Revision as of 08:02, 20 August 2012 editStillStanding-247 (talk | contribs)4,601 edits →Witherspoon Institute: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:10, 20 August 2012 edit undoBelchfire (talk | contribs)4,207 edits →Witherspoon Institute: rfNext edit → | ||
Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
:::There are ]. Unfortunately, none are a whole lot better. ] (]) 05:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | :::There are ]. Unfortunately, none are a whole lot better. ] (]) 05:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
{{hat|No votestacking, please}} | |||
== Witherspoon Institute == | == Witherspoon Institute == | ||
There's an issue regarding same-sex marriage being discussed on ]. It might be helpful if more editors were involved. ] (]) 08:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC) | There's an issue regarding same-sex marriage being discussed on ]. It might be helpful if more editors were involved. ] (]) 08:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 08:10, 20 August 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Same-sex marriage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Same-sex marriage is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Composition of the lede
The last paragraph in the lede doesn't belong there, per WP:LEAD and several other Misplaced Pages policies that address such things. Here is what I'm talking about:
Studies conducted in several countries indicate that more-educated people are more likely to support same-sex marriage than the less-educated, and younger people are more likely to support same-sex marriage than older generations. Additionally, polls show that people who personally know a gay person are more likely to support it than people who do not know any gay people.
These two sentences aren't about same-sex marriage; they are about they aren't even about peoples' opinions on same-sex marriage. The reason that material is there is because some editors want to say, essentially, "You are stupid if you don't agree with us."
Reasonable people can disagree about whether those statements belong anywhere in the article (and there is a case to be made either way), but there can be little doubt that they don't belong in the article summary, which by all relevant policies should be restricted to material about the article's subject. Belchfire (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, that can't be remotely construed as hate speech. Secondly, it's at the very last paragraph of the lede, where it fits in nicely, and complements the previous sections. Thirdly, it's extremely well-cited. Fourthly, it is germane to the subject - Alison 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- How well it is cited is immaterial, and I'm not trying to make a case for removing it altogether. The point is that it isn't lede-worthy, and in fact it fits much better and more logically lower down in the article. If you can't see why it smacks of hate-speech, you just might be partisan. Belchfire (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I offer no opinion as to whether it belongs in the lead. I do believe that it belongs somewhere in the article. I don't see how it can be characterized as hate speech. (The only thing I see here of hate is that I hate spelling lead l-e-d-e.) Sterrettc (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Alison, it is well cited. Furthermore, one of the most common talking points regarding same-sex marriage revolves around public opinions, therefore this deserves inclusion in the lede. Pass a Method talk 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alison summed it up nicely. This cannot be construed as hate speach, and is very relevant to the topic. It therefore belongs in the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, having read their comments, I would wager that neither Dominus or Alison have read WP:LEAD. Belchfire (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I offer no opinion as to whether it belongs in the lead. I do believe that it belongs somewhere in the article. I don't see how it can be characterized as hate speech. (The only thing I see here of hate is that I hate spelling lead l-e-d-e.) Sterrettc (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- How well it is cited is immaterial, and I'm not trying to make a case for removing it altogether. The point is that it isn't lede-worthy, and in fact it fits much better and more logically lower down in the article. If you can't see why it smacks of hate-speech, you just might be partisan. Belchfire (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, it doesn't belong in the lead. One is: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The polling information is not covered in the rest of the article and simply copying the exact same information and adding it further down the article isn't the correct remedy. Another point is: "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs". Another point is: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". This is the only rule that is debatable, however I don't think that the large paragraph in the lead complies with that rule either. Acoma Magic (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it is covered if you enter the redirecting links. Pass a Method talk 20:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Where? The only thing I can see is "Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it. Various polls show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage." Those two polls are not mentioned in the paragraph in the lead, nor is the paragraph in the lead a summary of those two polls. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly! Which is why I moved that content down and placed it alongside other material about polls and whatnot - that's obviously where it belongs. Belchfire (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Check the first link in the controversy section for example. Furthermore, most links to a country have links on public opinions. For example see the United States link. Pass a Method talk 22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see the link you're referring to, maybe you should just quote it. When same-sex marriage is specific to a country, polls belong there. However, for an overview, no. I gave other reasons that haven't been addressed. If you want it to stay, you're going to have to open a discussion at WP:LEAD and change the guidelines. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Check the first link in the controversy section for example. Furthermore, most links to a country have links on public opinions. For example see the United States link. Pass a Method talk 22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly! Which is why I moved that content down and placed it alongside other material about polls and whatnot - that's obviously where it belongs. Belchfire (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Where? The only thing I can see is "Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it. Various polls show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage." Those two polls are not mentioned in the paragraph in the lead, nor is the paragraph in the lead a summary of those two polls. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's a controversial "nuts and bolts" thing that does not belong in the lead, per se. It might be summarized to say that "studies have been done" but don't see how this would wind up sounding npov. The material certainly isn't. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, it is encompasses ad hominum fallacy: "People who are smart believe this, therefore it must be a good idea." (Remember that the Enron folks were "the smartest people in the room?"). Actually this reflects a number of fallacies which you might want (or want to avoid! :) checking out. There is no "truth" to this political opinion. It is just an opinion. You cannot "prove" that "Abraham Lincoln" was a better president than "Stephen Douglas" would have been. It is an opinion only.
- It is a fact that Abraham Lincoln was president and Stephen Douglas wasn't. Authorities can be cited in droves for that assertion because it is not an opinion. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm seriously not seeing the ad hominem here, and have reverted your removal. The section directly relates to the subject matter and indicates the balance of social support/opposition across a number of disparate nations. I'm not seeing how these well-cited studies could be remotely construed as a personal attack (upon whom?) - Alison 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Student7 makes a very valid point. Setting aside the POV issues for the moment, if the information doesn't appear in the body of the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. Belchfire (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is correct (WP:LEAD), though it can easily be remedied by incorporating the cited material into the body of the article, then summarising it in the lead. William Avery (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- That wouldn't solve the extra paragraph problem. Also, I don't see how these one-line specific polls can be summarised; as they are so different to each other. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is correct (WP:LEAD), though it can easily be remedied by incorporating the cited material into the body of the article, then summarising it in the lead. William Avery (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Student7 makes a very valid point. Setting aside the POV issues for the moment, if the information doesn't appear in the body of the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. Belchfire (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm seriously not seeing the ad hominem here, and have reverted your removal. The section directly relates to the subject matter and indicates the balance of social support/opposition across a number of disparate nations. I'm not seeing how these well-cited studies could be remotely construed as a personal attack (upon whom?) - Alison 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if they're different. They show exactly what the paragraph says. The demographics of the voters matter and should be mentioned. There's no bias towards anything, only reporting the results. It's important information for readers to know and completely relevant. – ツ Teammm 00:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- It still doesn't belong in the lead. 2.102.184.183 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why? Because you don't like what it says? That's not a legitimate reason. It has historical importance and doesn't imply anything about those who don't support equal rights for gay people. – ツ Teammm 03:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the lead by separating the recognition of same-sex marriage in countries and the religious denominations that perform it. As they are separate topics and cannot be in the same paragraph. Also changed it to conform to WP:LEAD by moving the polls to the overview section. Reasons are given above, but in summary, the lead shouldn't have more than four paragraphs and the polls aren't summarised in the main body. An option to move the polls to the lead is to remove the mention of the religions that support SSM and replace it with the polls. However, you still have your work cut out for you by trying to make a summary of the polls. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support this revision. Thanks. Belchfire (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also support. The lede
is nowin accordance with the relevant policy.– Lionel 07:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)- It was in compliance - for about an hour. The needed change was reverted by a POV warrior - who used BRD as a precept, then ironically didn't bother to discuss anything. I sense a RfC is going to be needed to figure this out. Belchfire (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Simple solution to the problem: More detailed text about the polls in the body - which I'll be working on adding soon. Also, see WP:AGF. --Scientiom (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good. Define "soon", and what would be wrong with conforming the lead to policy pending your article expansion? Sorry to momentarily forget AGF, but you have to admit it wasn't unreasonable to conclude this was a drive-by when you let 90 minutes go by without saying anything. Belchfire (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the more amicable response - 'soon' means I hope to finish a detailed summary of the studies and polling within a few hours. --Scientiom (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I've started the section - if needed it can obviously be expanded with even more detailed analysis, and the addition of more studies and polls. -Scientiom (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good. Define "soon", and what would be wrong with conforming the lead to policy pending your article expansion? Sorry to momentarily forget AGF, but you have to admit it wasn't unreasonable to conclude this was a drive-by when you let 90 minutes go by without saying anything. Belchfire (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Simple solution to the problem: More detailed text about the polls in the body - which I'll be working on adding soon. Also, see WP:AGF. --Scientiom (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was in compliance - for about an hour. The needed change was reverted by a POV warrior - who used BRD as a precept, then ironically didn't bother to discuss anything. I sense a RfC is going to be needed to figure this out. Belchfire (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also support. The lede
We still have the extra paragraph problem. Also, three specific polling results isn't a summary of the studies and polling section. So far we haven't seen any arguments in favour of the polling paragraph in the lead that references WP:LEAD; only arguments against it. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take a closer look at the references used in the lead - one of them contains multiple references grouped together - it is indeed a summary of the studies and polling section. --Scientiom (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- While the body of the article now supports mentioning polls in the lead, the lead is still too long, still makes assertions not supported further down, and the polls are given undue weight. Needs a re-write. Belchfire (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or perhaps an expansion? It seems fairly short compared to the leads of many articles of a similar size. What do you think? --Scientiom (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- While the body of the article now supports mentioning polls in the lead, the lead is still too long, still makes assertions not supported further down, and the polls are given undue weight. Needs a re-write. Belchfire (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the references, the main body would need to have something about the polls in each specific country the references are from. At the moment, the polling in the lead isn't a summary of the main body, it's a summary of the references. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- What goes on in other articles is immaterial here - the lead for this article exceeds policy for length and fails the Relative Emphasis portion of WP:MOSINTRO. Belchfire (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Anywho... Scientiom, if you're considering an expansion, that's great, but if your expansion isn't forthcoming within a reasonable time frame, somebody is going to need to tackle the existing issues while we wait for your new content. Belchfire (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- The general guideline for length specifically indicates that it is not an absolute rule, and as we have one one-sentence paragraph and three two-sentence paragraphs, I don't think a five paragraph lead falls too far outside the spirit of WP:MOSLEAD. By their nature, leads must briefly cover a variety of points, so the option is to have a few paragraphs that cover a lot of ground, or several very brief paragraphs. I offer no opinion on whether the stats should be included or not, but I don't see length as a problem here.--Trystan (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposed replacement of second and third paragraphs of lead
Without offering an opinion on whether the stats should be included, I do think the lead could be improved upon; it has grown to include minor issues and asides at the expense of laying out the larger fundamental issues. Specifically, I would propose moving the second and third paragraphs ("Historical mention..." and "As of 2012...") to the Overview section and replacing them with the first paragraph of the Overview section, plus one additional sentence:
- Since 2001, eleven countries and some subnational jurisdictions have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry. The introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, resulting from legislative changes to marriage laws, court challenges based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or a combination of the two. The recognition of same-sex marriages is a political, social, ethical and religious issue in many nations. Debates arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union), or not have any such rights.
I think this paragraph serves as a much better summary of both the topic and the article than what we currently have.--Trystan (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I would support the change and move proposed, with the following minor additions:
- Since 2001, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden) and some sub-national jurisdictions (Mexico City, Quintana Roo, parts of United States) have begun to allow same-sex couples to marry. Introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, resulting from either legislative changes to marriage laws, court challenges based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or a combination of the two. The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political, social, ethical and religious issue in many nations and debates arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed marriage, be required to hold a different status (such as a civil union), or be excluded from such rights.
I think it would be a good summary. – ツ Teammm 20:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Though I prefer "or not have any such rights." "Excluded" sounds a bit POV. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I like the revisions; I was reluctant to get rid of the list of countries, and like the way you've worked it in.--Trystan (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "modern" and "smart" text still do not conform to WP:SYNTH. If red-headed people supported/oppposed it, would that be reportable? The issue is political. The people adding this information are attempting to make it a matter of stupidity and "modernism." Thinking less of red-headed people, is not helpful to the overall discussion of a political (statutory) issue. It essentially attacks people who don't believe in your cause for reasons other than political, like weight, how about "good looks?" how about "immigrants from the Near East?" Material should be clearly related to the WP:TOPIC or removed. If they are not removed, what would be wrong with (then) pointing out that "smart" people have been proven not to have all the answers, and (as nearly everyone has observed) young people seldom do. Look at the druggies of the sixties. Are we "better off" with drugs? Student7 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Take your own advice and stay on topic. Are you in the wrong section? Don't know what you're talking about. – ツ Teammm 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe 'parts of Mexico and the US'. Also, worth commenting that bills are pending in a number of other countries. (We don't want CRYSTALBALL, but in some cases this is court-mandated, not just a campaign promise.) — kwami (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- We still have an undue weight issue in the lead with the ad hominem bit about education levels. Now that there is some support in the body, there is a case to be made for mentioning the polls in the lead, but not for cherry-picking that particular finding. Belchfire (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. That paragraph is still not a summary of the polling and studies section. A history of same-sex marriage paragraph should be there instead. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- We still have an undue weight issue in the lead with the ad hominem bit about education levels. Now that there is some support in the body, there is a case to be made for mentioning the polls in the lead, but not for cherry-picking that particular finding. Belchfire (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Change to UK
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287 The Scottish government is to introduce a bill legalising gay marriage in Scotland, can someone update this (I've not posted enough edits to edit a semi protected article, I think) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthe (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. – ツ Teammm 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 30 July 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Religion, please change, 'and there is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples.', to '. However, Jesus explained the reason for the diversity of the sexes in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, etc., which explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman "the two shall become one". Many people incorrectly state that the Bible does not mention one man one woman or explicitly exclude same-sex marriage .'
71.124.204.128 (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Bible is interpreted variously by different people. What you're saying is original research. If reliable secondary sources indicate it is a significant viewpoint, that could be noted in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- What the IP is referring to is Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–9. While they don't seem to allow a lot variety of interpretation, the above editor is correct in asserting that we need a reliable source (WP:RS) to select these verses out as contradicting SSM. Primary (original) sources aren't allowed by themselves. Student7 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, he had a point. Most Christian supporters of traditional marriage cite these verses. So I've listed the least pov worded ones. But since they oppose SSM, they are necessarily pov. Student7 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- What the IP is referring to is Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–9. While they don't seem to allow a lot variety of interpretation, the above editor is correct in asserting that we need a reliable source (WP:RS) to select these verses out as contradicting SSM. Primary (original) sources aren't allowed by themselves. Student7 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Same sex marriage parents make great parents
There is a statement that no expert disagrees that LGBT parent make great parents. It once had a citation (ref name=autogenerated3)Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM; et al. (2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics. 118 (1): 349–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279. PMID 16818585. {{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)(endref). The latter was rm, the editor stating that this did not say that at all, but the reverse. That would imply that the sentence is wrong. There is hardly any agreement on anything, except maybe in the world of mathematics. So "universal" agreement on anything generally sounds pov. a) Is universality needed here? b) In view of the opposite opinion, is it accurate?
A contending argument is this: I can accept that two same-sex persons, one working, one not, may make better parents than a single mother (or maybe parent) who is working. It is harder to see that having same sex parents provides the same model for growing children that parents of different sex would provide. And this model would be needed for either sex children. i.e. a growing girl needs a model for herself as well as an idea of how men act. If this is true, it would suggest that having parents of the same sex is, on it's face, worse than having parents of different sex. Mindful that the children will most likely not be LGBT themselves. Student7 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Studies show that the difference is minor, such as a 5%-10% higher high school dropout rate. Difference in race has a comparable percentage. The same-sex parenting article doesn't address the differences between those children enough, relying instead on words such as no "fundamental" differences. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Student7, this citation was restored because it does support the text.
- Acoma Magic, Do you have a source for the claim of "a 5%-10% higher high school dropout rate"? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't make up things without a reliable source. I would like to see who claims children of same-sex couples generally have a higher dropout rate compared to others. – ツ Teammm 01:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, Student7...
Current claims that children need both a mother and father are spurious because they attribute to the gender of parents benefits that correlate primarily with the number and marital status of a child’s parents since infancy. At this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being. —Biblarz, Timothy J.; Stacey, Judith (2010). "How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" (PDF). Journal of Marriage and Family. 72 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ...having same-sex parents is not "on it's face, worse". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, Student7...
- I don't mean to turn this into a discussion, and therefore it does have to do with article improvement. I can understand how two same-sex parents might wind up with a descendant of one of them, which is then adopted by the other parent. Hard for me as a potential "family judge" to award custody of (say) two (unrelated) girls to two men to raise. And hard to see the advantage of awarding two unrelated boys to two women to raise.
- Two additional points. One is that two same-parents have been around "forever." (an answer to one of my previous questions). If they've been around "forever," why haven't we seen some of the children in the media either as successful people or criminals? The second reflects this: that same-sex parents, in volume, have not been around "forever." Therefore the results can't yet be perceived. Also, that same sex marriages (pairing, since they weren't legally recognized before) are even less likely to succeed(persist), and therefore the children are more likely to wind up with foster parents.
- The answers to these questions are intended to improve article credibility. Student7 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Having two parents as opposed to one is generally beneficial to children (regardless of gender, sexual orientation or relatedness). The basic reason is that there's less financial stress and more time to spend with the kids. As for the results of same-sex parents, the place to look is not the media, but studies that involve real people. The media is not a study and cannot replace a study. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Student7, you're just making a lot of irrational assumptions and all of them are negative. For the record, for every notion of any "significant difference" between same-sex couples parenting and different-sex couples parenting, there is quadruple or more corresponding studies that state there are none. You're being very subjective in your criticism in talking about what would be "hard for you to do". What have the studies of these families shown? They show that the children (adopted, unrelated, biological or otherwise) raised by same-sex parents are not harmed in any way and that they develop the same. Potentially being subject to the prejudice of others (the small-minded, immature, etc.) is not a reflection of the actual parenting same-sex couples provide for their children. And frankly, same-sex couples are well aware and protect their children more due to those possibilities. Your presumption that marriages won't last and children will be likely future wards of the state is utterly ridiculous and unfounded to the core. Most (and I can guarantee it is) same-sex couples who are now marrying have been together for a substantial amount of years, if not decades. I'm beginning to think this is a discussion not fit for a Misplaced Pages talk page.
- You're looking to the media to prove the outcomes of those children? You want them to announce to the world that they are the child of a same-sex couple? What reason would there be to make such an announcement in the media? All of that seems very crazy to me. Though you can easily look to the children of those who are fighting for equality in the courts, which has been publicized. None of their children seem to be evil, corrupt aliens. The obvious thing that is harming them is the discrimination their parents face. Just saying. – ツ Teammm 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Teammm, I think Student7 is looking to the media for examples that might illustrate either side of the discussion, one way or the other, and he's pointing out that there don't seem to be any (outside of a single aside in an old Rolling Stones song, which taken by itself was not encouraging). We can't very well reach the question of outcomes without some examples to evaluate, no?
- A more neutral presentation of the Stacey-Biblarz research (mentioned above) would point out their misgivings about the lack of relevant data and the resulting uncertainty such a lack imparts on the current body of knowledge. Instead, we have cherry-picking and declarations that the pronouncements of professional organizations make it all a done deal requiring no further investigation. That's not how science works. Belchfire-TALK 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- But there is no cherry picking. The article contains the most reliable information. There are many studies presented by religiously affiliated/motivated institutions and scientists. That's not reliable. There are studies presented by outright bigots. That's not reliable. There are studies that claim to show one thing, but do not. That's not reliable. The organizations in the article, which have membership in the hundreds of thousands of scientists and researchers around the world, are not unreliable nor do they present subjectively biased conclusions based on what they studied. Pointing out a difference, for example, of a male child of two lesbians not being as aggressive as the male child of a man and woman is very trivial. The conclusions that the scientific world has come to is that, while there may be some isolated differences, which exist in all types of families not just those with same-sex parents, it is inconceivable to make the generalization that one is better or more efficient than the other. The only contrasts which my have significant differences are those families who do not have two parents, no matter their gender. So there is no rational basis, in my mind and obviously the mind of most studied science on this, to even try to contradict that. – ツ Teammm 21:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the higher dropout rate was in the study you just referenced, regarding less aggressive males from lesbian parents. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ad hominem, Teammm? (Sadly) that sometimes works in a situation like Chick-fil-A, but humanity doesn't do itself any favors by conducting its science that way. Appeal to authority isn't quite as bad, but it isn't good, either.
- I know this comes from a different sort of science, but Einstein made a useful observation about the scientific method: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." The moment we take the word of a scientific authority as final, progress stops.
- Gay people can make fine parents, Teammm. I don't think there is any serious question about it, and our articles on the topic should reflect that. But there shouldn't be a problem with giving an honest account about the state of our knowledge, and there shouldn't ever be a motion on the table to freeze the conversation, as if the study of sociology were a game of musical chairs. Belchfire-TALK 21:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Your favorite expression. I'm not trying to stifle anyone's editing. I'm sure if there was something contradictory to the scientific consensus an editor wanted to add, they can post it on here for discussion. I'm not a scientist, I didn't make any of the conclusions in the consensus, and I didn't study the subject (even though I don't have to study myself or friends of mine to know what those scientists have said is true), so I can only go by what the scientific community has said. If I was in a profession and presenting an argument contradictory to what most others have concluded, my argument will be tested and if something is right, their conclusions should change in some way. I haven't seen that on this. – ツ Teammm 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Teammm is correct about what reliable sources say, and this is verging into a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. If there's nothing further to discuss, let's end this and focus on editing the article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What I find frustrating here is that editors state that this has been going on for generations, all sorts of statistics, etc. etc. Yet even the liberal media doesn't reflect this. http://www.aol.com/video/having-their-baby-woman-gives-baby-to-transgender-man-and-wife/517436149/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl6%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D189268. If this is so "common", why the concern, why the headline? Student7 (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- An administrator should probably collapse this discussion. – ツ Teammm 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Vietnam discusses SSM
Should this be added to the 'Subject Debated" column?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-29/vietnam-gay-marriage/56573384/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.245.220 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Obama
Article says that Obama supports repeal of DOMA, etc. It adds that he says the constitutional bans on SSM in two states is "unnecessary." To me this is a weak statement and unnecessary to the article. It may be confusing to non-US readers who don't understand the interplay between state and federal constitutions. (In Switzerland, eg, "state" constitution (if they exist) might supersede the federal. But here, the President does not even suggest that there is a constitutional issue either way. As a non-supporter, I don't want to rm the phrase, but I think that a supporter should. It is not really helpful or important IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Image caption
Everyone involved in the edits about the caption for File:Wedding-chantelois-gomez.jpg apparently prefers to discuss it via edit summaries, but I'm going to play the maverick and open a thread here. The status quo wording—"A gay marriage in Canada"—is problematic for several reasons. First of all, it's not particularly descriptive of what the image depicts. I suspect that whoever initially wrote the caption meant to say "A gay wedding in Canada" (my emphasis). While the word "marriage" can be used as a synonym for "wedding", that's not its primary definition. Readers who know little about the subject could get the impression that gay Canadians typically spend their married lives standing around urban settings in suits and ties, swigging champagne and kissing each other on the cheek. Far-fetched? Yeah, a little, but we're writing for everyone here.
However, the problem cannot be solved merely by changing "marriage" to "wedding". For one thing, the image presumably shows a scene from a wedding day, but presumptions are best avoided; there is no context to suggest that it's part of the actual ceremony and not a reception afterwards (or photo op in between), and "wedding" is generally used as specifically as "marriage" is used vaguely. Also, since the people aren't identified in the caption—although one is apparently notable enough for his own article (with no inline citations, strangely enough)—is the reader expected to assume that they're gay? That sounds like a leap of logic. Maybe one is bi. Maybe both of them are. Maybe they're not the married couple at all. The caption indicates they're a marriage, which isn't really possible. (Nitpicky? Hell, yeah. A caption should be succinct, accurate, and descriptive.)
Finally, I have to say that it's unclear to me that, even if the image did depict a marriage or wedding, it should need to carry the adjective "gay". Ceremonies aren't gay, even when their participants are.
What I'm guessing the image depicts is a recently married couple celebrating on their wedding day. If that can be verified, we can say basically that. Otherwise, I'm not clear on exactly what we can say. Maybe there's a better image available? Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree with your argument, especially your closing assertion regarding the necessity of the word "gay" in depicting the couple. This was my original point of contention and I'm glad to see the argument validated. Perhaps the caption "A Canadian couple on their wedding day" would garner consensus given the photo is verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyculous (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I made a change. Feel free to revert back though. I don't think it matters if the image depicts a New Year party or a gay marriage. From looking at it with the caption, it makes sense and serves the article. Acoma Magic (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's better, yes. I'd also be okay with the wording Bradyculous proposed above, but I suggest that consensus should precede any further changes. (Personally, I find the image a little jarring the more I look at it—with the bottle, it looks as much like drunken revelry as joyful frolic—but I guess that's neither here nor there.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection over its removal. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are alternatives. Unfortunately, none are a whole lot better. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection over its removal. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No votestacking, please |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Witherspoon InstituteThere's an issue regarding same-sex marriage being discussed on Talk:Witherspoon_Institute. It might be helpful if more editors were involved. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Unassessed Sexology and sexuality articles
- Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class law articles
- Top-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles