Image talk:Marriage usa.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok i think that gay and same sex marriages should be allegal in all states. becuase if you think about it what if they law was that a man and a women could not marry! think how mad alot of people would be. well now you nkow how same sex couples feel. i believe that if you know that god is real and hat you are against same sex marriages you are sinning because in the bible it does say that it is a sin to be married if you are of the same sex. but also below that it says that only god can judge. so i know that congress and our supreme court and our president are not god so they should not be able to judge anyone but themseleles. So maybe one day we will come to our sences and realize that judging someone for who they love rather than what type of person they are should be against the law

From Erin Marie Sporing Age 14 Lexington Ky Henry Clay High School

Contents 1 Colors 2 ... 3 Inaccurate and Inappropriate 4 This map is out of date.

[edit] Colors

I see a heavy connotation that same-sex marriage is bad, from the colors of this article. The increasing redness of states that are more supportive of same-sex marriage tends to suggest that the issue is something that is disasterous and/or needs to be dealt with with immedicay. Conversely, the green of same-sex marriage phohibitive states tends to suggest that the situation there is good and/or safe. The colors also operate against common traffic light like color schemes, where green means it's ok to do something and red means it's not. (I'm not saying the same-sex marriage states should be green either, since that could be construed as PoV, but the opposite of an intuitive scheme shouldn't be used) Since the information here is innaccurate anyway, I think the image should be replaced, with one having both increased factual accuracy, as well as a less suggestive color scheme. --24.189.240.142 02:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Spinboy 03:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the anon's got a good idea. Now be bold and edit as you propose! - UtherSRG 03:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'd do it if I thought I could. Is there a blank US Map template somewhere to use? That was my main obstacle. --24.189.240.142 06:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try http://geography.about.com/library/blank/blxusa.htm?terms=blank+maps. RickK 07:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That link was ok, but I found something better. It's uploaded now. --Vastango 08:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What happened? Ashibaka (tock) 08:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ...

It's unfortunate that the spelling/grammer and ambiguity of the 14 year old girl above make it difficult to understand her position on this issue. But she (as do many educated adults against gay marriage) brought up God in her argument, which to me makes her argument irrelivent. The issues we're facing are political and have to do with our government. The government it self has trouble remembering this, but there is a seperation of church and state. It doesn't matter what God or the Bible say about homosexuals, because religion should not come into play when laws are made. Our country grants us many freedoms, one of them being the freedom to worship as we choose, if we choose to at all. So creating laws based on one religion is obviously not fair to the people who are exersising their freedom and have chosen a different religion. And even if we were to allow faith to decide our laws (more than it already does...) the Bible is always open to interpretaion. Some people take it literally, some figuratively, and some realise that parts of it are just closed minded and out of date. We're facing civil rights issues that are government related, not church related. Even if americans eventually wake up and vote gay marriage as legal churches can still make their own choices on it. A wedding takes place in a chuch, a marriage, in the legal sence doesn't have to involve a church at all. If a church wanted to perform same sex marriages in their building, more power to em. If not, the courthouse is just down the street.

Actually, that's the jist of what she said. (I speak 14 year-old) She said that people shouldn't play god and judge others on their actions - people should only examine their own actions and see if they jive with their beliefs. Grammar (see, everyone makes mistakes :-) ) and ambiguity notwitstanding, when correctly articulated, you can get pretty compelling arguments out of 14-year-olds. --24.189.240.142 07:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time to change Connecticut to dark blue! Um, does anyone actually know how to do that? (Because I don't...) -- 12:47, 21 Apr 2005 (CTZ)

[edit] Inaccurate and Inappropriate

There are many related problems with this map as it was later altered:

1. Inappropriate - This map was originally intended to talk about the legal status of marriage, not benefits or any other issue. Thus the category "domestic partnership benefits available" is in appropriate for this map.

2. Inaccurate - because of the way the map was altered, a state could be more than one color. But this takes away the intent of the map. Selecting 1 color for a state is entirely POV.

3. Inaccurate #2 - Maryland was originally correct, as Maryland law expressly states that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and the state Attorney General, a staunch liberal Democrat, has interpreted it as such. The latest version is inaccurate with respect to Maryland and I suspect other states.

4. Inaccurate #3 - This map can not include pending legislation, one way or the other, or it would be entirely inaccurate.

--Noitall July 8, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

Your point 1 is wrong -- from the beginning the map included mention of "civil unions", not just the "legal status of marriage". It still mentions civil unions.

Your point 2 depends on what each person considers more significant. In truth I consider both versions of the map as flawed. The version you reverted to has the coloration POV problem.

And if anything I think this shows that people should be a bit more careful about *NAMING THEIR MAPS PROPERLY*. "Marriage USA" means nothing. "Marriage_definition_by_US_state" or even just "Marriage_definition_USA" would have meant something. When will people actually start giving some attention to the image upload guidelines? Aris Katsaris July 9, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Well, we agree on everything but point 1. But for point 1, you did not read my point correctly. I did not address civil unions, I address benefits, which are undefined and inappropriate for such a map. --Noitall July 9, 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Noitall some domestic partnerships laws are the same as marriage. If Maryland is wrong fix it. Your other edits are bad and wrong. And the map does not conatin pending legislation. Globeism 22:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• The revised map is wrong. I placed back a correct map. If you want to correct the map, then you do it. In addition, you only addressed one issue (address them all before going to an incorrect map). Domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage but may be the same as a civil union. If so, make the category Domestic Partnership/Civil Union. --Noitall 23:28, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

The reverted map is more wrong with multiple problems (nebraska does not have an amendment, courts declared it unconstitutional, and is missing domestic partnership information and civil union) whereas the current map only has one: Maryland. And the category currently of civil unions and domectic partnerships are the same color already. Globeism 00:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• If all maps are incorrect, then they should be deleted entirely. I am the one who pointed out all the errors, until they are fixed, it is either no map or the original map. BTW, I do not think that Maryland is the only state incorrect, but is the only one that I currently know with certainty. There should only be 1 category for civil unions/domestic partnerships. In addition, any map has to address the issue of having a state be in 2 categories. Selecting which category is entirely POV. If the map were done accurately, as was the first map (although the colors were admittedly POV), then a state could not qualify for 2 categories. --Noitall 00:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I do apoligize for complaining and not fixing the map problem myself. I don't know how -- I don't think I have the software for it. --Noitall 00:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This map is out of date.

The map needs to be updated with amendments since its creation. Davodd 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)