recognition of same-sex unions in North America and South America similar this map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg Ron 1987 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)

Eventually there will be maps made of each country, but for now it is not diverse enough in South America. Most likely, when a country legalizes same sex marriage in South America, there will be a map made. Also, one reason Europe has its own map is because the countries are very small and it is hard to see them froma global view. North America dosent have a map either, but theres not much to show other than the United States. Azcolvin429 (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize this request was posted here in addition to WT:LGBT -- but File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svg and File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (Northern America).svg are up on Commons as of earlier this week, both using the Europe map color scheme (with 3 additional colors for foreign-recognized, homosexuality-illegal, and all-types-of-partnerships-banned). The North America map does not include recent developments in Iowa (wasn't sure if we were waiting until April 24) Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Poland should be red on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg

Article 18 of Polish Constitution banned same-sex marriage. Maybe this article is unclear or complex, but polish experts, example Marek Safian, former Chief of Constitutional Court, are convinced that article prohibited same-sex marriage. Take it from me, I'm a Pole, legalizing same-sex marriage in future will not be possible without change constitution. Ron 1987 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)

The map "State recognition of same-sex relationships in Europe" is wrong, because in Poland constitution banned same sex marriage in 1997, please correct this country to red color. Article 18 of Polish constitution: "Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland." (http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davaj (talk • contribs) 07:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermont Same-sex Marriage

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Vermont just recently voted to allow same-sex marriage. I don't know if it should be "pending" or if it should be added to the same-sex marriage list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.26.138 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the legislature voted for it; the governor has said he will veto it; there may be votes to override it, so it's still just "pending" —EqualRights (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good source. Info on Iowa needs to be updated too, because according to this it has been fully legalized. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0745825320090408 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.33.168 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Norway

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does Norway have a residency requirements for same-sex marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan recognizes foreign same-sex marriages?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imtwjW1jvMoCTXZaahFbK3ClE9ZA

I'm not sure if I got it right, it says it will allow its citizens to marry abroad, that means it will recognize those marriages, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.155.25 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It does recognize same sex marriages performed abroad. Im sot sure why this hasnt been realized? Andrew Colvin 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azcolvin429 (talk • contribs)

Massachusetts first

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

says that 4 states recognize same-sex marriage with "Vermont being the first to do so via legislation." that is not actually true. Massachusetts amended their constitution to allow same-sex marriage, which I believe also counts as legislating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanzler5623 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the MA Supreme Court made the ruling and there have been attempts in the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn same sex marriages. Hoping To Help (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Same sex marriege in Greece

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Same sex marriege in Greece is recognised. Marrieges of same sex partners are held in Tilos island and already few gay and one lesbian couple have taken place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.163.242 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Some observations

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think Nepal should be listed with the other 7 countries under "Same Sex Marriage" with an astersik saying that it will become effective in 2010. The government as of now will legalize it as soon as they ratify a new constitution that year. Also, same sex marriages are being performed there, but will be officially recognized at that time.

Ecuador should be listed under the civil unions/domestic partnerships since it has been determined by the government that they will happen, just when the new constitution has been ratified (or has it already been?). Also, Austria will have domestic partnerships on Jan. 1, 2010, so they should be listed with an asterisk.

Yes, see Recognition of same-sex unions in Ecuador —21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide clear sources, please share them. I'm personally unsure of whether or not it should be included, as there is no actual date akin to Sweden. VoodooIsland (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepal should not be include, because SSM is not finally approve. Legalize SSM in that country is possible, but not clear-cut. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit Protect

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this article be edit protected to block IP addresses? This article has received over a dozen of vandals in the past two weeks from IP addresses alone. VoodooIsland (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious Freedom Section

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I feel that this section puts more emphasis on the side that argues the side of conservative christian churches that they will be penalized and not enough emphasis to counterbalance this with the liberal side that views opposite-sex marriage being dictated as the only legal type of marriage in a jurisdiction goes against people's right to freedom of religion. If one type of religion (i.e., conservative and Bible-based) is given more weight through legalization of opposite-sex marriage and the ban of same-sex marriage, it is only obvious that the freedom of liberal religious groups to legalize same-sex marriage is being thwarted. Someone should edit this to make both arguments have the same number of sentences so that they are 100 percent equal in terms of weight being given.--75.42.70.73 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be scrapped altogether. It is a recent innovation, and the title, even, puts religious arguments in an American, recent, and binary framework that defines "Religious Freedom", not as freedom to practice religion, but freedom to discriminate against gays and lesbians using religion as a defense. Some of the problems with this section:

With the legalization of marriage, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment.[2]

misrepresents the source, suggesting that the religious group was penalized for "excluding them"–presumably for religious services, not use of public lands! And the story was about a civil union ceremony, not marriage!

The next sentence,

Opponents of same-sex marriage have expressed concerns that this challenges their religious freedoms.[3][4]

Sources one article about an adoption agency that refused to comply with Massachusetts antidiscrimination law on Sexual Orientation, again nothing to do with marriage. The other is the same, defending sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations on church managed property, no marriage!

The third is weasely,

They say that it may impact schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards. There is concern that a conservative Christian college would risk its tax-exempt status by refusing to admit a legally married gay couple to married-student housing. [5]

A single lawyer's handpicked conjecture, where the source article says that anti-SSM scholars disagree on how serious these conflicts are, and whose "religious standards" these are? The viewpoint that all religions and religious organizations vehemently oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality is subtly reinforced in every sentence. This source, however, has some good material for religious exemptions in nondiscrimination statutes and other neglected subjects.

The last sentence,

Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their religious views.[6]

No legal analyst was cited here. This was a journalist, speaking about select Christian individuals and groups losing lawsuits that sought their right to discriminate against gays and lesbians. The tax-exemption case was the same mentioned in the first section, and has no broader impact than that specific case, which had to do with public property.

On the other hand, supporters of same-sex marriage such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State argue that by defining marriage as an opposite-sex institution, the state infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of religion.[7]

The remnant of the old revision, ostensibly the bone thrown to religious supporters of same-sex marriage is a insidious attempt to further define same-sex marriage supporters as wholly secular! Fortuynist (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press Style

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone provide a source for the claims made in this article regarding AP style for referring to same-sex marriage ("marriage for gays and lesbians")? There is no reference to this in my paper stylebook (2007 edition) or the online edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The title (Same-sex marriage) is inherently biased

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

By using the terminology "Same-sex marriage" it is implied that the marriage of individuals on the same sex is inferior or somehow flawed. Research has shown that this kind of subconscious, often unintentional bias leads to social stigma of the group listed.¹ Would it appear normal if the article on traditional marriage was titled "straight marriage"?

I suggest changing the title to "Marriage equality".

¹The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences.Hegarty, Peter; Pratto, Felicia Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 80(5), May 2001, 723-735.

I disagree with your analysis and application. As an encyclopedia topic, this article is description about same-sex marraige not some hoped for "equality". "Same-sex marriage" is also a far more commonly applied term for the topic- we report what others say, we dont lead. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you put equality in scare quotes? What social activists want to achieve is equality for gay and lesbian couples within the existing societal institution of marriage, not to create a new institution called "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage". The title is biased. "Marriage for gays and lesbians" would be better, and less susceptible to charges of bias than "Marriage equality" from antigay critics. About Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia does two things. It aspires to use the most common name, but it also aims to be precise, prefers spelled-out names to abbreviations, and other stilted things in defiance of the most recognized name. New Wikipedia editors, or Wikipedia users who are not familiar with policy will think that Wikipedia uses the proper name for things. Campagne (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Marriage for gays and lesbians" is meaningless since gays and lesbians can already get married in every jurisdiction that recognizes marriage; they just can't always do it with someone of the same sex. The Red Pen of Doom is right that "same-sex marriage" is the best title for this specific article. The marriage article discusses the institution in a wider context which includes various types of marriages and marriage laws, including same-sex marriages. This article is specifically about the topic of marriage between persons of the same sex which, by the way, does not assume that the partners are gay or lesbian. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI - It was not "scare quotes" it was a direct qoute from the original posters suggested title. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine Legalizes Same Sex Marriage 5/6/09

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

With the House and Senate vote in Favor and with Go. John Baldacci signature it becomes law. Welcome state number 5. Here's CNN's update on it --> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html . Can someone update the map and shade maine in purple??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.143.161 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I left messages asking for map updates on just about every map of same-sex marriage there is. :) Also, here's the best place to leave requests for map updates; the most frequent updaters tend to visit that place first. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not yet legal in Maine; the law only takes hold on September 19, and even then only if there is not a people's veto position in place (in which case it goes on the ballot.) So it's premature to paint the map.--Nat Gertler (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Rhode Island really recognize same sex marriages?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone please explain the status on this? Also What is up with all the recent edits done? It says that France does not recognize same sex marriages anymore and Wyoming now recognizes them. Please fix accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.34.24 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire should be in the list

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The governor says it will sign it and the legislature's leaders say they will accept the amendments. The amendments aren't controversial like to scare votes away (instead it may actually get approved by a wider margin now that the governor said he'll sign it) so it's certain it will become law. Wasn't the same thing done for Sweden? It was on the list way before the vote because it was widely expected to pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.70.40 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding.. Unregistered cohabitation does not apply for Portugal. I think it is much closer to Registered partnership. As it has to be registered to be official. I don't udnerstand what the person who writes this means. In Portugal "de facto" unions are registered cohabitations between same-sex couples where benefits range from tax benefits to citizenship applications, among many others. It is honestly hard to udnerstand what you mean!

--193.136.74.102 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Majority Rules section US-centric

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A civil-rights view, in contrast, holds that the judiciary should decide on the legality of same-sex marriage.

This reads as very US centric. In a lot of countries the language of civil rights is used as a political argument to persuade legislators/mobilise public opinion behind them. Few would try to get the courts to create legislation. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 8 upheld in California - 26-05-2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should this be added to the part where it says that California has marriage under political review? Kumorifox (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should still be considered "under political review", in fact, every states' ban. According to CBS News, opposing Lawyers In Bush V. Gore are teaming up to overturn California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Federal Court. See article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/27/national/main5042384.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.143.56 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's no longer under review by any current ballot measures I think the term would be "Judicial Review". Even that's a stretch as the lawsuit has been filed, but not heard yet. -- JT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.150.72 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

People that are adding content to this article need to do a better job of sourcing. For example, if New Hampshire had been SOURCED when it was added today, I wouldn't have removed it since I hadn't read any news that the governor had signed it. Source your content people. From an American perspective, the 6 states currently noted in the infobox need to be sourced. Don't be so quick to add content if you can't add it right. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neologism concern

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone flagged this page as a possible neologism. Given that the phrase is used in both American Heritage and Blacks Law dictionaries^[35] I think it's safe. It's not defined there, but that just reflects the dictionaries' belief that it is clear in context.Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

India legalises homosexuality

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In July 2009 there have been certain changes in India regarding laws pertaining to homosexuality. As India is a large country, this signifies growing tolerance towards homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitbhatia (talk • contribs) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Debates over terminology

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before I get to the substantive content of my post, I'd like to say a few things about my intentions. Clearly, the discussion over "same-sex marriage" is very controversial, and thus a neutral point of view is a very slippery goal. I know I am influenced by my opinions on the subject, but I am trying to present an argument that stands regardless of point of view. This section may be most relevant to the situation in the US. I realize that I am resorting to generalizations in this subject, but unless my characterizations are not generally true, for the sake of argument, I'd like to set aside exceptions to the rule.

One significant source of controversy on this issue is the difference of opinion between proponents of "same-sex marriage" and proponents of "traditional marriage". I think it's safe to say that most proponents of "traditional marriage" would contend that the proper definition of "marriage" does not include unions between same-sex couples. This is evidenced by recent legislation in various (US) states, to add to statue or constitution a legal definition limiting marriage to heterosexual unions. Again, I assume most proponents of "traditional marriage" would claim that this is the proper definition of marriage, and that to legally define it is not to change to the definition, but to reinforce the correct definition. Without getting into specific statistics, a significant percentage of the population of the US, at least, support a "traditional" definition of marriage, and would view the phrase "same-sex marriage" as a contradiction-in-terms (ie, an oxymoron). I am aware of the concept of "scare quotes" or "sneer quotes", but there are legitimate uses of quotation marks to indicate the debatable nature of a term. For example, I have made every effort to be balanced in my usage of quotes in this discussion - I am equally ready to put quotes around the terms "same-sex marriage" and "traditional marriage", acknowledging that a large number of people would debate the validity of each. Given the amount of controversy over the very definition of the term, doesn't it show a bias to use the term "marriage" to apply to a same-sex union, without some indication of the questionable nature of the terminology? In a context where there is a significant consensus on the usage of the term, no such indication would be necessary. But in the light of the support (in most states either a majority or a large minority) for "traditional marriage" legislation, I contend that there is no such consensus, one way or the other. (I know I haven't defined what would constitute a "significant consensus", but I don't think one exists, at least in the US, for any reasonable definition of consensus). I'm not sure quotes are the right way to indicate the questionable nature of the term, given the sensitivity to the issue, and the potential for implied derision, but I'm not sure there is a better way. In my opinion, inserting the phrase "so-called" would not only be grammatically very awkward in many instances, it would also be more offensive. I don't think it is reasonable to acknowledge the significant debate over the validity of the terminology, and then to go ahead and use the term as if the argument has already been decided. Patrollerus01 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The question of terminology is hardly overlooked in the article; it is granted a significant section. So it's not as if someone reading through the article would be unaware of controversy to it. When used as a whole phrase, the meaning of same-sex marriage is understood, and it is common in legitimate media. The modifier same-sex can, like many modifiers, be read as discussing something similar to but not the same as some traditional usage of the term; we do not use scare quotes in statutory rape or white chocolate or guinea pig, for example. "Marriage", like many words, has a multitude of definitions, and the objections are only based on one definition. If we say we're a little blue today, we do not see the need to put "blue" in quotes even though we are not tinted that color. Same-sex marriage exists with marriage as legally defined in various locations; it also exists in the sense of bringing two things together (I doubt many folks hear about a new product as a marriage of luxury and convenience and wonder which one is the girl.)

And as a side note: it seems to me that most of the proponents of same-sex marriage are also proponents of traditional marriage; I know of no one trying to make gay marriage mandatory. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage" removed

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've removed misleading sentence and refference, since the amici curiae brief of the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion (filled in September 2007) states:

There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.
When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders.
Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents.

Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Thus, after careful scrutiny of decades of research in this area, the American Psychological Association concluded in its recent Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children: “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children” and that “Research has shown that adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.” And the National Association of Social Workers has determined that “The most striking feature of the research on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children is the absence of pathological findings. The second most striking feature is how similar the groups of gay and lesbian parents and their children are to heterosexual parents and their children that were included in the studies.” Most recently, in adopting an official Position Statement in support of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage, the American Psychiatric Association observed that “no research has shown that the children raised by lesbians and gay men are less well adjusted than those reared within heterosexual relationships.”
These statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. It is the quality of parenting that predicts children’s psychological and social adjustment, not the parents’ sexual orientation or gender.

^[36]

--Destinero (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several flaws in your argument. First of all, sexual orientation has nothing to do with the argument. Many gay men and women raised children in a mixed-orientation marriage. Saying a gay man can be a good father does not mean he is an equal and equivalent replacement for a mother. The APA is right, quality is more important than gender, but that does not mean that gender is not important. Second, you assume that these organizations are the supreme dictator in terms of defining what is best for the kids. Just because one group makes one statement, does not mean that all other conflicting statements must be removed from wikipedia. Wikipedia reports facts. It does not take sides with one organization or the other. I am interested in what other countries think about the unique role of fathers in the raising of children.Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The cited source was this, but this source doesn't seem to be looking at any studies which compare straight couples with gay couples at all, so I'm not sure why it was used to support this statement. It compares straight married couples with straight single parents and straight divorced parents, but since this article is about same-sex marriage, this source doesn't seem relevant to this article. I'm not aware of any studies that have shown that the children of married straight parents have more positive outcomes than the children of gay parents in long-term relationships or marriages; are you? The APA, as the preeminent professional organization regarding mental health in the United States, does represent a broad consensus of thought, but I'd have no problem reporting studies that came to a different conclusion if such studies exist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. There are flaws in your argument, not in mine: "Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders." (emphasis mine) ^[36]

These organizations represents facts based on scientific research literature in the most reputable peer reviewed journals. There is none more (widely considered) credible and reliable organizations than those referenced in LGBT parenting article, which provides the basis for the relevant section in this article about Same-Sex marriage. --Destinero (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Same sex marriage is a neologism

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

The article states that the first time the word marriage was extended to include same-sex marriages is in 2001. If there is a political movement to redefine marriage, it is with the same-sex marriage crowd, not the traditional marriage crowd. Perusing any dictionary from 2000, 1990, going back to the start of hte english language will show that. The POV is the attempt to force a redefinition of the term marriage. Mrdthree (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the article does not say that the first time the word marriage was extended to include same-sex marriages is in 2001. The article does say that the first time the legal status of marriage was so extended was 2001, but the article also notes that the term can refer to socially recognized marriages rather than just legal ones. And something does not need to actually exist for the term to be in use and relevant; the term "same-sex marriage" makes dictionary appearance before 2001. If we do not build the first starship until 3058, the term starship will not be a neologism then, as we will have been using it for centuries, even if the thing we were discussing was a theoretical item rather than an actual one. The phrase same-sex marriage has entered into common use; even if it's to describe something people believe cannot or should not exist, that aspect doesn't make it a neologism. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the main the history of "same-sex marriage" is being sourced to languages other than English. Most of the historians are activists who are doing the translation for us (e.g. Foucault). I want proof that in these other languages they use the same word for same-sex unions that they do for marriage. Meaning marriage in the traditional sense; the union of man and woman [8] (the same definition found in (1950, 1990, and 2000). Otherwise you are making the argument that we should refer to same-sex unions as marriages, not discussing the history of same-sex marriages. Mrdthree (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of marriage is covering both opposite sex and same-sex couples. Here is your favorite Webster Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage Thus there is no point to change the article as you wish. --Destinero (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look again at that 1913 definition you link to - specifically, definition #4 within it. Having said that, a history of a thing need not only reflect examples of that thing, but can discuss predecessors to that thing. (Which is not to say that the history section could not use some clean-up. Someone in good faith recently placed some material into it that makes it too U.S. centric, giving bits of U.S. history that are not relevant to the scale portrayed by their placement there.) Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the other two users; your arguements have gained no consensus and have been exclusively POV. For example,

As far as I can tell in the last 5 years there has been a social political movement to change the meaning of the word marriage. I am against the over extension of the word marriage. I have my 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s dictionaries and marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Somehow a judge ruled that definition should be changed. I am tired of all the P.C. redefining of words. I think that makes me a conservative, however on principle I am a libertarian, which means I am against laws defining marriage. My religious inclinations are vaguely diestic more than anything so I am simply a traditionalist. You can complain that the current romantic love definition of traditional marriage only goes back 100 years, fine but the monogamous definition of marriage goes back thousands of years. The evidence of cultures allowing same-sex marriage involves weak evidence or the mistranslation of words.

You are free to have your own opinions on matters but Wikipedia is a not a place for the promotion of select viewpoints as such is in violation of the NPOV policy. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2009

More like WP:SOAPBOX. And strong evidence that there needs to be a new rule for SOAPOPERA. Anarchangel (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That particular statement was made in regards to changing a sentence in the 'controversal views' section of the marriage article. The original sentence claimed only religious conservatives were against the use of the word marriage for same-sex marriage. I was indicating that someone with traditionalist inclinations and few or no religious connections might also be against the extension of the word. The edits got a bit fast and furious because same-sex marriage supporters hate the word 'traditional' in any context. Rather than edit war over the word, I settled for 'social conservative' but only after I changed the social conservative article so it reflects my POV (so that it is not simply a political movement). Mrdthree (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in case no one pointed it out to you when you made the quoted statement, I should note that the "monogamous definition of marriage" isn't one that "goes back thousands of years"; the word itself doesn't appear until the late 13th century. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, "same-sex marriage" is the most commonly used term used to describe two people of the same sex marrying. You seem to object to the term; are you suggesting that there is a phrase for this concept that is more widely used? Wikipedia chooses the word or phrase that is most commonly used by English-speakers, the one that people looking for information on a topic are most likely to search for. I suppose that "gay marriage" is also widely used, but that phrase redirects to this article as well; are you suggesting that the title be changed to "gay marriage," or to something different? If you are objecting to the title, then I can't find the alternate title that you think would be more recognizable, more widely used, and more neutral. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless the title is changed to "Non-traditional marriage," I do not think they will ever be completely satisfied. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My problem is the equivocation between union and marriage, and then union and relationship in the historical arguments. This allows any relationship to be discussed under the topic of marriage, but marriage is a unique institution with strict taboos associated with it (often associated with severe punishment). Mrdthree (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

John Boswell, in his book about same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe made the choice to refer to them as unions rather than marriage, in part because the term marriage post-dates the Roman legal arrangement that European marriage springs from. Regardless of the validity of once-upon-a-time resisting the urge to call them marriages, gay people have been calling their unions marriages for a long time, regardless of legal backing. Not to mention that several US states, and the entire English speaking country of Canada refer to the unions as marriages. It may be a "neologism" in the sense that it is "recently" coined and we don't all forget when that's not what it always meant. That doesn't matter. It's too late. It is an appropriate term for discussing the history of legally recognised unions NAMED marriages by the jurisdictions in which they are enacted. You don't get to decide what Canada calls same-sex unions. WE do. You just get to write the article about it. - BalthCat (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point. In tracing the history of same-sex marriage you appeal to pederasty and other relations that are temporary by definition. This does not report on the history of same=sex marriage. This is a rhetorical attempt to link a current movement to unrelated past traditions. Mrdthree (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

When did I appeal to pederasty? ( Though, it looks like /you/ like to appeal to pederasty, forgetting the age at which most girls were married off throughout history...) On the other hand /I/ said the argument over the name of the article, or labelling it a neologism (in the sense that it's a concern for Wikipedia), is well over because Canada calls it marriage, and as such you don't get to rename it. (Also South Africa, several US states...) The article is titled as such because it exists in that exact term. Period. There is already a History of same-sex unions in which you get to worry about whether this union or that gets to be called marriage. Here, that argument is a waste of time. - BalthCat (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Marriage between two people in terms of love is a neologism, so what? Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only the very LAST time a word evolves that matters, don'tchaknow? - BalthCat (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Rmv a passage whose citation failed to verify the text. (WP:V) : "and that it encourages unhealthy behavior.-ref-BalancedPolitics.org - Same Sex Marriages (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)" The cited source gives evidence of scientific studies of the lowered life expectancy of gay people; marriage of any kind is not a constant in the data against which the variable of life expectancy is measured, and therefore the studies prove nothing whatever about gay marriage. AIDS is the reason for the lowered age, as is clear just from following links found in the cite to this. Neither is lowered life expectancy to be described by the words 'unhealthy behaviour'.

I will be here a while, this article has basically been rotting since I left it. I will answer, (by conceding my point, conceding another's point, and/or contradicting or refuting others' points) all assertions that include reasoned arguments, preferably cited. Likewise, my reckoning of who is contributing to consensus excludes those that routinely refuse to answer my assertions. Unverified assertions or rhetoric might not be answered, as they do not further discussion. If the above caveats do not apply to you, remember, WP:AGF: I don't know you. I don't intend them as an insult, only a reminder of WP rules. If in doubt, check WP:EQ Anarchangel (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Modified for clarity by Anarchangel (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unhealthy behavior is not because of SSM, it has zero to do with homosexuality and everything to do with UNHEALTHY BEHAVIOR. Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some opponents of same-sex marriage also argue that the alleged historical precedence of the definition of marriage - the traditional understanding - justifies the need to protect it from the changes sought by advocates of same-sex marriage.<ref>Bill Bennett. "In Defense of Traditional Marriage." ''Newsweek''(6-3-96). Qtd. in [http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bulletin01/06.html].</ref>
Opponents may say this. Who knows, maybe Bill Bennet says it. But he doesn't say it in the cited source. He says SSM is the thin end of the wedge, he puts up the red herring flags of incest, bigamy, and polygamy. In a discussion about gay marriage, he says that the 'promiscuity of homosexual males is well known'. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees. We're talking people who want to get married, here, and he is arguing that they shouldn't get married because they like to swing. But enough about the silliness of the material itself. It doesn't match the cite. I'd like some comments before I remove it though, and give someone time to find a cite that does reference the statement in the article, or it is simply WP:OR, or Original Research. Made up stuff. Bear in mind though that it would be best to get more than one cite, as it isn't really proven by just one that 'opponents' argue this. Or we can change it to Bill Bennet/whoever says.

Other opponents contend that the legalization of same-sex marriage, by altering the traditional definition of marriage, would harm families and society as a whole.<ref name=DMD> {{cite web |last=Brownback |first=Sam |title=Defining Marriage Down - We need to protect marriage. |publisher=[[National Review]] |date=July 9, 2004 |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/brownback200407090921.asp}} </ref> Senator Brownbeck makes one point that is consistent and logical -if- you believe there is evidence for the statement that children do better in families with a parent of each gender. He doesn't say anything about altering the traditional definition of marriage, and therefore that doing so would would harm families. The only occurrence of 'traditional definition' in the piece is, "It is possible to lose the institution of marriage in America. And that is precisely the hidden agenda of many in this cultural battle: To do away entirely with the traditional definition of the family."
Again, uncited. Again, WP:OR. Again, I will give someone time to find a cite. Anarchangel (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox inconsistencies

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The asterisked states under the "performed in some regions" heading don't line up with the discussion under the "notes" heading (NV isn't in there at all, and some say "pending in January(!) 2009. I don't know if some of that might have been blocked or otherwise changed, so can't fix it.

Also, "US States" might be better than "performed in some regions", since that's more descriptive. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert of Gorillasapiens edits

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Gorillasapiens must not change what most reliable source possible says.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.^{[nb 1]} The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.^{[nb 2]} The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

Further info:

"The null hypothesis (in this case, that same-sex and heterosexual couples do not differ) cannot be proved. A more realistic standard is the one generally adopted in behavioral and social research, namely, that repeated failures to disprove the null hypothesis are accepted provisionally as a basis for concluding that the groups, in fact, do not differ. Moreover, it is important to recognize that some heterogeneity of findings across studies is to be expected simply because of random variations in sampling. For example, even if same-sex and heterosexual couples in the general population truly do not differ in their psychological dynamics, it is to be expected that a small number of studies (roughly 5% if probability sampling methods are employed and conventional levels of statistical significance are used) will report significant differences. This fact highlights the importance of examining the entire body of research rather than drawing conclusions from one or a few studies. Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf

"Scientific research cannot prove that a particular phenomenon does not exist or never occurs, or that two variables are never related to each other. However, when repeated studies with different samples consistently fail to establish the existence of a phenomenon or a relationship between two variables, researchers become increasingly convinced that, in fact, the phenomenon does not exist or the variables are unrelated. In that situation, if a researcher attempts to argue that two phenomena are correlated in the absence of supporting data from prior studies, the burden of proof is on that researcher to demonstrate empirically that the alleged relationship exists." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

--Destinero (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude dont play dirty, that was a double negative that I fixed twice so dont present just the first edit ok. thank you Moreover, My revisions reflected what the paper cited says. In fact, what any unbiased research must say to be regarded as such. Science by definition works by showing that something is not, it is impossible in science to show that something is. The fact that something was not proved to be doesn't prove that it is. In logic this is argument from ignorance. Please if you like to inform readers of scientific research be truthful not biased. Being biased and irrational just hurts what both of us are trying to do here which is to inform that sexual orientation does not have any correlation to bad parenting. The facts suggest that but when you say "the scientific research shows gay parents fit" you loose people that would otherwise be convinced of this position. The scientific research investigated the issue and did not find a correlation. the research looked to see if there was any indication gay parents were unfit having not found a correlation the study reported its findings. Now as a matter of opinion one, including me, can be very much convinced gay parents are just as fit as any other parents but that is a conclusion a reasonable person draws from the findings it is not what the findings themselves prove. So if you like to write, namely that it is reasonable to draw those conclusions from the research do so, but remember an encyclopedia really presents facts it does not draw conclusion. In any case, please do not discredit the research by in effect presenting it as biased. Remember you are not trying to convince people like me who already hold this position. Only by presenting science in a neutral light as it really works you will help other readers understand your position and not just disregarded as impartial and biased. This is not a forum of personal ideas and preferences, this is a open source encyclopedia. Anyway, the line in question will be changed (reverted) to reflect the source faithfully according to Wikipedia standards and practices shortly soon after you have a chance to read this. Thank you very much gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your revisions didn't reflect what the paper cited says, since they says exactly the same what I wrote to the article. It is prohibited to change it and their meanings. I quoted the relevant Wikipedia policies here. I can even add more:

Wikipedia:No original research#Using sources: A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

* Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.^[37]^[38]^[39]

Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Please stop misinterpreting sources immediately. --Destinero (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the recent edits I'm a little surprised by the debate, you're both right and wrong on various issues. For one, Gorillasapiens is correct on presenting a neutral POV as simply asserting a scientific statement does not make it so. On the other hand Destinero is correct as it isn't the job of science to not prove what is not. Take for instance a biographical page of someone named John John's, what if it was said "...and therefore he had never proven that he was not a rapist" - well excuse me, how can you disprove a negative or something that has little evidence to begin with. From all the research I've seen you BOTH post I've only seen a possible correlation. Perhaps we should work on the wording piece by piece until we come to a consensus? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

^ When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources.
^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, I will explain one more time. With the exact words used, very simply, research can never SHOW or DOCUMENT that something IS! That is it. Settled forever, never to be changed, under all circumstances in reference to any situation whatsoever . research can only SHOW or DOCUMENT that something is NOT. From inference one may conclude that it is reasonable to believe that something IS because the opposite is consistently not SHOWN or DOCUMENTED to be the case. This not my preference, believe or philosophy, this is how research works by definition. Research can't never, even if it research was done, show or document heterosexual or straight couples to be fit. It by definition can only shown or document that straight or heterosexual have not shown to be unfit. Just because Destinero ultra sensitivity to this issue, and obvious bias must not discredit the honest hard work people have done on this issue.

gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've precisely quoted Pediatrics (journal) "More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families." Pediatrics is among the top 2% most-cited scientific and medical journals (38,973 total citations in 2007) and is the most-cited journal in the field of pediatrics. I've also precisely quoted the nation’s (US) and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists presenting amicus curiae brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature. "Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents." The American Psychological Association is a nonprofit scientific and professional organization founded in 1892. The Association has more than 155,000 members and affiliates, including the majority of psychologists holding doctoral degrees from accredited universities in the US. The American Psychiatric Association, with more than 38,000 members, is the Nation’s largest organization of physicians specializing in psychiatry. The National Association of Social Workers (“NASW”) was founded in 1955 by the merger of seven predecessor social work organizations. It is the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the world, with 145,000 members and 56 chapters throughout the United States and abroad. The NASW, California Chapter has approximately 11,600 members. In furthering its purposes of developing and disseminating high standards of social work practice while strengthening and unifying the social work profession as a whole, NASW promulgates professional standards and criteria, conducts research, publishes studies of interest to the profession, provides continuing education and enforces the NASW Code of Ethics. NASW has participated in numerous cases involving mental health, social science, family and discrimination issues, and is deeply committed to providing scientific information to help inform the courts on issues of importance before them. (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf) And who are you? Anonymous Wikipedia editor who obviously repeatedly misinterpreted these highly reliable sources (more reliable source to the topic probably does not exist)? This is totally unacceptable! Wikipedia has many articles containing "research has shown" even from social sciences. Google Scholar documents that this wording is perfectly acceptable in social sciences. Thus, I am reverting your edits since they are clearly in conflict with quoted Wikipedia policies and standards in this fields. --Destinero (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated failures of entire body of scientific research (many replicated studies etc.) to disprove the null hypothesis are accepted provisionally as a basis for concluding that the groups, in fact, do not differ. Thus scientific research CAN document and show and this is why this wording is used by several most reliable sources in the topic. Please stop immediately discredit and desinterprest reliable sources as you tried by claiming in edit status that it is not scientific research. This is unacceptable! --Destinero (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets learn some dictionary English vocabulary

  to document:
  1. To furnish with a document or documents.
  2. To support an assertion or claim with evidence or decisive information.
  3. To support with written references or citations; annotate.

note: it is impossible to document that there is no correlation, only that, if there is a correlation, that is was found. The mere observation, namely, that no correlation was found only suggests that it is likely that there is no correlation, this observation does not document that no correlation exists. The observation that no correlation only shows that no correlation was found even though such correlation may exist. Summary, 1.no correlation was found because no correlation exists. 2.correlation exits but was not found. Please do not eliminate possibility 2 because of biased point of view. Respect those who hold it. to show: 1. to cause or allow to be seen 2. to present or perform as a public entertainment or spectacle 3. to indicate; point out 4. to guide, escort, or usher 5. to explain or make clear; make known 6. to make known to; inform, instruct, or prove to 7. to prove; demonstrate 8. to indicate, register, or mark 9. to exhibit or offer for sale 10. to allege, as in a legal document; plead, as a reason or cause. 11. to produce, as facts in an affidavit or at a hearing. 12. to express or make evident by appearance, behavior, speech, etc. 13. to accord or grant (favor, kindness, etc.) Likewise, research cannot show that there is no correlation for the same reasons.

Neutral wording encompasses both possibilities, yet it mentions the one in light of the fidings that is more likely to be factual. to suggest:

  1. To offer for consideration or action; propose
  2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association; evoke: 
  3. To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply
  4. To serve as or provide a motive for; prompt or demand

here focus on 1, 2, 3 meaning. Research having failed after many trials to observe a correlation offer for consideration the proposition that there is no correlation or, Research having failed after many trials to observe a correlation evoke the proposition that there is no correlation or, Research having failed after many trials to observe a correlation imply that there is no correlation. Moreover, the study of human behaviour can't hardly be call a science for science uses unambiguous, clear, precise words and concepts to study the natural world. Social science, like economics, even though it uses many scientific ideas and methods, is not as rigorous and conclusive as science. For example, the phrase in dispute proclaims: The scientific research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents. Why would you show otherwise even if it was true? What is the scientific definition of being a fit parent; A parent who provides health care, quality food, love, shelter, recreation, friends, toys, education? or is it outcome e.g. good grades, graduation rate? or is it the subjective well being of the child, levels of depression, suicide rate or it is the lack of physical punishment the child suffers? If any of the above, are wealthy parents more fit than poor ones? Do kids with learning disabilities have bad parents? Does lightly slapping a child even once for disobedience make a parent unfit? maybe in the eyes of the law. Science can't tell you what is right and wrong. I digress but it suffices to say parental fitness is hardly a scientific term, let alone the determination of who is fit or unfit, more remotely yet the silly suggestion that parent sexual orientation has anything to do with parental fitness. Whatever it is, it is not a science. So I submit, this is a social science study matter because of its subjective nature. I submit the finding of the study is not the same as its conclusions and ought not to be presented as such and that it is impossible to prove a null hypothesis, in fact it would impossible to scientifically show that, if it were the case, gay parents were unfit. Those terms are so vague to be taken as scientific. Now the spaghetti monster better known as the flying teapot. If somebody were to claim a flying teapot existed in the orbit on Jupiter nobody would believe him, most likely they would not even considered the possibility let alone spend money to prove him wrong. Yet as a scientist all one can say is that no such flying teapot has been detected and that is reasonable for one to personally bet one's house that there is no such thing there. Even if one looked, and did not see, one could not say: well I haven't found it, science proves it doesn't exist, because perhaps one did not look everywhere. Science is cold and impersonal yet powerful. If one is going to claim science says anything about anything, well one have to abide by science's strict rules. The fact that a neutral point of view doesn't sound as convincing to your argument is no excuse. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Gorillasapiens, you are in violation of the guidance of NOTSOAPBOX. A diatribe such as this should be conducted on user pages, if at all; long discussions are highly unlikely to be of interest or to be read by other editors and do not contribute to the Same-sex marriage article. I suggest you also carefully check the guidance of WP:EDITWAR before continuing your campaign and if you are still unhappy ask for more third party opinions using 3O as has been recommended to you previously.—Teahot (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Destinero#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits --Destinero (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits

"Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). ... The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents. ... One recent study used a probability sample and thus provides a valid basis for generalization to the population. Wainright et al. (2004) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which drew its participants from a stratified random sample of all U.S. high schools with at least 30 students (AddHealth, 2004). The researchers compared 44 adolescents parented by female couples and 44 adolescents parented by heterosexual couples, matched on relevant demographic characteristics, and found no significant differences in psychological wellbeing or family and relationship processes (e.g., parental warmth, integration into one’s neighborhood). ... Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. --Destinero (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My concerns: I won't argue, I have read most all the article, you have misquoted them previously in the talk page as well as in the article. Not the findings or facts, but the the way you quoted the authors assertion of their conclusions or their opinions as if the authors themselves had mentioned them as facts.

Second, accusations of vandalism, when one disagrees with another editor is not warranted. Neither is asking for administrator precious time without contacting others first. I am new to Wikipedia, but I know administrators are busy volunteers. Frankly, they don't need this, False accusation, not following the process of resolving disputes directly,etc.

Let me address each of the your concerns. First, you wrote: "Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. ." No dispute have been raised about the findings. It is the wording of the finding conclusions, the wording of the opinion of the experts, that are being discussed.

Next, "Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents." "That is it a fact, not disputed either. Adding that the page raises no problem. This shows how the research was conducted, no prejudice, no bias, no side. Namely, They looked with an open mind whether there was any difference. By design, a link could have been found. This is neutral yet it guides the audience to the most reasonable conclusion, that if no link was found, well one believes that none exists and reasonably so.

Asserting the opinion itself, scientific research has consistently shown no link exist, is unscientific, and anybody trained in science, instead of learning from it, disregards as biased.

Next, "The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents." " No, it does not demonstrate, it only demonstrate that no link, difference was found. Now as a matter of opinion, expert opinion if you will, we conclude, we deduce that is so. Here is where the disagreement lies.

Next, If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample." "here. Great, good job. This right but look how it is sounds in the article. If no evidence is found, parents are capable. No, it was right at the first time, if parents are capable, no evidence is found, nor will it ever be found. But the researcher doesn't hold parents capable, and then conclude there is no evidence. One looks for evidence, having not found any, one concludes the parents are capable.

Second point says: This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." Yes evidently, if one was trying to affirm the parents were unfit, but there is no what was said, quite the opposite , what was said was that no evidence for unfitness was ever found, Moreover, in this dispute, the burden of proof lies in neither side because saying no link was found doesn't show, prove, demonstrate, imply, document, or deduce such a link exist, in fact, it actually implies it is unreasonable to hold such position.

Third point, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.||| "It common, natural is understandable to consider opinion as fact when they personally relate to ourselves, the fact here is no link was found, the opinion is if that is the case consistency, then no link exists. The authors themselves didn't assert anything, why should we? Why change that? I submit, you did so only to make your point of view more convincing. To me, it makes it weaker because of the reasons mentioned, I think a neutral point of view is more encyclopedic, and so I will revert it to the original. Feel free to undo it. But let me know, so you can discuss it further. Thank you. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am actually willing to discuss this more in dept. I can really see your points and underestand them. Do you have Jabber, MSN, ICQ or something else to be able to discuss this online to see what can we do with all of this? Write it me on mail. Thank you for your interest. --Destinero (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, first I apologize for not expressing myself clearly, if only I had addressed your concerns earlier. I'd say wording of the facts, the findings, like you did on your previous talk page edit expressed is good enough. But I believe the best we can do is wait for a third opinion whenever it comes, we can work from there. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has responded - that you try dispute resolution. I tend to agree, because I see merit in both your arguments, which is why I am reluctant to say more. I am concerned that virtually the same entries have now been inserted into at least three different articles, and the way this should be handled is rather than having disputes on three different articles (acknowledging this relates to two of those, but three have resulted in conflict) is to have the material in the main article where it is relevant, and a summary of the main article as a whole when it is pointed to from within a section in another article. This has improved on the article not being disputed here, but perhaps this should be born in mind in this case. I am sorry, but I just do not have the time to see how far this applied to the same-sex-marriage article, having spent some time on the partnership article myself, and eventually deciding to walk away. Mish (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

As the discussion here has devolved into using uppercase words, exclamation marks, and you are in danger of running into an edit war, can I suggest that Gorillasapiens and Destinero take a moment to consider the options explained at Dispute Resolution? Personally I think that it would be very helpful for one of you to ask for one or more third party opinions at wp:3O. This would result in an independent view deciding what is best for the Same-sex marriage article and could be a positive step to reaching consensus here. I hope this advice does not come over as patronizing but I suspect that neither party has that much experience of these particular processes and guidelines.—Teahot (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

^ Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.
^ Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.
^ Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.
^ [Budde Reports http://www.budde.com.au/reports/browseByRegion.aspx?r=51]
^ [INTERNET USAGE STATISTICS -The Internet Big Picture - World Internet Users and Population Stats http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm]
^ http://web.archive.org/web/20070113131953/http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000778.cfm
^ [9]^{[dead link]}
^ Massachussets United Families
^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ The Challenge of Homosexuality
^ Dr. Jeffrey Satinover Testifies Before Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage
^ American Psychiatric Association (2000). "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Ex-Gay Watch [10]
^ Davison, G.C. (1991). "Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 137-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Haldeman, D.C. (1991). "Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 149-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Haldeman, D.C. (1994). "The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62 (2), 221-227.
^ Martin, A.D. (1984). "The emperor's new clothes: Modern attempts to change sexual orientation." In T. Stein & E. Hetrick (Eds.), Innovations in psychotherapy with homosexuals, (pp. 24-57). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
^ Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
^ Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). "Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS)." Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1), 85-91.
^ Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). "Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 131-166.
^ Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.
^ Silverstein, C. (1991). "Psychological and medical treatments of homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, (pp. 101-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Ex-Gay Watch [11]
^ Davison, G.C. (1991). "Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 137-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Haldeman, D.C. (1991). "Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 149-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Haldeman, D.C. (1994). "The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62 (2), 221-227.
^ Martin, A.D. (1984). "The emperor's new clothes: Modern attempts to change sexual orientation." In T. Stein & E. Hetrick (Eds.), Innovations in psychotherapy with homosexuals, (pp. 24-57). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
^ Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
^ Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). "Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS)." Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1), 85-91.
^ Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). "Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 131-166.
^ Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.
^ Silverstein, C. (1991). "Psychological and medical treatments of homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, (pp. 101-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Graff, E.J. "Retying the Knot" in The Nation. June 24, 1996. Reprinted in a book by Andrew Sullivan (editor) in 1997. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader. Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Pages 134-138.
^ http://www.slate.com/id/2215628/
^ ^a ^b Case No. S147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION, AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION
^ University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".
^ Borough of Manhattan Community College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library, "Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources" notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".
^ The National History Day website states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."

[37] When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources.

[38] When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.

[1] Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.

[2] Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.

[3] Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.

[Balsam2008-4] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Balsam, Kimberly F.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Solomon, Sondra E. "Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 102-116.

[5] [Budde Reports http://www.budde.com.au/reports/browseByRegion.aspx?r=51]

[6] [INTERNET USAGE STATISTICS -The Internet Big Picture - World Internet Users and Population Stats http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm]

[7] ttp://web.archive.org/web/20070113131953/http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000778.cfm

[8] [9]^{[dead link]}

[9] Massachussets United Families

[autogenerated1-10] Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[11] The Challenge of Homosexuality

[12] Dr. Jeffrey Satinover Testifies Before Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage

[Psych-13] American Psychiatric Association (2000). "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[14] Ex-Gay Watch [10]

[15] Davison, G.C. (1991). "Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 137-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[16] Haldeman, D.C. (1991). "Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 149-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[17] Haldeman, D.C. (1994). "The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62 (2), 221-227.

[18] Martin, A.D. (1984). "The emperor's new clothes: Modern attempts to change sexual orientation." In T. Stein & E. Hetrick (Eds.), Innovations in psychotherapy with homosexuals, (pp. 24-57). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

[19] Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

[20] Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). "Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS)." Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1), 85-91.

[21] Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). "Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 131-166.

[22] Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.

[23] Silverstein, C. (1991). "Psychological and medical treatments of homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, (pp. 101-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[24] Ex-Gay Watch [11]

[25] Davison, G.C. (1991). "Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 137-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[26] Haldeman, D.C. (1991). "Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 149-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[27] Haldeman, D.C. (1994). "The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62 (2), 221-227.

[28] Martin, A.D. (1984). "The emperor's new clothes: Modern attempts to change sexual orientation." In T. Stein & E. Hetrick (Eds.), Innovations in psychotherapy with homosexuals, (pp. 24-57). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

[29] Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

[30] Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). "Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS)." Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1), 85-91.

[31] Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). "Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 131-166.

[32] Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.

[33] Silverstein, C. (1991). "Psychological and medical treatments of homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy, (pp. 101-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[34] Graff, E.J. "Retying the Knot" in The Nation. June 24, 1996. Reprinted in a book by Andrew Sullivan (editor) in 1997. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader. Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Pages 134-138.

[35] ttp://www.slate.com/id/2215628/

[amici-36] Case No. S147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION, AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION

[39] University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".

[40] Borough of Manhattan Community College, A. Philip Randolph Memorial Library, "Research Help:Primary vs. Secondary Sources" notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".

[41] The National History Day website states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[nb 1]

[nb 2]

[37]

[38]

[39]