Talk:Same-sex marriage

Controversy seems slightly one-sided

The heading "Controversy" appears not to be completely neutral. I applaud the section, in that it covers both sides to some degree. The writing is, for the most part, matter-of-fact and in an encyclopedic style. However, reading this section, and being sympathetic with both sides, I wonder if some of the arguments of those opposing same-sex marriage could be filled out a bit more. Unfortunately for supporters of same-sex marriage, the article appears to have been written primarily by proponents of same-sex marriage, thereby weakening it. Perhaps I am being too sympathetic to one side over the other. What are some of your thoughts out there? Hackerj23 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you add? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could figure out what--if anything--should be put in the place of a paragraph that was removed earlier. I proposed we include something along the lines of the following (see http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&oldid=337798486 for convenience:

Opponents of same-sex marriage respond by claiming that research on children parented by homosexuals is biased, poorly conducted, and unscientific.[138] They point to journal article reviews by Lerner and Nagai (2000), Baumrind (1995), and Williams (2000) that indicate that research supporting the same-sex marriage argument "suffer[s] from severe methodological flaws,"[139], is "based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases,"[140] or fails to publish "significant, but left unreported" data contrary to its conclusion.[141] They point out that some research has been thrown out due to blatant bias concerns, such as during the 1997 Florida hearing Petitioner v. Floyd P. Johnson.[142] Critics further suggest that important research contrary to LGBT movement has been overlooked or has not received its due scrutiny, like a study concluded by Stacey and Biblarz in 2001. After reviewing 21 studies on homosexual parenting and its effects on children, Biblarz and Stacey, the latter a proponent of gay-marriage, report the following: "Our careful scrutiny of the findings [the researchers of the 21 studies] report suggests that on some dimensions--particularly those related to gender and sexuality--the sexual orientations of these parents matter somewhat more for their children than the researchers claimed."[143]

My concern is that--in the absence of a paragraph like this one--the article is too weak because it appears somewhat biased. I have sympathy for both sides of this debate and would appreciate any input as to what would be appropriate. Perhaps we could come to a conclusion as to what would be fitting for the article, if anything.Hackerj23 (talk)

NPOV is not stating oponnents claims 10 years old and superseded. What their claimed is not true today = no reason to include. This is the same situation as with evolution or flat earth concept. --Destinero (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this concept of "sympathy for the other side", we aren't here to sympathize with anything, we're here to present facts. You may sympathize with flat-earthers or the Ku Klux Klan but including their "arguments" in an article about the earth, or the black race, or gay marriage must be done in discretion (and this goes for ANY side of the argument). People who are against SSM are either against it because they dislike gay people in general, or they're religious. I think it'd be more reasonable, and fair, if we didn't include pseudo-scientific (and unsubstantiated) arguments because including such arguments makes no sense but to give discredited organizations and researchers undeserved prominence. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This argument is ignorant. There is no need to characterize all opponents to SSM as strawmen religious homophobes. Some opponents have no religious or personal opposition to homosexuality or even recognized civil unions.

Many opponents object to the proponent's refusal to accept civil unions as a viable alternative. These proponents instead demand redefinition of marriage.

In America there are many constitutional guarantees for individual liberty, but there is *no* constitutional protection of family rights (e.g., a right of a father to raise his child, etc.). Traditionally the US courts have *discovered* (i.e., not instituted) marriage as a basis for upholding these rights. Those who engage in heterosexual marriages are widely considered to plan to have biological children -- those who do not are exceptions. Homosexual marriages would be widely considered to not plan for biological children -- those who do being exceptions.

Marriage is a bundle of contracts and obligations, marriage is also a legal vehicle with regards to understanding the family unit with an emphasis on children. By redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, the law would recognize that marriage is a bundle of contracts while at the same time tacitly removing the concept of children from marriage. In America, redefining marriage is a legal issue with far reaching (unintended) possible consequences.

For example, I have no issue -- religious or otherwise -- with homosexuals, but I do recognize that by refusing civil unions and demanding redefined marriage a very radical change in the law may take place affecting all families. Of course, these fears with regards to the law may be unfounded or incorrect; nonetheless, a society ought not rush blindly into progress. The issue of same-sex marriage in public is toxic with little discussion focused on substantive points of law and more on chants and slogans and attacks.Jstanierm (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this "redefinition of marriage"? This play (and monopolization) of words is at the heart of this silly, weak argument constantly presented as legitimate. Words are not static, they change. Heterosexual monogamous marriages are nothing more than subsets of the varying types of marriages that exist (from polygamous marriages to arranged marriages to child marriages). Whether you like it or not, same-sex marriages have existed in the past, there is nothing to redefine as much as to include. You also said "Marriage is a bundle of contracts and obligations, marriage is also a legal vehicle with regards to understanding the family unit with an emphasis on children." - excuse me, emphasis on the children? According to who? Is a formerly convicted child molester, who's served his time, prevented from marrying? Is a deadbeat father with 7 estranged spouses that have left him prevented from exercising -his right- in another marriage? Marriage is about love and kinship between individuals, not the vehicle to propagation as many unmarried couples have children with little to no problems. You may take a personal issue with SSM and civil unions (as you've kindly pointed out) but every major psychological and scientific organization disagrees with your "logic", and I happen to agree with them. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is true that at the heart of the same-sex marriage debate is the definition of the term "marriage". The vast majority of cultures currently agree (and have long agreed) that marriage is only between one or more men and one or more women. While exceptions may arise from time to time, these should not be the basis for any definition.

Also true is the fact that words and their definitions change. The precise definition of "marriage", as a prime example, is being scrutinized. But to say that marriage has various "subsets", including same-sex marriages, is premature. One way a definition may be set is by history and tradition. Marriage has long been (and to a very large extent is today) a religious or sacred rite. One of the oldest texts available, the Bible frequently uses the term marriage, and in no case does it include the "marriage" of two members of the same sex to each other. In virtually all serious texts written before the 1950's that I have studied, the term "marriage" implicity refers a union between men and women, whatever else it was. If a text intends to denote a same-sex marriage, some qualifying term is always or nearly always attached.

Another method for determining the meaning of words is by how they are commonly used or viewed. A 2009 poll reported by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reveals that American popular opinion endorses civil unions for homosexuals but rejects the term "marriage" for homosexuals. Thus, the majority of Americans wish to reserve (and retain) the definition of "marriage" for unions only between men and women.

One alternative to a historical or populace definition is a definition decided by a philosophy. This is a valid basis for deciding definitions--many philosophers and scientists frequently create useful definitions, and rightly so--but these definitions are generally less wide-spread and commonplace. Further, there are plenty of legitimate philosophies on either side of the debate, so to arbitrarily choose a particular one over the others is unjustifiable.

Since both history and popular decree define marriage as being a union between men and women (and since social science defines it as something else only relatively recently), it is safe to say that a possible "redefinition" of marriage is currently under examination.Hackerj23 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also want to present the facts. Unfortunately, there are not currently a lot of indisputable facts to go around, and even those are difficult to discern. The SSM and flat-earth concepts are very different and cannot be reasonably compared. The SSM issue is a debate, with some science on both sides. It is still largely discussed and major scientific resources are being invested to learn more about the topic. The flat-earth issue is not a debate, since there is no current research or major disscusion on the matter nor is there any scientific evidence that I am aware of in support of it. While I admit I do not have access to all published journal articles on the subject, my recent investigations have shown that the science on same-sex parenting deals primarily with children up to and including adolescents. Some opponents of SSM insist that this does not adequately address the potential problems with same-sex parenting on children. Until this and other issues have been thoroughly resolved, the SSM debate remains such and cannot be compared to the flat-earth concept.

Current research does indicate that there is little difference between hetero- and homosexual parenting couples. However, opponents of SSM are not without scientific footing, and their views should be included. Please consider the following from a recent (2004) journal article: "Offspring of lesbian mothers were also no more likely to report same-sex sexual attraction or a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity than were those from heterosexual families. They were, however, more likely to have considered a gay or lesbian relationship as a possibility for themselves and to have been involved in a same-sex relationship, suggesting that although sexual attraction and identity may not be related to parental sexual orientation, the likelihood of considering or entering a same-sex relationship may be associated with parents’ sexual orientation."

I agree that Wikipedia is not a place to draw conclusions on a current political debate. This is why I think it helpful and necessary to include current ideas from both sides, including opponents of the SSM debate. What are some thoughts of other Wiki editors here?Hackerj23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

The problem with that particular observation is that it would be WP:UNDUE weight to put it in this particular article. For one thing, it's about same-sex parenting, not same-sex marriage. The link to marriage, particularly to paint it as a negative, is indirect and circular (SSM may lead to same-sex parenting, which may lead to kids who aren't as repressed against same-sex activity, which is bad because, umm, it may lead to same-sex parenting?). It doesn't claim that there is a qualitative difference, only that there is some detectible statistical difference on some item. (As a sign of how minor this item is, it isn't even mentioned or alluded to in your source's summary.) There are articles for which the observation of this smaller difference would not be undue, such as LGBT parenting... and in fact you can find reference to it there. (As for that being a recent journal article, while 2004 is relatively recent, the article is merely citing the result from a study more than twice as old.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NatGertler, your point is very well taken. My reason for quoting the study I did was not to present a case against SSM, but only to show that the opponents of SSM have relatively more recent literature from which they can draw in possibly establishing their stance (as a response to an above comment). My real motivation is to return to the question of whether or not to include in "Same-sex Marriage" the paragraph quoted near the beginning of this section (or one like it). I am open to further criticisms of that paragraph or other suggestions.Hackerj23 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph is absolutely unsustainable here; for all its talk of "Opponents" saying this and "They" say that, such claims are actually all just sourced to one person, and the source doesn't even identify him as an opponent of SSM. (As put forth, he's objecting to APA process, not to SSM.) Oh, and add to that that the author is past-president of NARTH, making this likely fall into self-published source concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"My reason for quoting the study I did was not to present a case against SSM, but only to show that the opponents of SSM have relatively more recent literature from which they can draw in possibly establishing their stance (as a response to an above comment)" That's completely false! Every reference (reviews of literature by most prestigeous article journals in respective fields) from the lead paragraph of Same-sex marriage#Children and the family is not more than 4 years old! And all of them could be seen as a strong scientific and professional evidence and consensus on the issues related to same-sex marriage. --Destinero (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"The SSM issue is a debate, with some science on both sides. It is still largely discussed and major scientific resources are being invested to learn more about the topic." - I'm sorry, what is this "science" that you say exist on both sides? And it seems the consensus amongst every major legitimate scientific and psychological organization is pretty obviously "one-sided", in favor of the obvious of course. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, the fact that one day, scientists will identify the "gay gene," thus ending the need for gay marriage, as anyone who could find out that their child would be gay would abort the fetus. Pluribusjuris (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

(oops! edit conflict)

Okay, now that it's quieted down, perhaps we can take a look at the proposed edit. Jstanierm proposed:

"Opponents to same-sex marriage argue that recognizing same-sex marriage as a universal human rights issue will make it more likely that the law will one day recognize other forms of unions that are also currently illegal such as incest or polygamous marriage.[8] There is also a rejection of the use of the word "marriage" as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds,[9] and tradition. Supporters of same-sex marriage often attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia[10][11][12][13] or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[14]"

I don't support that wording for a variety of reasons. The first is that is gives undue weight to the slippery slope argument. While it is one argument against that I've heard, it is by far not the most common or notable, so placing it at the start of the paragraph doesn't make sense to me.

The current wording is:

"Opposition to same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word "marriage" as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds,[8] and tradition. Supporters of same-sex marriage often attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia[9][10][11][12] or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[13]"

I interpret "Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences..." to include the slippery slope. I don't have an objection to adding it to the list ( "...include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages (such as leading to legalized polygamy), parenting concerns..."), but I don't believe it's necessary.Quietmarc (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The problems that I have (or at least among the problems that I have) with the addition to this of the lede is that it tends to be a midescription - the slippery slope concern, at least when seriously presented, is not that SSM will lead to incest and polygamy and marrying dogs, but that the logic used to support it would also support such outcomes, which is a concern specifically when the right to SSM is introduced judicially. This makes it a very tertiary claim. It also seems to be a very US-centric claim (and the sources I recognized were certainly US sources focused on US policy, including specifics to the US legal system). Both of these things would seem to make placing this in the lede of this article WP:UNDUE. (And there's also a bit of a loop there; if they claim it leads to polygamy, and you ask what their problem is with that, you'll generally find that again it goes to the religion-and-tradition stances, which makes it not actually a separate objection.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The "slippery slope" argument is redundant. I mean, Stefan Lindskog (then chairman of the Swedish Bar Association) wrote an op-ed in 2005 arguing against legalising same-sex marriages because doing so would still limit marriages to two people in a monogamous relationship. In his view, the number of people marrying, or what kind of sexual relationship (if any) they shared among them, should be completely irrelevant, at least from a judicial perspective. Gabbe (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the slippery slope thing above, most people understand that homosexuality is not the same as incest and polygamy which do have serious biological, psychological and social consequences. I know that there are groups who make these arguments, but they said that about gays and lesbians adopting children. And then the courts started allowing it, I think Florida was the first state. And the world didn't come to an end. There are no negative consequences to that any more than any other adoption, that I am aware of. Might be a good idea to mention the adoption thing as a positive counter weight to the slipper slope stuff.Malke2010 06:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the slippery slope argument is a good one. I think the question is whether it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article along with all of the other (IMO) bad arguments against gay marriage.Quietmarc (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...and even if mentioned, whether it belongs in the lede (no), or whether it belongs down in the controversy section (say, judicial vs. legislative), as a concern of the effect of court-based legalization of SSM. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...which, I agree with you on the lede. I think a sentence or two could go in where you suggest, but the source provided that I have access to isn't strong enough to warrant it. I'm back at work again today, but if I can manage to do some digging I'll see if I can come up with something. I know I've heard the slippery slope argument, so it's just a matter of whether anyone important and/or reliable has said it (preferably with a quick repudiation of its merits).Quietmarc (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Find someone notable who prominently proposes this slippery slope argument, then it can go in. Without a good source, it's undue weight. Gabbe (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead at all. Homosexuality is a normal variant in a biological system. However, incest is not and neither is polygamy. This slippery slope argument seems like WP:SYN to me. Seems more like an old wives' tale than a legitimate argument. Maybe mention could be made in a "Myths" section, but not in the lead.Malke2010 19:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think we need to be careful to discern that what Wikipedia is presenting in the lede are the arguments against and for same-sex marriage. The validity of the arguments themselves -- or your own personal opinion about the validity of the arguments are secondary to the fact that these are arguments that are being presented.

As to whether or not it belongs in the lede: The article currently has a sentence relating an opinion/argument of the *proponents* for same-sex marriage. This sentence says that proponents liken the opposition to the similar opposition to bi-racial marriages in the past. Bi-racial heterosexual marriage has as much to do with same-sex marriage as same-sex marriage has to do with polygamy, etc. For example, someone against bi-racial marriage on the grounds that if it were legalized then the liklihood of a future legalization of same-sex marriage is arguing a slippery-slope fallacy.

In addition to Volokh, the following are citations which should sufficiently show that the this slippery slope argument is being made by the opponents:

David Orgon Coolidge & William C. Duncan, Reaffirming Marriage: A Presidential Priority, 24 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 623, 640 (2001);

George W. Dent, Jr., The Defense of Traditional Marriage, 15 J.L. & POL. 581, 628-31 (1999);

Stanley Kurtz, Beyond Gay Marriage: The Road to Polyamory, WEEKLY STANDARD, Aug. 4, 2003.

Also, some supporters of same-sex marriage actually *endorse* such slippage. :::::::::See, e.g., David L. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 MICH. L. REV. 447, 490-91 (1996); JUDITH STACEY, IN THE NAME OF THE FAMILY: RETHINKING FAMILY VALUES IN THE POSTMODERN AGE 126-27 (1996)

As the article currently stands, there is an NPOV issue in that the proponent's point of relating same-sex marriage to bi-racial marriage is being explictly presented; whereas, the opponent's same point of relating same-sex marriage to polygamy is not being explicity presented. I hope this clears up some confusion. And I am sorry for the edits yesterday, but I was frustrated (to see a banal well cited sentence describing an obvious phenomenon being constantly reverted by editors who couldn't bother to discuss on the talk page. (I want to thank Quietmarc for being reasonable through it all, and I personally apologize to him for my hastiness).Jstanierm (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"I was frustrated (to see a banal well cited sentence describing an obvious phenomenon being constantly reverted by editors who couldn't bother to discuss on the talk page." Excuse me? Of the reversions made to your edits yesterday before you got the boot, all but one was made by either Quietmarc or me, and we've both been discussing on the talk page. (And to that editor, you owe an apology, as you posted your assumption that he had not read the talk page, as though someone who had read the talk page wouldn't have found that you had been re-adding material against consensus.)

If you want to argue for the exclusion of the misogyny law comparison from the lede, there is certainly an argument to be made... but as a matter of tact and tactic it may be more effective to do so without generally slamming the other editors involved on this page.

BTW the Volokh source is problematic to use, as it falls under the guidelines and concerns for self-published sources. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Volokh is an example of an acceptable SPS. A UCLA law professor would generally be considered an established expert on the relevant field (i.e., in this case, the potential effects of new law.) Whether he is or isn't acceptable really doesn't matter, because you may have noticed I cited several other published sources. I also believe you meant miscegenation rather than misogyny :D.Jstanierm (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than the SPS questionability of Volokh have you got any other concerns regarding the proposed edit to the article in light of what I have stated above?Jstanierm (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually now that I review the citation, Volokh's blog links to his prior writing published article which is more indepth Eugene Volokh, Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes, 33 HOFSTRA L. REV. 1155, 1163-1165 (2005).Jstanierm (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of my previously-stated concerns still apply. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, your claim as to what the relevant field is for the Volokh citation is off, as he's being used to support not a claim about the law, but a claim about the assertions of SSM opponents. Nor can we cite him simply as an example of opponents arguing the slippery-slope assertion, as he is not an opponent and he makes it clear he doesn't hold much respect for the slippery-slope arguments. As for all the other sources you cite, do you know what those sources actually say? It's hard to prove the relevancy of a source if you're simply copying your source list from someone else's work (footnote 1), rather than actually referencing them. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Law review articles are available online through databases such as Westlaw or Lexis Nexis. I mentioned that Volokh's expertise in response to your claim that he is a self published source; he has other writings on the same subject that are not self published so I don't see the relevancy at this point. (Nevertheless, if Volokh isn't an expert in your view I wonder who is...)Jstanierm (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Law reviews are not generally considered expert sources for the views of movements; they are focused on the analysis of the law and legal proceedings. Analysis of the legal view of slippery slopes does not go to the heart of the statement that the reference supposedly supports. As for the remainder of the references, if you don't know what they say, how can you use them as references? It is not enough to simply cut'n'paste references from another article and assume that they say something relevant and supportive of your statement. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This article about same-sex marriage. In the lede, the issue of same-sex marriage is said to be a human rights issue, an equality under the law issue, a political issue. The article says marriages are legal and social institutions. The article then goes on to explain why some favor changing the law to recognize same sex marriage, and it explains why some oppose changing the law to include same sex marriage.

I don't see why a lawyer, a law professor, a politician, a judge, a law review article etc would not be considered an expert on the subject (if not they then who). Also, the entire issue of being an expert was in regards to Self Published Sources only (Wikipedia states that a SPS may be used if the author is a recognized expert). None of the citations are SPS -- and if they were they are still experts.

As I have told you law review articles are easily accessible due to the wonder of the internet, and I highly suggest you follow you own advice and read the citations above (and yes to answer your question I have verified the articles).

I don't know if you're going to object to online news articles, but this is more for your own personal edification, Nat Gertler, to help you understand that argument of incest to polygamy is an argument that is being made. (They are non-US for your pleasure) Please remember we are considering sources for the purpose of demonstrating that this is an argument that is being made. We are not evaluating the argument or criticizing the argument. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/27/australian-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-incest-and-polygamy-religious-figures-say/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012207.html Jstanierm (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(reseting indent) Being an expert on the law and able to apply that to SSM does not make one an expert on opinions about SSM, any more than being an expert in chemistry and able to talk about salts makes one an expert on salt use in baking. (Nor, for that matter, does Volokh make a robust claim in that regard; about the most he says is that "some say", not measuring it as a significant stance in a movement.)

Anyway, you invoked the Volokh source on a "e.g." list, which means you were using it as an example of an opponent making such a statement, which is clearly not true. But that also points to another problem: if you're trying to build a general case out of a list of examples, then you are engaging in WP:SYN. (As for your claims that you've actually read and referenced the things mentioned in the footnote you copied, I've seen you make enough false statements regarding the editing on this article not to take that at face value.)

By the way, that "LifeSiteNews" example you used as a "non-US" source is a US-cohosted site article that cites just one SSM opponent on the link between gay marriage and polygamy - and that's American Stanley Kurtz. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you ought to assume good faith. If you are just going to reject all of these citations out of hand then we are never going to see eye to eye. Because of this dispute I am going to place a POV lede tag to get others to contribute. These sources show that there are opponents who object to a change in the law for the concerns listed above. I don't see why a sentence that says: "Opponents argue against legalizing same sex marriage with concerns that it will lead to polygamous or incestuous marriage" can't be included given that it is clearly true. Whether you like their argument or not -- there *are* opponents who make this claim.Jstanierm (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that a sentence like that or some variation thereof could be included, if it is reasonably placed and properly sourced. Your citations are not being dismissed out of hand; they are being dismissed because they are a list of examples of individual opponents - and in some cases, non-opponents - voicing a slippery-slope concern, which is not appropriate support for the blanket statement made. If you cannot see eye-to-eye with concerns over WP:SYN, then you may want to take it up with the people who craft that policy. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize that not everyone has access to law review articles so I will cite a concise statement made in one of those I have listed above:

"Polygamy, endogamy, and marriage with minors and animals are also invalid and, unlike gay marriages, often criminal. Hence, rather than casually distributing honor to everyone but gays, the law strictly confines the honor of marriage to the one form that has worked best: monogamous, exogamous, heterosexual marriage. The other side of that coin is that validating gay marriage would logically necessitate validating these other forms of marriage" George Dent, TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: STILL WORTH DEFENDING 68.111.52.166 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is an example of one person making that argument. It would be a reasonably source to make the claim that "George Dent says that validating gay marraige would necessitate validating polygamy." To take three or four such examples and to use them to make a blanket statement about "opponents" is WP:SYN. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad we are beginning to see eye to eye. I want to point out that you're slightly misreading the quote I selected from his work. That is to say, he is not saying it would necessitate *only* polygamy. He says that all other forms of marriage other than the currently accepted -- "monogamous, exogamous, hetereosexual" -- would be validated. A more precise reading would say: "George Dent says that validating gay marriage would necessitate validating other forms of currently prohibited marriage, i.e., incest and polygamous marriage.

Also, what do you think of the sentence in the lede, which says that: "Supporters ... liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage." This assertion has only one citation -- a USA TODAY online article by Gail Mathabane, a journalist. Should the article be reworded to say: "Gail Mathabane, a journalist with USA TODAY, likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage."? Jstanierm (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) No. I did not "misread" Dent. I was not presenting a quote as a restatement of what he said, but was presenting an example of a line that could be supported by that quote as a reference.

As for the Mathabane reference, I made a very similar change in another article earlier today, for referencing that particular work. However, first off, Ms. Mathabane is not a USA Today journalist, she merely wrote an opinion piece for them (She works for Kaiser Permanente), and second, such a sentence does not earn a strong place in the lede... and, as I said before, there are arguments for excluding that sentence anyway from the lede (although I suspect there are better references available to support its statement.). NOTE: Please don't mistake my statement on this as consensus; I am merely one editor on this article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Include it. The slippery slope is a decent argument. Gay marriage really dimishes the special meaning of traditional marriage if people from the gay lifestyle consider themselves married to one another. Why stop there? Perhaps I want to marry my pet terrier? OscarMilde (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ignorant, a dog is not a person. CTJF83 chat 05:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The "slippery slope" argument can be included as one of many arguments used by opponents against SSM. However, it is a classical informal fallacy, as well as being an Appeal to Consequences, and should not be used in an authoritative way as a rational reason to oppose SSM. mKleid 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)\

Yes, it is simply a matter of being one of many arguments used by opponents of SSM. However, I think you should distinguish that when discussing society and law arguments that would otherwise be considered informal or formal fallacies often are very relevant.

Appeal to Authority is one logical fallacy that is, nonetheless, *very* respected in legal matters.Jstanierm (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Destinero's been doing some good work on the Children and Family section. However, one item he's introduced and reintroduced after a removal is of concern: "the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents". There is no such thing as a fixed official general "burden of proof", it various from audience to audience and intent to intent. The burden of proof is different in a court of law than in a casual conversation. The source he's citing indicates that it is showing the "standard [...] generally adopted in behavioral and social research", and that's all well and good, but it's not a standard that should be presented without context. This article does not ust exist to cover behavior and social research; it reflects social debates, legal debates, and more. As such, if a claim of what the burden of proof is to be made, it should be explicit in what context... but I think better still that it should be removed altogether, as the goal of this article should not be to show proof, but to show relevant facts. This article is not a debate. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is very important fact to be included in the article. I have no problem to provide context. "The null hypothesis (in this case, that same-sex and heterosexual couples do not differ) cannot be proved. A more realistic standard is the one generally adopted in behavioral and social research, namely, that repeated failures to disprove the null hypothesis are accepted provisionally

as a basis for concluding that the groups, in fact, do not differ. The overall methodological sophistication and quality of studies in this domain have increased over the years, as would be expected for any new area of empirical inquiry. Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf We could either rephrase, which could be very difficult to cover same meaning, or quote, which I prefer in that case. Maybe we should quote Pediatrics and Journal of Marriage and Family sources as well to prevent copyright issues. --Destinero (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"as a basis for concluding that the groups do not differ" - there's part of the problem right there. It is not the job of Wikipedia to reach conclusions. If you want to report the conclusions of others, that's much more in line with Wikipedia. You can probably even cite the article your pointing to and say that research has found that there is no real difference in outcomes, or somesuch. It's a n appropriate source for that. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split

I propose that the article is split so that 'Same-sex marriage' remains focused on the facts of same-sex marriage and a separate article on 'same-sex marriage issues' (or perhaps a more appropriate name) is created to summarize issues for countries where same-sex marriage is controversial. For a layman reader who happens to reside in a country where same-sex marriage is legally protected and associated employment and pension rights are equivalent in a legal sense (such as in Spain), the article tends to drift into areas of current lobbying for rights that are not all that relevant for a long term encyclopaedic article. Ash (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. This article may have a lede that says something to the effect of: this article is about same-sex marriage as it is currently by various governments. See ---------- for a discussion of proposed implementations of same sex marriage in other governments etc....Jstanierm (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. We have Same-sex marriage in... for the various areas which have them that can go into the specifics, but SSM is a situation in flux for a significant portion of the world. To avoid covering that conflict in the central article would be inappropriate. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. I think there's a wiki policy about splitting controversial topics into articles on that topic and an article on issues or controversies (WP: Fork? Maybe?)Quietmarc (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it! WP:POVFORK (I hope the link works)Quietmarc (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The POVFORK guidance is intended to avoid splitting an article into unbalanced separate articles. That's not quite the scenario under discussion as the intent would still be to have balance articles, it's just a question of how much depth to a summary of controversies is retained. Ash (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

POVFork can be intentional or unintentional. The split that's suggested would lead either to two POV articles or to two articles with so much overlap they might as well be merged. Gay marriage, itself, is pretty straightforward (aside from some interesting history). Most of what makes it notable is the controversy.Quietmarc (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Education controversy section

Someone has been repeatedly editing the POV statement "Teaching same sex marriage in public schools has been a controversial issue due to prejudicial views of intolerance" into the article, with the references being a "personal essay" as a self-published source. I've already given this the ax once. Would appreciate some back-up on this. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. CTJF83 chat 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you too Orionsbelter (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been disappearapated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nat you coined a new term ;) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tax and Revenue implications of allowing Same Sex Marriages

If at all possible could the tax and revenue implications of allowing same sex marriage be outlined?

I know that both state and federal governments would lose a tremendous amount of revenue because of joint tax filing, inheritance tax from the death of a same sex spouse, health benefits, et al.

Gay men and women are the highest earners as a group in American today, I wonder if all the Social Security from men that died with AIDS need to be paid to their spouse would we ever have has a surplus in 2000?

Are the moral and ethical attacks on homosexual just a way to make it ok to steal from them legally?

Does anyone have statically accurate information on the fiscal aspects of these arguments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.78.10 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As your concerns are specifically with the US, a more appropriate article for them to be covered in is Same-sex marriage in the United States. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP makes a good point, but I think it would be hard for him to find these statistics because the department of statistics in every state, county and local municipal juridictions within all fifty U.S states do not keep stats based on sexuality. The choices on a death certificate, for example, would be single, married, divorced, widowed/widower. In terms of sex, it would be male, female, etc.Malke2010 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But even if all of the roughly half-million AIDS deaths through 2000 in the US were gay males, and even if they all had surviving spouses, with a year 2000 surplus of $230 billion, wiping out that surplus in that year would've meant paying each spouse over $400,000 in spousal benefits in that year. If that were what Social Security paid out, well, we'd see a lot more mysterious deaths, I can tell you that. Add in that AIDS tended to hit the younger crowd and that gay men are less likely to be raising children, and you've eliminated a lot of the eligibility for widower benefits. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)