Talk:Same-sex marriage/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

1 Disputes on the inclusion of "platonic love" and "asexual same-sex marriage"
- 1.1 Vote
  - 1.1.1 Oppose
  - 1.1.2 Support
2 "So-called"
3 Montrealis Deletion Of How Marriage Effects Gay Families
- 3.1 Civil Marriage & Gay Families
4 "Marriage Equality"
5 Unidentified user
6 Re-edit maps
- 6.1 South Africa
7 Competing definitions of marriage
8 News from Oregon
9 North America image
10 asexual marriage and terminology
- 10.1 Debate

Disputes on the inclusion of "platonic love" and "asexual same-sex marriage"

Please stop spinboy's vandalism against platonic love same-sex marriage! --User:Asexual same-sex marriage

First, please sign your posts using four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

Second, you clearly have an agenda; agendas don't belong in Wikipedia articles. You have an opportunity to explain why you think the particular information you wish to include in the article should be included. Please do so below to initiate the discussion. Please note, comments like "spinboy is a vandal" (he is not) should not be part of the discussion. Exploding Boy 22:17, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

This does not seem to contain any relevant discussion on how to improve the article. Spinboy has nothing to do with it; anyone can edit articles here. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article, state them here, so we can discuss them. Do not launch personal attacks, please. JRM 22:16, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

The edits you are making, Asexual, have nothing to do with this article. If you want an article on asexual same-sex marriage or platonic sex-sex marraige, then start one instead of vandalising this one. Spinboy 22:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ok friends. My suggestion is to add a single quote about platonic love same-sex marriage in this article. Just a quote saying: Platonic love same-sex marriage is considered to be a same-sex marriage variation. Is this such a big deal? I think you are against NPOV, and you are supporting the tyrany of the majority of the same-sex gay married people. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 22:35, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

First of all, I totally dispute your claim that there is any such thing as a "tyranny of the majority of the same-sex gay married people," insofar as I even understand what you mean when you say that.

According to Wikipedia's article on Platonic love,

Platonic love is an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not enter, especially in cases where one might easily assume otherwise.

What does this have to do with marriage? By including this in the same-sex marriage article you are suggesting that marriages contracted between people of the same sex might only be for ... what? Tax purposes? Nobody is arguing that people who are not in particular types of relationships should be allowed to marry. Should roommates marry? Also, what does platonic love specifically have to do with same-sex marriages? Why this article and not another? Exploding Boy 22:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Marriage has to do with love, not sex! Platonic love is a form of love, according to what we believe the strongest one. As long as marriage is primarily love and not sex, people who are loved eachother with platonic love should be married, and their rights as couples should be legaly recognized. And of course their relashionship should be distinguished from the homosexual relashionships, which are based on sexual behavior. There is "tyrrany of the majority of the same-sex gay married people" because as you can see gays do not recognise our relashionship and they dont want for us to be distinguished from them as a separate same-sex category in this article.Gays also dont want for our same-sex couples to have the same legal rights they have. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 05:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

Marriage may either have to do with love, or with sex, or with personal emotional benefits as each couple sees fit, or with benefits that society bestows to the new family unit, or for religious obligations, or for whatever reason. That's not the issue really. The issue is that "platonic marriages" (and it's called "platonic marriage", it's not called "platonic love marriage") has nothing to do with same-sex couples inherently. It can be a reference to any kind of marriage. So why are you interested in bringing up this subcategory of marriages in general up in *this* article?

In short I'm not seeing any value added in adding specific mentions of "platonic same-sex marriages" any more than it'd be worthwhile to add "platonic interracial marriages" or "platonic polygamous marriages". Sure, these things may exist. But reference to "platonic marriage" belongs to the Marriage article proper. Has nothing to do with *same-sex* marriages specifically -- nor is there much sense in dividing between the same-sex variation of platonic marriages from the different-sex variation. Aris Katsaris 06:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No my friend, you are wrong. There is not any problem in any society for opossite-sex platonic lovers. They can marry eachother, no-one will blame them and they will get their legal rights as a couple. The problem resides only in same-sex platonic lovers, they cannot be married and get legal rights. Thats why we want to focus in same-sex marriage and not in marriage in general. Thats why we want our no-gay group to be mentioned and to be distinguished, in this specific same-sex marriage article. I hope that our minority rights will be respected by the majority of the gays who seem to protect this article. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

Don't call me "my friend", please. As for "There is not any problem in any society for opossite-sex platonic lovers. They can marry eachother, no-one will blame them and they will get their legal rights as a couple. " Yes, that's the issue of same-sex marriage as contrasted to hetero-sex marriage in general. As I said it has nothing specifically to do with the *platonic variation*. So, *no*. And as for your claims about the "majority of the gays", I'm quite straight myself, and I still think your arguments flawed. The fact that not all partners in a same-sex marriage need identify as gay or bi is already mentioned in the article. Aris Katsaris 01:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A curious quote: "And of course their relashionship should be distinguished from the homosexual relashionships, which are based on sexual behavior." Wrong! Sexual orientation neither dictates, nor is an indicator of, sexual behaviors. A homosexual has feelings of same sex attraction, that might - or might not - have sexual expression.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.239.26 (talk • contribs)

An interesting sidelight on this is that the new UK legislation for Civil Partnerships would be equally applicable to platonic same-sex relationships as to gay or lesbian relationships. Almost the only differences between UK Civil Partnerships and marriage are that a Civil Partnership can't be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation, or dissolved on grounds of adultery. So in the UK at least same-sex platonic "marriage" has been recognised in law, although not by that name. However on the main point of this debate, surely the best solution is to have a separate article about the platonic relationships, with a cross-reference to this one. rossb 10:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thats fine for UK. So you agree that same-sex platonic "marriage" should also be mentioned in this article right? User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

Agreed, the UK's laws would apply equally, however, there are two exceptions to the law, which stipulates that neither caregivers nor siblings could enter into the civil unions[1]. There is nothing saying that a platonic relationship could not exist between these groups, so there is some small limit there. Nevertheless, creating a separate article for platonic relationships of any sort would be the best course. Arcuras 15:00, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

The point is not to create a separate article. It is a matter of accuracy of this article. Same-sex platonic "marriage" IS a same-sex marriage variation, thats why it should be mentioned here in this article. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:27, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

No there's nothing in the legislation banning care givers. The only restrictions are that the two people must be of the same sex, and cannot be siblings, or related in various other ways - the restrictions are the same as for marriage. I presume the advocates of non-sexual same-sex marriage would not want this extended to close relatives, who in any case have a relationship recognised in law for various purposes. rossb 18:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could we please stop using the buzz phrase "tyrrany(sic) of the majority of the same-sex gay married people"? The phrase is doing nothing more then confusing whatever message you're trying to get across... and, frankly, it's making my brain hurt. Typically "tyranny of the Majority" is a point of view that suggests most government policies etc favor the majority, while oppress/repress the minority [2]. Considering that "the same-sex gay married people" don't make up the government (TINC), and that GLBTAQ people are far from being a majority, it really doesn't fit appropriately. Arcuras 15:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

User:Asexual same-sex marriage wrote: "homosexual relashionships . . . are based on sexual behavior." There's your answer right there. That is a non-neutral and patently false statement. Exploding Boy 17:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

This is a conversation, and we may are allowed to make some false statements. But you are doing false statements inside articles, by refusing to accept same-sex platonic "marriage" as a same-sex marriage variation in this same-sex marriage article.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

But you aren't allowed to make false statements in the article. And in the end, marriage isn't about sex or platonic love. It's about two people dedicated to spending their lives together. A voluntary union of two people. So weather it be a sexual relationship or platonic one doesn't matter. This article says nothing about sex. Spinboy 18:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If this same-sex marriage article isn't about sex, then please remove all the follwoing words from it.Gay, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual. Will you? Otherwise as long as you insist to mention sexual behaviors in this article, you have to add platonic love also as the non-sex same-sex marriage variation.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:28, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

Gay, lesbian, etc isn't about sexual behaviours. It's about identification, and saying who you are, mainly because society demands it. If society didn't demand it, it wouldn't be here. This article is about two members of the same gender getting married. Spinboy 19:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am beginning to strongly suspect that ASSM is just having a bit of fun. However, I'm prepared to humour him/her/them for a little bit longer.

We aren't allowed to make false statements when we're discussion what changes should be made to a Wikipedia article, which by definition should be both factual and neutral. My argument is basically this: so-called "platonic marriage" (which really needs properly defining, by the way) is not equivalent to same-sex marriage, nor is it a subset of same-sex marriage. It strikes me that platonic marriage is at its essence a marriage of convenience; perhaps, if there's a marriage of convenience article, that's where it should go.

Well. A marriage of convenience happens only to oposite-sex married people. Our ASSM marriage is not yet recognised by anyone, so it cannot be a marriage of convenience! We, the ASSM people, think that gay-lesbian same-sex marriage is actualy a marriage of sexual convenience. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:29, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

Your statement that same-sex marriage is about sex and 'a marriage of sexual convenience' strikes me either as ignorant and uninformed or vaguely homophobic. The reason gay people reject the word homosexual is that it focuses on sex instead of attraction, affection or orientation. It seems clearer and clearer you are pushing an agenda here, though it may not blated in various other ways - the restrictions are the same as for marriage. I presume the advocates of non-sexual same-sex marriage would not want this extended to close relatives, who in any case have a relationship recognised in law for various purposes. rossb 18:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could we please stop using the buzz phrase "tyrrany(sic) of the majority of the same-sex gay married people"? The phrase is doing nothing more then confusing whatever message you're trying to get across... and, frankly, it's making my brain hurt. Typically "tyranny of the Majority" is a point of view that suggests most government policies etc favor the majority, while oppress/repress the minority [3]. Considering that "the same-sex gay married people" don't make up the government (TINC), and that GLBTAQ people are far from being a majority, it really doesn't fit appropriately. Arcuras 15:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I am beginning to strongly suspect that ASSM is just having a bit of fun. However, I'm prepared to humour him/her/them for a little bit longer.

I have trouble with the very concept of "platonic marriage" to begin with; it's usually expected that marriage will include some degree of sexual relationship, isn't it? I mean, I'm not suggesting that sex is a requisite for marriage, but even in marriages where people eventually cease sexual activity, there has normally been some degree of such activity, no? I mean, I love my best friend dearly, but our relationship is not marriage-like -- sex changes things, and those changes remain even when the sex stops. Exploding Boy 18:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

it is usually expected that marriage includes some degree of sexual relationship, but we are the exception of the rule, and the reason why this usually word exists in marriage definition. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:29, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

I think ASSM is a jerk and is being annoying. I agree with you here, Exploding Boy. Spinboy 19:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am glad that your only argument is that we are jerks. Anyway, when this 24 hours period ends, we are going to revert the same-sex marriage article again.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:29, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)

That would still violate the spirit of the 3rv policy, and could still get you blocked. I advise against it. Exploding Boy 20:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

In that case, we'll hold a vote. And if you keep reverting if the vote doesn't go in your favour, then you'll likely be banned. Spinboy 20:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arcuras wrote: "Could we please stop using the buzz phrase "tyrrany(sic) of the majority of the same-sex gay married people"?" . Tell us Arcuras, do you still beleive that there is no tyranny of the majority of the same-sex gay-lesbian married people? I hope not, as long as you can see this tyrany in action now. Please support us Arcuras, and we are not going to exclude the non-platonic love from this article, as long as ASSM group respects all minorities, in contrast of what the gay-lesbians are doing. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 21:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

It is impossible to answer this question as it is impossible to determine what you mean. Therefore, until you fully explain exactly what you are asking of me, I'm not even going to try. Arcuras 21:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain. There is a poll taking place below, and the A-SSM group is a minority here. The GL-SSM people dont want A-SSM minority to be mentioned in this article even if this is an obvious accuracy error. This is clearly an example of the tyranny of the majority of GL-SSM people. We are feeling very sorry about that, because GL-SSM people are also a minority themselves in society and they often demand society to respect their own minority rights. But in the other hand GL-SSM people do not seem to respect the A-SSM minority inside SSM community. GL-SSM people demand to be treated well as minorities in society, but in the same time they oppress their own SSM minorities, and especially our A-SSM minority group. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 21:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that people are being unreasonable here. Create a new article for the information you have and then we'll add in a link to it. The question is not whether this information should be part of wikipedia but where it should be in wikipedia. I think that a line or two mentioning the issue should be included somewhere in the article. If you start a new article on the topic I for one will help you build it (You'll need to tell me the name of any such article :) . Barnaby dawson 22:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am having several problems with what you're stating, ASSM:

You continue to refer to yourself as a group. This is troublesome because this "group" has only one username, and the consistent textual styling of your writing leaves me to assume that it is a single person entering this information. As such, it seems to be as if an individual were trying to impose their own political agenda onto Wikipedia, whatever that agenda may be.
I gave you a definition of exactly what tyranny of the majority means, in the hopes that you would understand that you are horribly misusing the term and only confusing the issue. You seemingly refuse to drop the term, and, further, your usage of the term has actually increased, leaving the impression that you are doing so deliberately, a tactic which many self-proclaimed trolls utilize.
You have repetitively assumed that the people who are "against" you are all gay, and thus pushing their ideals onto the article. This is quite false, I can assure you.
The article here is about people who identify as part of the GLBTAQ community, and their desire to have equal rights of marriage... the only reason why "same-sex" enters into the equation is because it's easier then tacking on "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Androgyny, Queer" every time we mention it, and because it is essentially correct. What you seem to be pushing for appears to be a style of "marriage of convenience", two people who get married solely for the monetary and social benefits of such an arrangement. This happens in straight marriage, and it will probably happen in "GLBTAQ" marriage... even though people really shouldn't.
and finally, before you stormed into here, I'd never heard of the community you say you represent... and this strikes me as odd as I've done extensive research on my own into "GLBTAQ" issues as a journalist for my university newspaper, but also for 4 of my mid-level university courses. Further, I can find no associations, groups, or affiliations in any way related to your cause or group on the internet, leaving me to wonder if the reason why I've not heard of this "movement" before, is because it has been fabricated by an individual or individuals for some unknown motive.

Now, with all that said, I would have absolutely no problem helping contribute to an article based around what you seem to be pushing. I would have no problem making a mention of that article here. But that material doesn't pertain directly to this issue, and thus should be on its own, separate page. This article is starting to get too long as it is.

Arcuras 22:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree, and suggest (again) that "asexual marriage" belongs in the marriage of convenience article, not here. Exploding Boy 22:58, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether it helps, but amongst non-sexual marriages we may mention the Shakers, who I believe did not have sex, so their married couples lived like brother and sister. Also of course in at least Roman Catholic teaching the marriage of the Virgin Mary and Joseph was a non-sexual one, in which they provided love and support to one another, but without consummating the marriage.

Let me repeat it, I hope for the last time. We are talking about (asexual) same-sex marriage. All your arguments are about asexual straight (opposite-sex) marriage, so they do not belong to this conversation. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 05:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why can't you create a new article on the subject? Spinboy 06:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me repeat it, I hope for the last time. It is a matter of accuracy and fairness. Same-sex marriage is about marriage between two persons of same sex. If you mention interracial same-sex marriages you have to mention same-race same-sex marriages too. If you mention interreligious same-sex marriages you have to mention religious same-sex marriages too. If you mention same-sex marriages of convenience, you have to mention inconvenient same-sex marriages too. As a result of all those arguments, and as long as you insist to mention Gay-Lesbian same-sex marriages inside the article you have to mention also Asexual same-sex marriages too. Thats all. Anything else is just unfair and as long as this unfairness is voted, it is just a form of tyranny of the majority of gay-lesbian married and straight married people against us. Asexual same-sex marriage 15:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you've read through the article, you would have noticed that we do not mention interracial, interreligious, or "convieniance" marriages. We do not mention these things, because that is not what the article is about. The article is about same-sex marriage... the only reason why gay/lesbian/bi/whatever is mentioned is because those are the people who want to be married, and are unable to under the current laws. Whether the married couple screw after they are married is not even part of the argument, nor the article... it is simply assumed. Your continuing arguments are only further proving that you are trying to push some sort of agenda onto the article, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Make a seperate article about your "cause", and we will gladly let you link to it here.

Arcuras 16:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

User:Arcuras said :"the only reason why gay/lesbian/bi/whatever is mentioned is because those are the people who want to be married, and are unable to under the current laws. " You just said it! Let me inform you that we (the ASSM people) also want to be married and we are unable to under current laws. So why you are not leting us to be mentioned too? You said gay/lesbian/bi/whatever. We are the "whatever", and we have a name : ASSM! You are actually the one who is pushing some sort of agenda against us! 62.38.173.142 17:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks anonymous for your support! Please get a name, and vote for us! Asexual same-sex marriage 18:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neither of you seem to be getting the point here... the article is not about the specific relationships involved. It is about the marriage. The information ASSM is pushing to include is about the relationships, and I reiterate: 'this is not what the article is about'. Arcuras 18:18, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is you continue to conflate homo/bi/trans-sexuality with sex, when that is not the case at all. At this point I think it's quite clear that the majority of regular contributors to this page disagree with your position and see no need for the addition of the information you seek to include. Let's not let this drag on forever. Exploding Boy 16:51, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

No offense, but please don't be absurd. You may have trouble with the concept of "platonic" marriages, but they've existed for thousands of years. Some people were sexually dysfunctional physically or emotionally but nonetheless wanted to look like family men. Others stayed platonic even in marriage because of their religious beliefs (Some gnostic groups for example, I believe). In an altruist variation, in older times the occasional aged man may have taken kindly to a young pregnant unmarried women and agreed to marry them and raise the child as his own, and thus remove from her the stigma even with the understanding that there'd be no sex. And ofcourse many were and are indeed may have been marriages of convenience. The problem isn't with this guy talk of platonic marriages, the problem is that he feels platonic variation of same-sex marriages is so inherently different than the hetero variation that it warrants a mention in *this* article. Yes, you may love your best friend dearly, but I'm guessing the main reason your relationship isn't marriage-like is NOT because of the lack of sex but rather because you've not made a lifelong commitment to each other to support each other and be a family together. Aris Katsaris

Please place posts at the bottom of the page where they will be seen and can be responded to. Exploding Boy 17:25, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Exploding Boy said: "the majority of regular contributors to this page disagree with your position". Thats true. We are going to respect the decision of the tyrranic majority of wikipedia community, simply because the mentor of platonic love, our master Socrates teached us to respect the decision of the majority even if this decision is a tyrannic one. Asexual same-sex marriage 18:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Riiight. Just so you know, you're not endearing yourself to anyone by calling them tyrants. Exploding Boy 19:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Let me propose you something ASSM. Insteed of using the tyranic Majority rule in order to extract the decision from this poll, why dont you try the Average rule? 213.16.157.99 16:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote

Shall we include "platonic love" and "asexual same-sex marriage" in the article? Spinboy 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

I vote no. Spinboy 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Exploding Boy 20:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Vote no. Autiger 21:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Arcuras 21:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
No but create a separate article on the subject if one doesn't already exist. Barnaby dawson 21:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. Kevintoronto 22:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No mention of sexual practices or activities is necessary at all; from the legal point of view, sexual activity and marriage are pretty much seperate subjects, since both heterosexual and homosexual relationships may be active or inactive sexually. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, for the same reason we don't bother to mention interracial same-sex marriages, interreligious same-sex marriages, same-sex marriages of convenience, and any other such variation. Aris Katsaris 01:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No - the fact that this debate is taking place reveals that there is a real subject here worthy of inclusion, but it logically belongs to another article, which could well be cross-referenced from this one. rossb 05:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What Aris said, plus asexual marriage can cover asexual marriages of all kinds. - UtherSRG 18:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. Pointless. Nordenfeldt

Support

User:Asexual same-sex marriage 21:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I oppose::Nic

"So-called"

I'm not sure that the most recent reversion is right. The phrase

so-called "traditional" marriage

is either redundant or POV. Either the quotes should go or the so-called should go. My first reaction on reading the quotes is that they are sneer quotes, and are thus non-neutral; however, I do accept that the intent of the quotes might also be to indicate that they are someone else's words. Regardless, the "so-called" functions in the same way as sneer quotes. It might be better to use

"traditional marriage"

since the entire phrase is what conceivably is questionable.

--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be fine with so-called traditional marriage. Exploding Boy 00:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds somewhat sneering. It may lose some clarity by being changed, but I think the quotation marks around traditional should be removed. They are (I presume) used to show that it is someone else's term and the "so-called" is used to point out that it is not entirely correct so both are accurate and preform different functions, but in the interests of keeping it from being inflamatory while still keeping it clear I think the quotation marks should probably be removed.

Montrealis Deletion Of How Marriage Effects Gay Families

Civil Marriage & Gay Families

With the advent of recent medical breakthroughs that have opened a wide array of choices available to same-sex couples to have biological children or adopt, the denial of marriages to same-sex couples can have detrimental effects not only on the adults within these families but children as well. Hospital visitation issues, end-of-life decision making and access/barriers to health care can all be attributed to the denial of marriage.

The Main Procedures Used For Lesbians & Gay Men To Reproduce Are:

Gay men in long term relationships are now increasingly opting to raise families. Many methods have been devised to allow them to have biological children. Some couples elect to have a close relative (sometimes a sister), good friend, or contract an individual to either obtain an egg for a surrogate or give birth through in vitro fertilization. In the cases of a good friend or a contracted entity the child is only biologically related to one partner. However in the cases of a blood relative such as a sister of one partner who donates an egg that is fertilized with the other partner's sperm and placed into a surrogate the child is biologically related to both partners.

Lesbian couples can also produce biological children through similar manners. Some elect to have one partner donate an egg which is fertilized with a blood relative of the other partner, sometimes a brother. The egg is then placed into the partner who did not donate the egg. In essence one partner gives birth to her partner's and sometimes brother's biological child. This is not to be confused with incest since the child is not a biological offspring of a brother and sister, rather it is a biological offsrping of the brother and the sister's partner. The sister only acts as a vehicle of the birth.

These procedures can be costly. And many same-sex couples choose adoption instead. However adoption does not produce a child that is biologically related in any manner.

I added the above text under arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. It was deleted by another wiki. Why was it deleted? The wiki left no explanation. I feel it should be included because children of same-sex couples are affected by marriages. What do you think? Should it be included? And why was it deleted?

I'm not sure it's appropriate to the article. Perhaps a seperate article on gay families should be started, but it's not really related to the marriage issue. Spinboy 04:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with Spin. While interesting information, it has more to do with same-sex relationships, as couples don't nessisarily have to be married to adopt/etc. Arcuras 06:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

i disagree. I believe this is a major argument for SSM. Marriage protects and stabilizes families with children through inheritance, SS, custody and other legal means. "marriage is for the children" is used as an argument by many opponents of SSM, yet many GLBT couples have children (adoption, surrogacy, donation) and should be afforded the protections of marriage. I believe it intimately appropriate to this article.wclathe

I have to partially disagree with Spin. Gay families with children are related to the issue because the rhetoric common to anti-gay marriage initiatives like FMA is that they are "to protect families." The irony is that it destroys gay families as the writer here has been described. While perhaps too much information on the subject, it is a counterpoint to one of the arguments against. The whole of the addition should probably be in a separate article on the subject (which in fact deserves a full treatment) and a short summary (couple of sentences) linked to that article. Autiger 06:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should leave the first paragraph in place and put the exact details in another article. I'm not sure how to start a new article so I will let you guys fix that. Thanks for the help.

Ok, I can help get that started. Autiger 07:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for removing the section on gay families. It was unintentional; the section wasn't present in the most recent diff, but I guess when I clicked revert, it got rid of all previous edits by the same user. Mea culpa. To explain myself, I saw an anon user changing mentions of "homosexuality" to "same-sex orientation," an expression often used by ex-gay groups, so I figured it was a troll. My mistake. - Montréalais 15:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think most of it should be included because the well being of children is a reasonable arguement for marriage.

"Marriage Equality"

Someone recently added "marriage equality" to the also-know-ases, at the top. First of all, "equal marriage" is more in line with the other terms given. However, I'm wondering if this term should be included at all. It's a rather loaded term. Maybe it should be disclaimed .. something like, "Supporters of same-sex marriage often use the term 'Equal Marriage' .." Yadda, yadda, something along those lines. Thoughts? --Azkar 06:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think considering the context of the article, the term is fine. --Spinboy 06:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unidentified user

An unidentified user with IP number 80.53.83.194 posted the following to the article page. I think the material whilst possibly useful does not belong where it was placed. It is also in the wrong voice for an encyclopedia. As such I replicate it here and remove it from the main page: Barnaby dawson 09:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found informations about recognition of same sex partnerships in other countries,like: Switzerland (6-3-04,at the national level), Luxembourg (9-01-04), Lichtenstein (2002), Bazilian's region RIO GRANDE DE SUL(03-04,as result of court decision) & national parliament passed legistlation giving recognition to lesbian and gay coupels late last year. Other countries recognised unregistered cohabitation, like: Hungary (1996), Israel (2004), Croatia (2003), Austria (2003,as result of court decision), some Italian's regions recognised "coppie di fatto" (since 2004, Toscania, Emillia Romagna, Umbria...)[ www.gay.tv, www.gaynews.it ] And other countries consider to recognise same sex coupels, like: Greece ('05), Hungary ('07), Slovenia ('05), Austria, Czech Republic ('07){this country faild Partner Bill 4rd time in 12 February 2005, but started work on new one. Expect introdused it in 2 years.}, South Australia State ('05){by Liberals}, Poland ('05), Ireland ('05), South Africa ('05) and many Latin American countries includ: Panama, Peru, Chile, Brasil {Civil Marriage), Argentina {Civil Marriage), Colombia, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico City, Taiwan (Civil Marriage) many US's States... (Most of this countries have introdused Bills in their parliaments in 2004)

   +       
        +       You will find more informations on this, there:
        +       
        +       http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/Legal%20joinings%20and%20recognition%20of%20same-sex%20couples.htm
        +       
        +       http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall/information_bank/partnership/international/countries_list.html?CFID=845464&CFTOKEN=13653633
        +       
        +       http://www.equality-network.org/FAQ.shtml
        +       
        +       http://www.rklambda.at/dokumente/news_2004/News-en-PA-041202-spoe-gleichstellung.pdf
        +       
        +       http://www.rklambda.at/
        +       
        +       http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=521
        +       
        +       http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=512
        +       
        +       http://uk.gay.com/headlines/7566
        +       
        +       http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/content.php?type=1&id=91

Yes, that definitely belongs in the Talk page. It's useful information though and might lead to substantial revision of the article.--A. S. A. 05:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re-edit maps

Hey guys, I was wondering if somebody could edit the map, so it can show the real spread of civil unions for the moment. Right now the map looks quite incomplete, compared to the info in Civil union. According to that article, civil unions are also legalised in Croatia, Hungary, Austria, etc. Thank you all! :) 84.252.31.40 19:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, could someone put a key or legend for the US map?

South Africa

Why does the world map show that gay marriage is already legal in South Africa ? SSM is not supposed to become legal in the end of 2006 ?

Competing definitions of marriage

I have no sources at the moment, so I'll leave the article alone, but it is highly inaccurate to state that there are competing definitions of marriage at all. Suffragists did not have a different definition of the vote than anti-suffragists and sexists, just who could do it. Also inaccurate: "Nearly all people at all times have defined 'marriage' in such a way that at least one male and one female were involved." Hyacinth 01:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether nearly all people have or have not defined marriage differently, that some people define marriage as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman while others define marriage as a relationship between two (or sometimes more!) people would suggest at least two competing definitions; arranged marriages vs. our modern, Western romantic ideal vs. marriage as essentially property exchange would suggest three more axes of comparison; while marriage as a relationship between adults vs. marriage as a relationship between two ideally (though not necessarily) post pubescent people would suggest two more comparisons. I'm not saying there is no common thread(s?) throughout all these ideas of what a marriage is, but the way they are structured around that thread is different in each case, and the resistance people adhering to one "definition" have to accepting other "definitions" suggests there is something fundamentally different about each, at least on a subjective level. -Seth Mahoney 02:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The traditional definition of marriage does not prohibit who can get married, only whom one can get married to. Unlike the suffrage example, same-sex marriage advocates do indeed have a different definition of marriage. I thought this much was clear. Authr 03:45, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

News from Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court has voided the 3000 marriages made before the Oregon Constitutional referendum banning same-sex marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=670029 Evertype 17:33, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

North America image

I don't understand why there is the following legend under the North America map : "Contrary to this graphic, many states do not legally recognize Civil Unions.". Shouldn't it be removed ? --81.56.104.103 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The North America image shows that same-sex marriage is legal in california, but Arnie said he'll veto the bill.--81.56.104.103 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I will change it back (see color blindness comment below) . CUs are already legal in Cali... the new law was to take it further and have the state recognize "marriage" as being between whoever (not discriminate as to gender) MPS 21:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

asexual marriage and terminology

I hate to reraise the topic of asexual marriage, the discussion of which I was absent from but looked quite venemous, but I have some concerns about the text's exclusion of heterosexuals in same-sex relationships, and hope for a reasonable discussion on the topic. While I personally feel that sexuality is not a required part of love, and am prepared to argue the point, it doesn't seem like that is a relevant issue. There are heterosexuals who may wish to engage in such a marriage, and no-one is seriously proposing excluding asexual partnerships from recieving marriage licenses- an exclusion that, aside from being based on sexuality, would also have to exlude the ugly, elderly, and others. And, obviously, there are known cases of homosexuals marrying heterosexuals of the opposite sex and loving them deeply.

Factual accuracy, therefore, seems to dictate that asexual marriages shouldn't be excluded on the basis of one's personal opinion of them. I see little reason to mention the term 'asexual marriage' explicitly, but I would also not like to see it expressedly excluded. For this reason, I think we should either edit the wording so as to not limit same-sex marriage solely to the groups mentioned, or add 'heterosexual' to the list. Juan Ponderas 20:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this. The article is about legislative and court actions to legalize same-sex marriage, and following the movement. It also talks about homosexual people because that's what is out there. If we start including asexual marriage, it becomes origional research, which wikipedia is not. --Spinboy 20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The movement, first of all, would legalize it for both. When you say that homosexuals are the only ones out there, what do you mean? That they are the only ones that would take advantage of it? I think I can prove that false. Juan Ponderas 21:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying homosexuals are the only ones fighting for it. I have yet to see anything on two brothers fighting for the right to get married for example. And if that were the case, it's not within the scope of this article. --Spinboy 21:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is it relevant who is fighting for same-sex marriage when we are simply defining what they are fighting for, which includes the rights of heterosexuals in such a relationship? No advocates propose excluding them, and some actively support it; I've been told by a homosexual gay rights activist that they believed love shouldn't be based on sexuality. Juan Ponderas 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've already argued this, I'm not going to rehash arguments that have already been made, and you can easily read for yourself. A consensus was already reached about this issue. --Spinboy 22:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can sympathize with not wanting to rehash arguments, but there flaws in your method. Reaching a consensus once should not close an issue; someone may come with better arguments. A better method in the first place would be to arrange arguments in a wiki fashion, as we are trying to do at a Wikidebate project, see here for a sample.

However, this is not the issue. I read all the arguments made before, and did not see mine. Most focused on the nature of asexual relationships, which I am not trying to prove. My goal, furthermore, is not the same as User: ASSM ; I seek no mention of 'platonic' marriages.

Here's my proposal for a change in text:

"The terms "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" may not be strictly accurate, in that one or both partners may not identify as gay or homosexual. Rather, depending on the couple and the jurisdiction, such same-sex marriages may include persons of different orientations, including bisexuals, transexuals, and transgendered persons. Therefore, in the context of same-sex marriages and throughout this article, same-sex refers strictly to two people of the same sex, and is therefore not synonymous with gay or homosexual.

The term "same-sex marriage" has recently been displacing "gay marriage," both to be free of any possible negative connotations carried by "homosexual", and to be more inclusive of groups such as bisexuals and transsexual people - who in some states of the US and in other countries, are not allowed to change their assigned gender on their birth certificates following sex reassignment surgery."

No mention made of asexual relationships. For reasons I stated earlier, I don't believe there are grounds to deliberately have the text exclude them. If you disagree with this, I expect discussion on it, or I will make the aforementioned changes in the article. Yours cordially, Juan Ponderas

I disagree, I've already stated my reasons. --Spinboy 03:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I stated my counterarguments, which were unaddressed. I'll organize them, to make them easily assessible. But first, it is necessary to frame the debate. It seems there has been three proposals, which I'll state with their implied meanings:

Current Model: Same-sex marriages include gay, bi, trans, but no others.
User ASSM: Same-sex marriage includes those groups, as well as 'platonic' partnerships.
My proposal: Same-sex marriages include gay, bi, and trans, and possibly others.

Of course, they are stated so obviously, but that is what they mean. Since you are proposing the value judgement, that same-sex marriages are limited to those groups, I believe you have the burden of proof. So now, I'll try to arrange the arguments. Feel free to edit or add arguments below. Juan Ponderas

I'll let others add to it before I do, because if it's just you and me, there's no consensus on your proposal, since so far no one else is participating. --Spinboy 17:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy, are your thoughts on the matter still the same? Everyone who's offered input has expressed support for my proposal, and it doesn't look like anyone else is coming. Juan Ponderas

Debate

'Proposition'

This article should pass judgement on whether same-sex marriage includes those in the groups not currently mentioned by excluding them, as opposed to leaving the question open.

'Pro'

The article is about legislative and court actions to legalize same-sex marriage, and following the movement.
- Same-sex marriage, as it would be legalized by this movement, would not limit it to the groups mentioned.
Homosexuals are the only ones fighting for it.
- It is irrelevant who is fighting for same-sex marriage when we are simply defining what they are fighting for, which includes the rights of heterosexuals in such a relationship. Homosexuals do not advocate limiting same-sex marriage to the groups mentioned, and some I have met recognize other groups. And then there's me, and User: ASSM, etc...

'Con'

Clearly, where same-sex marriage is legal, it is defined such that people of any sexuality could marry another person of the same sex. So I don't see any reason to exclude non gay/bi marriages from the article, either explicitly or implicitly. Basically, I agree with Juan Ponderas. Cadr 15:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have to be specific at all? Same-sex marriage is by definition a marriage between two people of the same sex. Exploding Boy 16:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

This again?? Oi... alright. When one generally talks about same-sex marriage, two assumptions are made: 1) those who will be married are gay/lez (or one of those + a bisexual individual of the same sex), and that, 2) these two individuals are having sex. If the second assumption is false, that is called a troubled marriage. If the first is false, it is reasonable to assume then that the second is also false. This then would be called a marriage of convenience.

However, regardless of the above, firstly, User:ASSM was a troll what was pushing an agenda and an apparent neologism upon Wikipedia... none of which Wikipedia is about. Unless we can find some sort of outside corroboration that there is a sect of asexual individuals who have asexual same-sex/gendered life partners(?) and wish to marry them, we would be furthering the agenda left behind by a departed troll. All of my investigations have turned up absolutely no lobby group nor mention across any webspace of any such group of individuals, nor have the two university professors who study GLBTetc sexuality and culture that I talked to heard of any such group or movement. Arcuras 02:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

But it's a straightforward issue of terminology. If two people of the same sex were to get married without any intention of having sex, it would still undoubtably be a same-sex marriage. Therefore, an article on the concept of same-sex marriage should not explicitly exclude this possibility. I'm not saying that it should be explicitly discussed either, just not ruled out. Cadr 13:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

A marriage between two people of the same sex When one generally talks about same-sex marriage, two assumptions are made: 1) those who will be married are gay/lez (or one of those + a bisexual individual of the same sex), and that, 2) these two individuals are having sex. If the second assumption is false, that is called a troubled marriage. If the first is false, it is reasonable to assume then that the second is also false. This then would be called a marriage of convenience.

Your assumptions are way off. I can't even begin to count the ways. Exploding Boy 15:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the second assumption is more towards marriage in general. When you look at two married people, do you not assume that they have, are having, or will be having sex at some point? Arcuras 18:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. Whether they are having sex, have had sex, are intending or were intending to have sex, they are married. Thus, the definition of same-sex marriage should not exclude couples who aren't going to have sex for whatever reason. Cadr 18:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, whether one or both partners identify as bi, gay/lesbian or heterosexual is not the issue; it's whether they are of the same sex. Exploding Boy 21:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

No wonder you are not getting much traction in this discussion. Traditional marriage is not simply what is defined by law, or even common law, it is so much more. How about a million love songs, famous or in the private room of a lonely singer. Heres one: Love and Marriage, as in going together like a horse and carriage. My point, while sounding glib, is not. Marriage is an ideal. We not only allow, but support asexual marriage, but we frown on loveless marriage. Don't ask me to define my terms. They are outside of the realm of the neo cortex and reside somewhere in the deeper regions where sexuality and affection merge. Ask your pet dog, or your three year old child what I mean.

The issue of terminology, Gay or Same Sex is relevent. If anything Same Sex is more radical, as it has more of the implication of non emotional/sexual association. But if we are to abolish the unspoken assoication it must be replaced with something clearer. Is marriage to be a two person support group, mutually entered into and disolved? Once you get rid of the unspoken extension, you have nothing.

Now, I'm not sure whether what I just said is an argument for or against Gay Marriage. It is my belief that people resist it because it makes them draw up those feelings in the old brain, the reptilian brain and apply the neo cortex, the tools of rationality, that reduce love to something that can be described and analyised. Sorry if I sound dismissive, or demeaning, it's not my intent. But, to the supporters of Gay Marriage, develop some understanding of what the cost is on we simple folk, with our illusions and simple beliefs that give us comfort. Arodb 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, here is the problem. Not all sexuality has a strict definition within strict guidelines, and in this case we are talking about people whose preference is based on gender: homosexual or heterosexual. Asexuality is people who do not choose to have sex, either for lack of desire, lack of attraction, sometimes religious or moral reasons or whatever. These people still have a gender, and as a general rule they still have a sexual preference, male or female. Technocally, these should be no such thing as 'same-sex marriage', it should be 'same-gender marriage', to remove sexuality from the equation. But the term has been coined and is univerally accepted, and flows off the tongue easier, so there we are.

I do not see how people who choose not to have sex are excluded from this discussion, and I do not see how adding this 'group' if even a group it can be called, adds to the debate. Are there specific issues about 'same gender marriage' that affect uniquely asexuals which have not been mentioned in the debate? Do some of the points mentioned about the current state of the law and public opinion not apply to asexuals? What exactly is the point here? Nordenfeldt

Categories: Talk archives