Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Was world war inevitable?

2007-08-06T21:04:57Z

Gbjxc: /* '''No:''' */

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

== '''Yes:''' ==
Probably
Chain Reaction...
All of the alliances made leading up to WWI made it somewhat inevitable. it was inevitable that something (The assasination of ) would spark a fight wich would trigger a chain reaction of all of the alliances between th european powers. If both sides had actually wanted to avoid war then ''maybe'' it would have been avoided. However that was not the case.

All it takes is one person determined to fight...
In the case of WWII Hitler and the Japanese were determined to take over the world. (At least Europe and Asia) The rest of the world was not about to let that happen without a fight. This made WWII inevitable.

I am a year 11 student and I also think was war was inevitable primarily due to the fact the Hitler was just another one of Satan's instruments to corrupt the world. If you study Hitler's actions you will be suprised to find how demonic they were. Firstly Hitler was part of a cult and also he even created his own "Nazi Religion," in which you had to worship Hitler and his party. Furthermore the swastica, if you look carefully,is a broken cross, showing how Satan was simply using him against the world. Moreover the fact that Hitler was anti-semetic shows how again he was Satan's instrument for world destruction against God.
Also, through Hitler's actions it can be seen that he was very irrational and blood thirsty. In 1937 he intended to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia, to which Mussolini wanred him not to do which lead to the British and German talks over this country to which Hitler gained a thrid of its land.

== '''No:''' ==

War is almost never "inevitable". War results when both sides think they can win, and believe that the bloodshed is worth it. But both sides cannot win a contest so faulty information is part of the problem.
''Or one side could believe that to die fighting is better than to die in bondage.''

For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars. What happened that made Christians believe in war against each other?
''I don't think that the Axis were Christian... Hitler's racism was based on a Darwinian worldview, (Survival of the fittest) and the Japanese had their own religion. (I may be wrong but I think they Believed that their Emperor was basically God)''
:'''Reply'''Hitler surely wasn´t a Christian but the Germans were 50,6%Protestants, 45,8%Catholics and 3,6%others...okay, that was 1950, but i think there is no big difference to the 40´s
There is always a chance... Hitler could have had a stroke and died. The emperor of Japan could have been assasinated; The war was not a sure thing until it already happened.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

:''For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars.'' What? That isn't even true...
[[User:gbjxc|Greg]]

''If you look at it that way, then nothing is ever inevitable.''

The only inevitable thing is a promise of God; It was inevitable that Isaac would be born, it was inevitable that Jesus come, it is inevitable that the antichrist take over the world.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Contrary to the top notion, war can also be fought by states who don't expect a military victory. Some states may be willing to fight simply to prove their willingness to defend a policy (or even their sovereignty) simply as a means of deterrence against further acts of aggression. The Munich Analogy invoked by so many hawks nowadays may or may not be a legitimate argument these days. Democratic peace theory has proven relatively sound, so conflict between such states as were involved in WWII (if history were to repeat itself today) would likely be watered down by treaties or intervened upon by some sort of international order. As to the question of whether (I am assuming WWII, WWI was quite an unfortunate mousetrap of events) world war was inevitable, I have to answer no. Unfortunately by 1938 and the Sudetenland debacle, it was probably too late, and given greater international consensus on Wilsonian liberalism an effective intervention could have been possible in the early stages of German rearmament and Hitler's ascent to power. The pacific theatre is an interesting case. Post- Russo-Japan war Japan has been accused of being "asianist" to a fault. Though proletarian/communist movements were prevalent in Taisho-democracy era Japan, growing authoritarian power (totalitarian by some accounts, however the emperor Showa, or Hirohito, was merely a puppet for political elites) was able to quelch such uprisings and effectively redirect the growing mass-cultural mediums of Japan into those of nationalist predilections. For those interested in more Japanese innovation in the early use of mass media should check out an old film called Northern Lights, from 1941.

Brian

:'''Reply''' Why does God have to come into everything!?? All those things are only inevitable if you take the bible as fact. The Catholic Church even acknowledges that the bible is not a history text book.[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

Brigham's Homeboy
Ben, Ben, Ben. Where did you read that Christians haven't fought each other for 1500 years? It was wrong. One could cite the case of the extreamely Christian Justinian (emperor of the Byzantine Empire)invading and conquoring Italy in the mid 500s AD, the litterally constant fighting between Italian states since the fall of Rome until Italian Unification in the 1800s. You could look at the Papal Sanctioned Normon Conquest of the very Christian England in 1066, the Hundred Year War in the 14th Century (between England and France), the 30 Years War-proportionally the most devestating war in German History and fought between Catholics and Protestants, the War of Spanish Succession in the 17th century, the Great Northern War between Russia and Sweeden starting around 1700, the Napoleonic Wars and even our own US Revolutionary and Civil Wars. All of these wars involved Christians slaughtering each other. One could certainly argue that Christians haven't grasped the full meaning of the Gospel, but it is quite obvious that neither Nazism or the Japanese Religion were necessary to push Christians to war.

That said, freedom of choice is a vital part of life on Earth. We are allowed to choose our actions, just not the consequences. Herr Hitler was a nut, and once he was in power it would have taken violence to oust him, or stop him, but the German people didn't have to vote him into power. Winston Churchill said once that there was never a war more easily prevented than World War Two. Someone just had to choose to act and it could have been stoped.

:Hitler was a sensitive man. It was all the fault of the war-mongering generals. [[User:Hitler was a sensitive man|Hitler was a sensitive man]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== '''None of the Above:''' ==

Here's the real question, and it is one that perhaps can't be answered: Is a future world war inevitable?

--[[User:Janedoe|jane doe]] 23:03, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Don't see why world war would be inevitable. In 5000 years of recorded history, world war was a peculiar attribute of only one century: the 20th century. It was the product of philosophies of that century and it should be no more inevitable than the Black Plague would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

"World War" was only used to describe WW1 and WW2. If you look back at Classical Antiquity (where the world population was about, say, 100 million or less), many of the wars then were far deadlier per capita than either of the world wars. And we're talking about ''man'' here... Not every person accepts Jesus. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Was world war inevitable?

2007-08-06T21:04:23Z

Gbjxc: /* '''No:''' */

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

== '''Yes:''' ==
Probably
Chain Reaction...
All of the alliances made leading up to WWI made it somewhat inevitable. it was inevitable that something (The assasination of ) would spark a fight wich would trigger a chain reaction of all of the alliances between th european powers. If both sides had actually wanted to avoid war then ''maybe'' it would have been avoided. However that was not the case.

All it takes is one person determined to fight...
In the case of WWII Hitler and the Japanese were determined to take over the world. (At least Europe and Asia) The rest of the world was not about to let that happen without a fight. This made WWII inevitable.

I am a year 11 student and I also think was war was inevitable primarily due to the fact the Hitler was just another one of Satan's instruments to corrupt the world. If you study Hitler's actions you will be suprised to find how demonic they were. Firstly Hitler was part of a cult and also he even created his own "Nazi Religion," in which you had to worship Hitler and his party. Furthermore the swastica, if you look carefully,is a broken cross, showing how Satan was simply using him against the world. Moreover the fact that Hitler was anti-semetic shows how again he was Satan's instrument for world destruction against God.
Also, through Hitler's actions it can be seen that he was very irrational and blood thirsty. In 1937 he intended to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia, to which Mussolini wanred him not to do which lead to the British and German talks over this country to which Hitler gained a thrid of its land.

== '''No:''' ==

War is almost never "inevitable". War results when both sides think they can win, and believe that the bloodshed is worth it. But both sides cannot win a contest so faulty information is part of the problem.
''Or one side could believe that to die fighting is better than to die in bondage.''

For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars. What happened that made Christians believe in war against each other?
''I don't think that the Axis were Christian... Hitler's racism was based on a Darwinian worldview, (Survival of the fittest) and the Japanese had their own religion. (I may be wrong but I think they Believed that their Emperor was basically God)''
:'''Reply'''Hitler surely wasn´t a Christian but the Germans were 50,6%Protestants, 45,8%Catholics and 3,6%others...okay, that was 1950, but i think there is no big difference to the 40´s
There is always a chance... Hitler could have had a stroke and died. The emperor of Japan could have been assasinated; The war was not a sure thing until it already happened.
:''For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars.'' What? That isn't even true...

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

''If you look at it that way, then nothing is ever inevitable.''

The only inevitable thing is a promise of God; It was inevitable that Isaac would be born, it was inevitable that Jesus come, it is inevitable that the antichrist take over the world.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Contrary to the top notion, war can also be fought by states who don't expect a military victory. Some states may be willing to fight simply to prove their willingness to defend a policy (or even their sovereignty) simply as a means of deterrence against further acts of aggression. The Munich Analogy invoked by so many hawks nowadays may or may not be a legitimate argument these days. Democratic peace theory has proven relatively sound, so conflict between such states as were involved in WWII (if history were to repeat itself today) would likely be watered down by treaties or intervened upon by some sort of international order. As to the question of whether (I am assuming WWII, WWI was quite an unfortunate mousetrap of events) world war was inevitable, I have to answer no. Unfortunately by 1938 and the Sudetenland debacle, it was probably too late, and given greater international consensus on Wilsonian liberalism an effective intervention could have been possible in the early stages of German rearmament and Hitler's ascent to power. The pacific theatre is an interesting case. Post- Russo-Japan war Japan has been accused of being "asianist" to a fault. Though proletarian/communist movements were prevalent in Taisho-democracy era Japan, growing authoritarian power (totalitarian by some accounts, however the emperor Showa, or Hirohito, was merely a puppet for political elites) was able to quelch such uprisings and effectively redirect the growing mass-cultural mediums of Japan into those of nationalist predilections. For those interested in more Japanese innovation in the early use of mass media should check out an old film called Northern Lights, from 1941.

Brian

:'''Reply''' Why does God have to come into everything!?? All those things are only inevitable if you take the bible as fact. The Catholic Church even acknowledges that the bible is not a history text book.[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

Brigham's Homeboy
Ben, Ben, Ben. Where did you read that Christians haven't fought each other for 1500 years? It was wrong. One could cite the case of the extreamely Christian Justinian (emperor of the Byzantine Empire)invading and conquoring Italy in the mid 500s AD, the litterally constant fighting between Italian states since the fall of Rome until Italian Unification in the 1800s. You could look at the Papal Sanctioned Normon Conquest of the very Christian England in 1066, the Hundred Year War in the 14th Century (between England and France), the 30 Years War-proportionally the most devestating war in German History and fought between Catholics and Protestants, the War of Spanish Succession in the 17th century, the Great Northern War between Russia and Sweeden starting around 1700, the Napoleonic Wars and even our own US Revolutionary and Civil Wars. All of these wars involved Christians slaughtering each other. One could certainly argue that Christians haven't grasped the full meaning of the Gospel, but it is quite obvious that neither Nazism or the Japanese Religion were necessary to push Christians to war.

That said, freedom of choice is a vital part of life on Earth. We are allowed to choose our actions, just not the consequences. Herr Hitler was a nut, and once he was in power it would have taken violence to oust him, or stop him, but the German people didn't have to vote him into power. Winston Churchill said once that there was never a war more easily prevented than World War Two. Someone just had to choose to act and it could have been stoped.

:Hitler was a sensitive man. It was all the fault of the war-mongering generals. [[User:Hitler was a sensitive man|Hitler was a sensitive man]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== '''None of the Above:''' ==

Here's the real question, and it is one that perhaps can't be answered: Is a future world war inevitable?

--[[User:Janedoe|jane doe]] 23:03, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Don't see why world war would be inevitable. In 5000 years of recorded history, world war was a peculiar attribute of only one century: the 20th century. It was the product of philosophies of that century and it should be no more inevitable than the Black Plague would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

"World War" was only used to describe WW1 and WW2. If you look back at Classical Antiquity (where the world population was about, say, 100 million or less), many of the wars then were far deadlier per capita than either of the world wars. And we're talking about ''man'' here... Not every person accepts Jesus. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2007-08-06T20:51:04Z

Gbjxc: /* Discussion */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

==Discussion==
A few problems with this. It's not exclusive to men, and Bush has pretty much given up on the Constitutional amendment. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*There are a ''lot'' of problems with this, which I've just tried to fix. The previous article seemed to be mixing up legal marriage and religious marriage. It implied that the President can amend the Constitution. etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Isn't this already kinda covered at [[Homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage]]? Maybe we should import content from that section and then link from there to a fleshed-out article here, or flesh out the section there with whatever may come up here. In either way, some kind of synchronization would be of benefit in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

'''Hey Colin''' what was wrong with Ed poor's version? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:For starters, this sentence was in the first paragraph: "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"." (no citation) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, I protected my first page. I am now a total Wikipedia pariah, since I used editorial power to 'win' an edit war. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone can provide a citation for "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"," I will relent on reverting this back. Do note that I was originally reverting to Aschlafly's version, now I am reverting to a modified Ed Poor version (Aschlafly's first paragraph, the rest Ed's). [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had alrady removed the refrence to their intent. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:It still included "very few want to marry each other" which is either a lie or an uncited fact, neither of which are allowed on Conservapedia. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, lets remove that sentence altogether. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's also "has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality," which is opinion. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What was wrong with the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph? It was hardly bad enough for the rollback button. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The rollback button is easier to use, my apologies. I doubt the truth of that sentence, but if that is the case, then surely a citation for it won't be hard to find. If you can't find one, I have no problem saying, "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)." This sentence isn't biased, doesn't have as much of a need for a citation (if one at all) and includes more viewpoints than the earlier sentence. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is fine except for one thing which I fixed. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The sentence "...because the marriage services of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman" contains a factual error. It should be corrected to "'''some''' Christian denominations"; many denominations of the UCC, for example, conduct same-sex services. Other parts of the article are not particularly encyclopedic, like the sentence "Morality cannot be legislated."

== Edit war ==
Under the section about domestic violence, the word "survey" is mis-spelt. As the text has been locked, I wonder if one of the Sysops could fix it? [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Colin's version: accurate and uncontroversial. Ed's version: contentious. Therefore, the current version should remain until this issue is resolved. As sysops, we should be setting an example and sorting this out through discussion. Are we agreed? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Tsumetai and have reverted all but one of my changes. I think I was too 'bold' here. Thanks for everyone's mild response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Agree re: 'contentious', 'until resolved' & esp. 'setting an example', that is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I was only referring to the one paragraph, but OK. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
==Let us parley==
Okay...instead of the edit war-ette, let us hash it out here.
I don't have an ax to grind here so you can count me as a neutral "referee" (bribes <nowiki>and plastic</nowiki>accepted).[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marriage as a right ==

*"Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)."

This is complex. It entails the idea that (1) marriage is a right and (2) homosexuals should have '[[equal rights]]'. It involves the idea that (3) the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.

Maybe we should lay all cards on the table. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one. Yes, the Old Testament considers it an abomination, but the old testament also says quite a few other things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today. Moreover, the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity as only the New Testament really matters. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You are wrong here, see the passage from the book of Romans, that i quoted below. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The passage from Romans indicates that homosexuality MIGHT be a consequence of idolatry and THAT a God goven consequence.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::lol, now we must add the view that (4) 'only the New Testament really matters' to the list. How tall will this [[house of cards]] become? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not saying "only it matters," but clearly many of the Old Testament laws were deemed unnecessary; I mean, you don't keep kosher do you? And who's to say which laws can be dropped and which must be kept? (obviously I can see the need to keep the 10 commandments, as they even help live a Christ-like life) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Colin: you're not old enough to remember but years ago many states had what were called "blue laws" that made it illegal for business to be conducted on Sunday, (you could OPEN your place if business, that was okay, but you couldn't make any transactions). The effect was that people would do all of their shopping on Saturday. You couldn't get GASOLINE on Sunday! 1 out of ten stations were open. Nevermind "homosexuals" they didn't even get close to being mentioned when you could talk about "Sabbath breakers" all day. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Oh, but I am old enough to remember said blue laws, and to an extent some blue laws are still in place where I live. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh yeah, I failed to recall you live in the "land that time forgot". [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:::::::Hahaha, yeah, that's rural Tennessee. :-P [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Personally i don't beleive that '''''anything''''' from the old testament is nulified unless it is nulified explicitly in the new testament, e.g. the eating of unclean animals-- I love bacon :) -- The new testament does seem pretty hostile to homosexuality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:So no polyester/cotton blend shirts for you, eh?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Who says so?==
:Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin). <ref>leviticus 20:13</ref>

*The reference (to Leviticus) would certainly support a statement that "Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts." And, yes, a suitable New Testament reference would broaden this. I don't remember the passage in Romans offhand.

**Romans 1:24-28
::<blockquote>
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that thier bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do these things which are not proper,
</blockquote>
::so yes, the bible is clear on this. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't want to get into a game of "dueling Scriptures" but if a passage starts out with a "therefore" it ought to include what the "therefore" is there for. Hence:
:::Romans Chapter 1: 21-23(RSV). 21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

:::This would indicate, that the sin of homosexuality is begotten from the parent sin of idolatry.
:::So the Bible is "clear" about idolatry being '''''bad''''', (look what it's gets you!), but not all homosexuals are idolaters, are they? [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
*The reference certainly does not state that giving equal legal rights to male couples has any affect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony.

*The reference does not support the statement that "some argue" this. Probably some do, but it is important to have a good reference here, because without it the reader can't tell ''why'' "some" would say this, or what their argument for such a position is.

Something like this can certainly go in the article, but not as a weaseled "some argue" that does not give any traceable link to ''who'' makes this argument and ''what'' their argument would be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not see this sentence or anything similar to it even in the article, but I felt this was the best version to convey the particular sentiment. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, I'd '''rather''' not see it in the article myself, but that's a different issue... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith that we should avoid weasel-worded statemints. Traceable links are useful and often essential.

I agree with Colin that we must not lie! Uncited facts can be a problem, but anything that's true should be pretty easy to find a citation for.
::(Unsigned comments by [[User:Ed Poor]])

What needs to be shown is that this is a) a reasonably widely-held position, and b) what the stated basis of that position is. Should it go in the article just because BenjaminS and his brother hold this position? Or is it a formal position taken in a paper published by some organization like (say) Focus on the Family? Or is there a Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans hold this position? It matters. And, frankly, as should be clear, I think this sort of material should go in the article ''after'' it's supported, not before. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)



==References==

<references/>

== In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals. vs Poll data ==

: In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals.
Poll data can be found at [http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html]
{|border=1
! 
!Legal
!Illegal
!Amend Constitution
!Leave to the States
|-
|All
|41%
|55
|38
|58
|-
|Men
|38
|59
|39
|58
|-
|Women
|45
|51
|38
|59
|-
|18-29
|55
|42
|32
|67
|-
|65+
|21
|75
|44
|50
|-
|Democrats
|50
|46
|35
|61
|-
|Independents
|47
|50
|38
|60
|-
|Republicans
|24
|72
|43
|52
|-
|Liberal
|69
|27
|28
|67
|-
|Moderate
|44
|52
|30
|68
|-
|Conservative
|20
|77
|55
|42
|-
|Evangelical
|17
|81
|58
|38
|-
|Non-evangelical
|42
|55
|30
|67
|-
|No religion
|66
|26
|19
|78
|-
|East
|48
|46
|36
|63
|-
|Midwest
|40
|56
|42
|53
|-
|South
|35
|63
|42
|55
|-
|West
|49
|48
|30
|66
|-
|Married
|35
|61
|41
|55
|-
|Not Married
|49
|48
|36
|62
|}

Outside of the Liberal and Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections, support is fairly much split down the middle (do realize the large overlap between the Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections). I find the original claim faulty - most of the support is not from the liberals (though they support it the most). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not an oxymoron, etc. ==

I changed:
:'''Same-sex marriage''' is an oxymoronic phrase that depicts two people of the same sex attempting to gain the same legal status afforded to men and women.
to
:A '''same-sex marriage''' is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that has the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman. Some regard the phrase as self-contradictory because they do not regard it as a true marriage.

It's not an oxymoron, because it's not a figure of speech made for rhetorical emphasis. In recent years a form of humor has arisen which consists of describing a phrase as an "oxymoron," causing the hearer to do a double-take as he gets the comic interpretation, e.g. "Government organization--that's an oxymoron." But this is not yet accepted as a real meaning for the word, although in a few years it may be. "Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron" could be a joke, but it is not a proper statement either of a fact or of an opinion.

Seconding, "attempting to gain the same legal status" is inaccurate, because same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries and one state of the United States, and these couples do have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex. (And couples joined in civil unions in states that have them have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex.)

To suggest that, from a ''legal'' point of view, same-sex marriages do not yet exist is to deny a plain reality. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:The word "marriage" means a man & woman. There is no other meaning to the word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, please stop the business of stating flatly that what RobS thinks a word ought to mean is what the word means. It's a special case of stating that whatever RobS believes must be true.

::"Marriage" is often short for ''Christian marriage,'' which takes place in a church, is officiated by a clergyman, is ordained by God, and is between a man and a woman; but there ''is'' another meaning to the word. ''it can also'' refer to the civil contract, which grants certain legal rights and is officiated by some kind of state official--most clergyman are also state officials--and is governed by state law.

::The marriages between same-sex couples that take place in Massachusetts are "marriages."

::The changes you made are a presentation of your personal opinion, and are not appropriate when stated as fact.

::As for the word "oxymoron," I've substituted "ludicrous self-contradiction."

::P. S. I would like to see some examples that show that the use of "same-sex marriage" within quotation marks is a widespread, standard usage by conservatives. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And yet millions of people feel otherwise. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Among those millions are the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary:
::1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/M0120200.html]
:and those of Merriam-Webster:
::a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
::2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
::3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage]

:Believe me, I check the dictionary about a dozen times for every time I actually quote it, and I wish other contributors would do the same. Whenever I'm not really sure what the nuances or range of meaning of a word are, I check. There are many words whose meanings I ''think'' I know that, it turns out, I don't really know. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I consider the "oxymoron" PoV to be discredited.
:This is the second time its been stated, dictionaries ''do not'' give definitions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*"'Same-sex marriage' is an oxymoron" is an incorrect use of the word ''oxymoron.''
*"'Same-sex marriage' is a ludicrous self-contradiction" is correct usage, but inaccurate.
*"Some conservatives consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction" is accurate, but should be sourced.
*"Because the editors of Conservapedia consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction, the term will be used in quotation marks throughout this article" is something that could be worth discussion. '''I'd''' accept this if a) it really is the Conservapedia consensus opinion and b) the article identifies it as such. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Usage by conservative sources ==

Of the first hundred Google [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.nationalreview.com+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 search of the National Review], ninety-eight of them simply use the term without quotation marks. This includes a [http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200503160748.asp 2005 editorial]. One [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george_tubbs200411010830.asp anti-Kerry article] uses the phrase ''same-sex marriage'' without quotation marks numerous times, but uses ''same-sex "marriage"'' twice, I'm not quite sure why. [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bradley200401220909.asp one other] uses the phrase ''Massachusetts same-sex "marriage"''. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.family.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Focus on the Family] consistently uses ''Same-sex 'marriage''' and ''same-sex "marriage"''. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.eagleforum.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Eagle Forum] uses ''same-sex marriage,'' no quotation marks, 99 times, and [http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/june06/pro-family.html same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts] once. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.cc.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Christian Coalition]: 99 usages without quotation marks, [http://www.cc.org/archives/culture/index.html one with]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:How come when I click on these Google results I get these,
*2812 results from NRO for <marraige"> [http://search.nationalreview.com/?q=marriage%22&s=&sdate=&edate=]
*Dr. Dobson specifically refers to "same-sex marraige" and "gay marriage" in an article entitled, ''Marriage on the Ropes'', where the word ''marriage'' occurs 90+ times. [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm]
*CC first result: California's Supreme Court Overturns San Francisco "Homosexual Marriages" [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=162] and that sirte consistently uses <"marriage"> in this context [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=379&srch=marriage%22]
:Also, the appears to be no uniform way these searches are configured to get results that are already in quotes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::I was exploring, Rob.

::If you want to remove the second paragraph I just added to the article, on the grounds that you don't like my methodology, go ahead.

::Is your point is that the phrase should be "gay marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage," i.e. that the phrase "same-sex" was chosen to play down the word "gay?" I wasn't even looking at that. I can't speak for others, but I personally would have no objection to moving "same-sex marriage" to "gay marriage" and revising the language accordingly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==SSM as an attack on the institution of marriage==

Any legal inroads to redefining [[marriage]] from one boy and one girl can only lead to the destruction of marriage as a godly institution. Holy matrimony, which also allows the non-religious to partake, is given by God. Legal perversions, such as [[bigamy]], [[polygamy]] (for which they are raking [[Mitt Romney]] over the coals) and forced "arranged" marriages (where the girl has no choice, a kind of legalized rape), will destroy marriage if permitted.

This is part of the [[homosexual agenda]]. They don't really want to be "married" or "enjoy the benifits of marriage". The [[civil union]] already does this, allowing next of kin rights when you're in the hospital, etc. The purpose is to destroy marriage. What we need to be writing about is why and how the [[gay rights]] movement is trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I guess it has something to do with taking away the ability of pastors (and society at large) to condemn homosexuality. It's related to "[[hate speech]]" and [[hate crime]] legislation which forbid criticism of homosexuality as [[sin]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Courts are clogged enouogh with divorce and custody cases; with gay adoption, and what by first glance appears high rates of, let's call it, "extra-marital promiscuity" among homosexuals, the oft quoted 50% "divorce rate" appears to be much higher among gays. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:The "extra-marital promiscuity" amongst gays might because they can't get married, dude. And administrative convenience is no reason to abridge liberty.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I still don't understand how SSM will destro the insitution of marriage. Does two guys getting married render your own marriage null? It would be different if gays also wanted to pass a law outlawing heterosexual marriage, but last time I checked there was no such movement. Is there a serious fear that if gay marriage is made legal all the good straight Christians will suddenly catch a gay gene or something? Arguing that it is against your churches moral codes is one thing, but arguing that gays are out to destroy your entire way of life seems a little demagogic to me.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just for the record, Ed: Two weekends ago I was lunching with a lawyer—a judge, actually, who presides in a different state than ours. I was muttering something about our will. He said that "Everyone needs a lawyer three times in their life when they draw up a will, when they buy a house, and when they get a divorce." He then went on to say in a jocular way "It's just life. Sooner or later you need to shed a spouse, and when you do," etc. etc. I sort of blinked at that, and said that I thought at this point my wife and I were probably married for keeps. (And, yes, was relieved when my wife confirmed it).

:I feel that remarks like that threaten the institution of marriage more than all the civil unions in Vermont. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Paris Hilton & Britney Spears, together or separately, are greater threats to marriage than all of the gay unions possible, past present & future.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, maybe you could explain your reasoning. I can't for the life of me understand how SSM could have a negative effect on anyone else's marriage. Are you worried that those sneaky gays will trick people into marrying them who'd otherwise be marrying opposite-sex partners? I realize that's probably not actually the objection, but what is it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Snipping Wikipedia-sourced long list==
I'm removing this for three reasons. First, Wikipedia itself does not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, and neither should we... quite apart from issues of institutional rivalry. If someone wants to reinsert this, they should find the sources Wikipedia used, or do fresh research, to support the entries in the list.

Second, the topic of the article is same-sex ''marriage,'' so probably it should only mention places that allow marriage (under the same name, law, and institutional apparatus--same forms are filed, etc.--as traditional marriage.)

Third, the insertion of such a very, very, long list, including places that have only "registered partnerships" and places that are "considering" same-sex marriage, really looks tendentious to me.

In other words, the list should be limited to a) major countries (no need to mention the Netherlands Antilles) that b) allow same-sex ''marriage,'' and c) are accompanied by references. The references are important to allow the reader to verify what the country actually does or does not allow, and ensure that (say) someone doesn't say that "same-sex marriages are allowed in the United States" when they are only allowed in Massachusetts, or anything like that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

===Material removed===
Same-sex marriages are allowed in [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[South Africa]], [[Monaco]], [[Spain]], [[Cayman Islands]], [[Greenland]], [[Netherland Antilles]], [[Turks and Caicos Islands]], [[Pitcairn Island]], [[French Guiana]], [[Falkland Islands]].

[[Israel]] approves of same-sex marriages performed abroad, but does not perform them in the country.

Same-sex unions or registered partnerships are allowed in [[Hungary]] (from July 2007), [[Andorra]], [[Italy]9 (some regions), [[Luxembourg]], [[the Czech Republic]], [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[Germany]], [[Iceland]], [[Norway]], [[Portugal]], [[Slovenia]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], [[France]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Martinique]], [[Guadeloupe]], [[United States]] ([[Vermont]], [[Connecticut]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[California]], [[Maine]], [[District of Coumbia]] and [[Hawaii]]), [[Mexico]] ([[Mexico City]] and [[Coahuila]]), [[Australia]] and [[Norfolk Island]], [[New Caledonia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Brazil]] ([[Rio Grande do Sul]]), [[Argentina]] ([[Buenos Aires City]] and [[Rio Negro Privince]]).

Same-sex unions are considered in [[Hong-Kong]], [[Philippines]], [[Taiwan]], [[Austria]], [[Faroe Islands]], [[Gibraltar]], [[Greece]], [[Gernsey]], [[Ireland]], [[Isle of Man]], [[Jersey]], [[Lichtenstein]], [[Poland]], [[Bermuda]], [[Costa Rica]], [[New Caledonia]], [[Chile]], [[Colombia]], [[Uruguay]].<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world Homosexuality laws of the world at Wikipedia]</ref>

== Comments ==
I suggest also removing the last paragraph. It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter.

I am not sure it is correct to say that Mass. has same-sex marriage under the definition given in the article. Two Mass. people of the same sex can have the same Mass. legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman, but not the same under federal law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Your second comment: What did you have in mind to do about it? Qualify any statements about Massachusetts in the article, accordingly? Tweak the definition, which I don't think is quite right but didn't want to tinker with myself?

:The article currently says only that Massachusetts is "the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses."

:Or are you just pointing this out as relevant to discussions here on the talk page?

::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Here is a link to the HRC page of international marriage status. Surely that is a good enough source to re-include the list of countries that do permit it?
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENTID=26546&TEMPLATE=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=70

:Why not just add the link itself? I'd add that although I'd personally accept their information as accurate, HRC is not exactly a neutral source, and has an obvious interest in creating an impression that same-sex marriage is widespread. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:14, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

==Section on [[%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Line-drawing_and_the_.22slippery_slope.22_argument|Line-Drawing & Gay Rights]]==
(I tweaked the phrasing to read "Line-drawing and the slippery slope argument," because I think it's best to avoid the phrase "gay rights" here, as I don't think it's Conservapedian consensus that gay marriage is related to legitimate gay "rights.")

RSchlafly says "It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter." I agree. In its present form, on the face of it, it's a personal essay and unsourced opinion by [[User:SpeakerOfTheDead]]. It would not be allowed at Wikipedia.

Both paragraphs begin with weasel terms: "Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest..." and "Gay rights workers suggest..."

In order for it to be valid content in this article, SpeakerOfTheDead needs to show ''by citing sources'' that the slippery-slope argument is an important part of the same-sex marriage debate, not just a peripheral add-on.

That is, he needs to show that opponents are saying something along the lines of "The reason I oppose gay marriage is not so much because of gay marriage in itself, but because of what it could lead to." Rather than "I oppose gay marriage for these moral/religious/societal reasons, oh and by the way here's a bunch of other problems: it would also inevitably lead to legalizing bestiality, etc."

If this can't be done, I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: The problems are worse than that. The section just gives a weak version of the slippery slope argument, as if that is the most important argument against same-sex marriage. It is not. I say that the whole section should be omitted. Maybe some real arguments could be put in later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I pretty much agree with you. Too bad that RobS and SpeakerOfTheDead ''and others'' haven't weighed in. I left a note on SpeakerOfTheDead's Talk page. I would not oppose cutting the text from the article and pasting it here for discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed from article:
:Gay rights activists claim they are seeking equality.

What does "seeking equality" mean? Is it a suggestion that sexual intercourse is in the same moral category as [[race]]? That's funny, because liberals keep saying "race is a construct" and also that "homosexuality is a construct". Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?

I'd like to see an argument from gay rights advocates which says why they think two men (or two women) should be allowed to marry. We can then see whether this argument leads to the idea that a man could marry his dog (she'd be his bitch!) or that three men could marry, or that adoptive homosexual parents could give their consent to a 14-year-old girl "marrying" a lesbian woman.

What's the distinction between same-sex "marriage" and other outrages like [[bigamy]] and [[pedophilia]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed - you asked "Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?" Last time I went on a camping trip, I saw some chipmunks engaging in sexual intercourse, I saw a fish eat a crawdad, and I saw a pair of birds engaging in a real bitter fight, or a hot night of passion. Nowhere in the woods did I see a pair of animals in front of a priest, exchanging vows and rings, and dancing like idiots near the open bar. Long story short - only humans get married, because, yes, marriage is a human construct. Care to try again? --[[User:WWillis|WWillis]] 12:32, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Criticism of the "slippery-slope" argument is just an effort to denigrate the underlying argument. The first "criticism" of defenders of marriage must address the fact that these proposals upset a couple of milleniums of understanding what the idea of marraige is common to all cultures and civilizations. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: This is indeed a criticism (although I don't agree exactly about the idea of marriage being common to *all* cultures), but the same-sex marriage debate does often collapse into the slippery-slope argument. Santorum was mercifully mocked for making exactly that argument, for example. It's not the only argument, but it is a frequent argument and probably deserves some coverage here. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 13:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, once we get to current politics. But marriage itself must be defined first, and it is not defined by agenda driven activists seeking to redefine it right now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, re your question a few posts up: 2 consenting adults is maybe the most important difference between SSM and the other things you mention. In your view, aside from the anatomy, what's the distinction between SSM and "traditional" marriage? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's call it the "anti-procreationist lobby". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Not sure I understand the objection. Could you flesh it out a bit? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Dr. Dobson says,
::::::''Opponents of traditional marriage suggest legislative action to redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman simply masks the real homosexual agenda, the intent to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) '''without limiting the number of partners or their gender.'''''[http://www.conservapedia.com/%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Issues]

(undent)So it's the slippery slope argument. What's the evidence that the "real homosexual agenda" is to destroy marriage? Do you (or Dobson, or whoever) genuinely believe that the purpose of seeking to legalize same sex marriages is to allow bigamy? Sometimes a cigar is just that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Dr. Dobson says,
::''For millennia, traditional marriage has been celebrated by every culture on earth as the cornerstone of society. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws, radical feminism and a sweeping [[sexual revolution]] combined here in the United States to rip open the fabric of the family. They left it shaken and wounded. It was a growing apprehension about this situation that led me to resign from my academic position in 1977 and start a fledgling new organization called Focus on the Family. In the 26 years since, we have been working tirelessly to bolster and preserve traditional marriage and parenthood. ''[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm]
:There is nothing there that cannot be supported by evidence, and there is no reason to not take Dr. Dobson's word for what he says about his life's work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But there's nothing in there about gay people being out to destroy traditional marriage. And there is good reason not to take Dr. Dobson at his word if he does make that specific claim without evidence, although I'm sure he sincerely believes what he says. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Worldwide Laws==

Why was the section on worldwide laws on same sex marriage deleted? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 15:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:(a) the sources (b) the sources refered to 'partnerships' and 'relationships', not marriage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:23, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

=="The word's definition"==
RobS, what's your authority for the definition of the word "marriage?" I know you don't accept the dictionary, but I'd like you to cite the source for the definition you use.

And please revise the opening sentence. "Same-sex marriage" is not "also known as homosexuality." For example, homosexuality exists in all fifty states of the United States, but same-sex marriage does not. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Having received no answer, I am citing "the marriage services of Christian denominations" as a source for the definition, and specifically citing the language of the Episcopalian prayer book. I'm also noting that this definition was written into Federal law. Since marriage laws are primarily a state matter, I'm further noting that a few states permit civil unions and one allows same-sex "marriages" under that name, while noting that the Federal government does not recognize these marriages. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:43, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Line-drawing & Gay Rights" section==
I'm moving this here, because although I think it's an arguable point, this section is, as noted a few weeks ago, basically a personal essay, and since that time it hasn't been changed. It doesn't cite or quote what opponents of same-sex marriage actually say, it doesn't cite or quote what gay rights workers actually say, and so forth.

It shouldn't be reinserted unless supporting material can be added clarifying these points. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:39, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

===Material removed===
'''Line-Drawing & [[Gay Rights]]'''

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that allowing same-sex marriage will place society on a "slippery slope" towards allowing bigamy, incest, and other moral "wrongs." The argument rests on the idea that the only legal or moral "line" preventing same-sex marriage is morality, which is also the only "line" preventing acceptance of bigamy ''et all''.

Gay rights workers suggest that such argumentation downplays the danger, though, of the evils at the bottom of the slippery slope, and society's interest in preventing these evils. The state has a compelling interest in preventing bigamous relationships, which are (1) a burden on state funding, since marriage triggers social benefits and (2) have a higher incidence of spousal abuse. These "lines" are not predicated on morality, but on facts. Similarly, incest is an evil that society has a factual interest in preventing, since incestual relationships often (1) entail abuse, and (2) result in unhealthy offspring. Since there are non-moral reasons to reject both of these "horribles", gay rights workers insist that acceptance of same-sex marriage (by abrogation of a legitimate state interest in preserving "morality") does not entail acceptance of bigamy or incest.

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2007-08-06T20:49:53Z

Gbjxc: /* Discussion */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

==Discussion==
A few problems with this. It's not exclusive to men, and Bush has pretty much given up on the Constitutional amendment. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*There are a ''lot'' of problems with this, which I've just tried to fix. The previous article seemed to be mixing up legal marriage and religious marriage. It implied that the President can amend the Constitution. etc. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Isn't this already kinda covered at [[Homosexuality#Homosexuality and Marriage]]? Maybe we should import content from that section and then link from there to a fleshed-out article here, or flesh out the section there with whatever may come up here. In either way, some kind of synchronization would be of benefit in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

'''Hey Colin''' what was wrong with Ed poor's version? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:For starters, this sentence was in the first paragraph: "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"." (no citation) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, I protected my first page. I am now a total Wikipedia pariah, since I used editorial power to 'win' an edit war. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone can provide a citation for "Very few homosexuals want to "marry" each other; the immediate intent is to remove the stigma of being called a "fornicator"," I will relent on reverting this back. Do note that I was originally reverting to Aschlafly's version, now I am reverting to a modified Ed Poor version (Aschlafly's first paragraph, the rest Ed's). [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I had alrady removed the refrence to their intent. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:01, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:It still included "very few want to marry each other" which is either a lie or an uncited fact, neither of which are allowed on Conservapedia. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, lets remove that sentence altogether. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's also "has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality," which is opinion. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What was wrong with the sentence I added to the 1st paragraph? It was hardly bad enough for the rollback button. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The rollback button is easier to use, my apologies. I doubt the truth of that sentence, but if that is the case, then surely a citation for it won't be hard to find. If you can't find one, I have no problem saying, "Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)." This sentence isn't biased, doesn't have as much of a need for a citation (if one at all) and includes more viewpoints than the earlier sentence. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is fine except for one thing which I fixed. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The sentence "...because the marriage services of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman" contains a factual error. It should be corrected to "'''some''' Christian denominations"; many denominations of the UCC, for example, conduct same-sex services.

== Edit war ==
Under the section about domestic violence, the word "survey" is mis-spelt. As the text has been locked, I wonder if one of the Sysops could fix it? [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Colin's version: accurate and uncontroversial. Ed's version: contentious. Therefore, the current version should remain until this issue is resolved. As sysops, we should be setting an example and sorting this out through discussion. Are we agreed? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with Tsumetai and have reverted all but one of my changes. I think I was too 'bold' here. Thanks for everyone's mild response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Agree re: 'contentious', 'until resolved' & esp. 'setting an example', that is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I was only referring to the one paragraph, but OK. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
==Let us parley==
Okay...instead of the edit war-ette, let us hash it out here.
I don't have an ax to grind here so you can count me as a neutral "referee" (bribes <nowiki>and plastic</nowiki>accepted).[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marriage as a right ==

*"Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin)."

This is complex. It entails the idea that (1) marriage is a right and (2) homosexuals should have '[[equal rights]]'. It involves the idea that (3) the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is 'merely a claim' rather than 'objective truth'.

Maybe we should lay all cards on the table. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a very clear one. Yes, the Old Testament considers it an abomination, but the old testament also says quite a few other things are abominations or illegal that we consider okay today. Moreover, the old testament is somewhat irrelevant to Christianity as only the New Testament really matters. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You are wrong here, see the passage from the book of Romans, that i quoted below. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The passage from Romans indicates that homosexuality MIGHT be a consequence of idolatry and THAT a God goven consequence.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::lol, now we must add the view that (4) 'only the New Testament really matters' to the list. How tall will this [[house of cards]] become? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not saying "only it matters," but clearly many of the Old Testament laws were deemed unnecessary; I mean, you don't keep kosher do you? And who's to say which laws can be dropped and which must be kept? (obviously I can see the need to keep the 10 commandments, as they even help live a Christ-like life) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Colin: you're not old enough to remember but years ago many states had what were called "blue laws" that made it illegal for business to be conducted on Sunday, (you could OPEN your place if business, that was okay, but you couldn't make any transactions). The effect was that people would do all of their shopping on Saturday. You couldn't get GASOLINE on Sunday! 1 out of ten stations were open. Nevermind "homosexuals" they didn't even get close to being mentioned when you could talk about "Sabbath breakers" all day. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Oh, but I am old enough to remember said blue laws, and to an extent some blue laws are still in place where I live. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh yeah, I failed to recall you live in the "land that time forgot". [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:::::::Hahaha, yeah, that's rural Tennessee. :-P [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Personally i don't beleive that '''''anything''''' from the old testament is nulified unless it is nulified explicitly in the new testament, e.g. the eating of unclean animals-- I love bacon :) -- The new testament does seem pretty hostile to homosexuality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:So no polyester/cotton blend shirts for you, eh?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Who says so?==
:Some argue that giving equal rights to gays has the actual result of destroying the sanctity of marriage and justifying homosexuality (which they claim Bible condemns as sin). <ref>leviticus 20:13</ref>

*The reference (to Leviticus) would certainly support a statement that "Jewish religious law condemns the practice of male homosexual acts." And, yes, a suitable New Testament reference would broaden this. I don't remember the passage in Romans offhand.

**Romans 1:24-28
::<blockquote>
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that thier bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do these things which are not proper,
</blockquote>
::so yes, the bible is clear on this. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 10:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't want to get into a game of "dueling Scriptures" but if a passage starts out with a "therefore" it ought to include what the "therefore" is there for. Hence:
:::Romans Chapter 1: 21-23(RSV). 21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.22Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

:::This would indicate, that the sin of homosexuality is begotten from the parent sin of idolatry.
:::So the Bible is "clear" about idolatry being '''''bad''''', (look what it's gets you!), but not all homosexuals are idolaters, are they? [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
*The reference certainly does not state that giving equal legal rights to male couples has any affect on the spiritual condition of couples bound by the Christian sacrament of holy matrimony.

*The reference does not support the statement that "some argue" this. Probably some do, but it is important to have a good reference here, because without it the reader can't tell ''why'' "some" would say this, or what their argument for such a position is.

Something like this can certainly go in the article, but not as a weaseled "some argue" that does not give any traceable link to ''who'' makes this argument and ''what'' their argument would be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not see this sentence or anything similar to it even in the article, but I felt this was the best version to convey the particular sentiment. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 09:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, I'd '''rather''' not see it in the article myself, but that's a different issue... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Dpbsmith that we should avoid weasel-worded statemints. Traceable links are useful and often essential.

I agree with Colin that we must not lie! Uncited facts can be a problem, but anything that's true should be pretty easy to find a citation for.
::(Unsigned comments by [[User:Ed Poor]])

What needs to be shown is that this is a) a reasonably widely-held position, and b) what the stated basis of that position is. Should it go in the article just because BenjaminS and his brother hold this position? Or is it a formal position taken in a paper published by some organization like (say) Focus on the Family? Or is there a Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans hold this position? It matters. And, frankly, as should be clear, I think this sort of material should go in the article ''after'' it's supported, not before. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)



==References==

<references/>

== In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals. vs Poll data ==

: In general, it is opposed by social conservatives, and most of the support for it is from liberals.
Poll data can be found at [http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html]
{|border=1
! 
!Legal
!Illegal
!Amend Constitution
!Leave to the States
|-
|All
|41%
|55
|38
|58
|-
|Men
|38
|59
|39
|58
|-
|Women
|45
|51
|38
|59
|-
|18-29
|55
|42
|32
|67
|-
|65+
|21
|75
|44
|50
|-
|Democrats
|50
|46
|35
|61
|-
|Independents
|47
|50
|38
|60
|-
|Republicans
|24
|72
|43
|52
|-
|Liberal
|69
|27
|28
|67
|-
|Moderate
|44
|52
|30
|68
|-
|Conservative
|20
|77
|55
|42
|-
|Evangelical
|17
|81
|58
|38
|-
|Non-evangelical
|42
|55
|30
|67
|-
|No religion
|66
|26
|19
|78
|-
|East
|48
|46
|36
|63
|-
|Midwest
|40
|56
|42
|53
|-
|South
|35
|63
|42
|55
|-
|West
|49
|48
|30
|66
|-
|Married
|35
|61
|41
|55
|-
|Not Married
|49
|48
|36
|62
|}

Outside of the Liberal and Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections, support is fairly much split down the middle (do realize the large overlap between the Republicans, Conservative and Evangelical sections). I find the original claim faulty - most of the support is not from the liberals (though they support it the most). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Not an oxymoron, etc. ==

I changed:
:'''Same-sex marriage''' is an oxymoronic phrase that depicts two people of the same sex attempting to gain the same legal status afforded to men and women.
to
:A '''same-sex marriage''' is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that has the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman. Some regard the phrase as self-contradictory because they do not regard it as a true marriage.

It's not an oxymoron, because it's not a figure of speech made for rhetorical emphasis. In recent years a form of humor has arisen which consists of describing a phrase as an "oxymoron," causing the hearer to do a double-take as he gets the comic interpretation, e.g. "Government organization--that's an oxymoron." But this is not yet accepted as a real meaning for the word, although in a few years it may be. "Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron" could be a joke, but it is not a proper statement either of a fact or of an opinion.

Seconding, "attempting to gain the same legal status" is inaccurate, because same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries and one state of the United States, and these couples do have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex. (And couples joined in civil unions in states that have them have the same legal status as married couples of the opposite sex.)

To suggest that, from a ''legal'' point of view, same-sex marriages do not yet exist is to deny a plain reality. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:16, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:The word "marriage" means a man & woman. There is no other meaning to the word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, please stop the business of stating flatly that what RobS thinks a word ought to mean is what the word means. It's a special case of stating that whatever RobS believes must be true.

::"Marriage" is often short for ''Christian marriage,'' which takes place in a church, is officiated by a clergyman, is ordained by God, and is between a man and a woman; but there ''is'' another meaning to the word. ''it can also'' refer to the civil contract, which grants certain legal rights and is officiated by some kind of state official--most clergyman are also state officials--and is governed by state law.

::The marriages between same-sex couples that take place in Massachusetts are "marriages."

::The changes you made are a presentation of your personal opinion, and are not appropriate when stated as fact.

::As for the word "oxymoron," I've substituted "ludicrous self-contradiction."

::P. S. I would like to see some examples that show that the use of "same-sex marriage" within quotation marks is a widespread, standard usage by conservatives. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And yet millions of people feel otherwise. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:Among those millions are the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary:
::1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/M0120200.html]
:and those of Merriam-Webster:
::a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
::2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
::3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage]

:Believe me, I check the dictionary about a dozen times for every time I actually quote it, and I wish other contributors would do the same. Whenever I'm not really sure what the nuances or range of meaning of a word are, I check. There are many words whose meanings I ''think'' I know that, it turns out, I don't really know. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I consider the "oxymoron" PoV to be discredited.
:This is the second time its been stated, dictionaries ''do not'' give definitions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

*"'Same-sex marriage' is an oxymoron" is an incorrect use of the word ''oxymoron.''
*"'Same-sex marriage' is a ludicrous self-contradiction" is correct usage, but inaccurate.
*"Some conservatives consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction" is accurate, but should be sourced.
*"Because the editors of Conservapedia consider 'same-sex marriage' to be a ludicrous self-contradiction, the term will be used in quotation marks throughout this article" is something that could be worth discussion. '''I'd''' accept this if a) it really is the Conservapedia consensus opinion and b) the article identifies it as such. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Usage by conservative sources ==

Of the first hundred Google [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.nationalreview.com+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 search of the National Review], ninety-eight of them simply use the term without quotation marks. This includes a [http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200503160748.asp 2005 editorial]. One [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george_tubbs200411010830.asp anti-Kerry article] uses the phrase ''same-sex marriage'' without quotation marks numerous times, but uses ''same-sex "marriage"'' twice, I'm not quite sure why. [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bradley200401220909.asp one other] uses the phrase ''Massachusetts same-sex "marriage"''. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.family.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Focus on the Family] consistently uses ''Same-sex 'marriage''' and ''same-sex "marriage"''. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.eagleforum.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Eagle Forum] uses ''same-sex marriage,'' no quotation marks, 99 times, and [http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/june06/pro-family.html same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts] once. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:www.cc.org+%22same-sex+marriage%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Christian Coalition]: 99 usages without quotation marks, [http://www.cc.org/archives/culture/index.html one with]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:How come when I click on these Google results I get these,
*2812 results from NRO for <marraige"> [http://search.nationalreview.com/?q=marriage%22&s=&sdate=&edate=]
*Dr. Dobson specifically refers to "same-sex marraige" and "gay marriage" in an article entitled, ''Marriage on the Ropes'', where the word ''marriage'' occurs 90+ times. [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm]
*CC first result: California's Supreme Court Overturns San Francisco "Homosexual Marriages" [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=162] and that sirte consistently uses <"marriage"> in this context [http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=379&srch=marriage%22]
:Also, the appears to be no uniform way these searches are configured to get results that are already in quotes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::I was exploring, Rob.

::If you want to remove the second paragraph I just added to the article, on the grounds that you don't like my methodology, go ahead.

::Is your point is that the phrase should be "gay marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage," i.e. that the phrase "same-sex" was chosen to play down the word "gay?" I wasn't even looking at that. I can't speak for others, but I personally would have no objection to moving "same-sex marriage" to "gay marriage" and revising the language accordingly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==SSM as an attack on the institution of marriage==

Any legal inroads to redefining [[marriage]] from one boy and one girl can only lead to the destruction of marriage as a godly institution. Holy matrimony, which also allows the non-religious to partake, is given by God. Legal perversions, such as [[bigamy]], [[polygamy]] (for which they are raking [[Mitt Romney]] over the coals) and forced "arranged" marriages (where the girl has no choice, a kind of legalized rape), will destroy marriage if permitted.

This is part of the [[homosexual agenda]]. They don't really want to be "married" or "enjoy the benifits of marriage". The [[civil union]] already does this, allowing next of kin rights when you're in the hospital, etc. The purpose is to destroy marriage. What we need to be writing about is why and how the [[gay rights]] movement is trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I guess it has something to do with taking away the ability of pastors (and society at large) to condemn homosexuality. It's related to "[[hate speech]]" and [[hate crime]] legislation which forbid criticism of homosexuality as [[sin]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Courts are clogged enouogh with divorce and custody cases; with gay adoption, and what by first glance appears high rates of, let's call it, "extra-marital promiscuity" among homosexuals, the oft quoted 50% "divorce rate" appears to be much higher among gays. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:The "extra-marital promiscuity" amongst gays might because they can't get married, dude. And administrative convenience is no reason to abridge liberty.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I still don't understand how SSM will destro the insitution of marriage. Does two guys getting married render your own marriage null? It would be different if gays also wanted to pass a law outlawing heterosexual marriage, but last time I checked there was no such movement. Is there a serious fear that if gay marriage is made legal all the good straight Christians will suddenly catch a gay gene or something? Arguing that it is against your churches moral codes is one thing, but arguing that gays are out to destroy your entire way of life seems a little demagogic to me.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Just for the record, Ed: Two weekends ago I was lunching with a lawyer—a judge, actually, who presides in a different state than ours. I was muttering something about our will. He said that "Everyone needs a lawyer three times in their life when they draw up a will, when they buy a house, and when they get a divorce." He then went on to say in a jocular way "It's just life. Sooner or later you need to shed a spouse, and when you do," etc. etc. I sort of blinked at that, and said that I thought at this point my wife and I were probably married for keeps. (And, yes, was relieved when my wife confirmed it).

:I feel that remarks like that threaten the institution of marriage more than all the civil unions in Vermont. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Paris Hilton & Britney Spears, together or separately, are greater threats to marriage than all of the gay unions possible, past present & future.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, maybe you could explain your reasoning. I can't for the life of me understand how SSM could have a negative effect on anyone else's marriage. Are you worried that those sneaky gays will trick people into marrying them who'd otherwise be marrying opposite-sex partners? I realize that's probably not actually the objection, but what is it? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Snipping Wikipedia-sourced long list==
I'm removing this for three reasons. First, Wikipedia itself does not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, and neither should we... quite apart from issues of institutional rivalry. If someone wants to reinsert this, they should find the sources Wikipedia used, or do fresh research, to support the entries in the list.

Second, the topic of the article is same-sex ''marriage,'' so probably it should only mention places that allow marriage (under the same name, law, and institutional apparatus--same forms are filed, etc.--as traditional marriage.)

Third, the insertion of such a very, very, long list, including places that have only "registered partnerships" and places that are "considering" same-sex marriage, really looks tendentious to me.

In other words, the list should be limited to a) major countries (no need to mention the Netherlands Antilles) that b) allow same-sex ''marriage,'' and c) are accompanied by references. The references are important to allow the reader to verify what the country actually does or does not allow, and ensure that (say) someone doesn't say that "same-sex marriages are allowed in the United States" when they are only allowed in Massachusetts, or anything like that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

===Material removed===
Same-sex marriages are allowed in [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[South Africa]], [[Monaco]], [[Spain]], [[Cayman Islands]], [[Greenland]], [[Netherland Antilles]], [[Turks and Caicos Islands]], [[Pitcairn Island]], [[French Guiana]], [[Falkland Islands]].

[[Israel]] approves of same-sex marriages performed abroad, but does not perform them in the country.

Same-sex unions or registered partnerships are allowed in [[Hungary]] (from July 2007), [[Andorra]], [[Italy]9 (some regions), [[Luxembourg]], [[the Czech Republic]], [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[Germany]], [[Iceland]], [[Norway]], [[Portugal]], [[Slovenia]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], [[France]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Martinique]], [[Guadeloupe]], [[United States]] ([[Vermont]], [[Connecticut]], [[Massachusetts]], [[New Jersey]], [[California]], [[Maine]], [[District of Coumbia]] and [[Hawaii]]), [[Mexico]] ([[Mexico City]] and [[Coahuila]]), [[Australia]] and [[Norfolk Island]], [[New Caledonia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Brazil]] ([[Rio Grande do Sul]]), [[Argentina]] ([[Buenos Aires City]] and [[Rio Negro Privince]]).

Same-sex unions are considered in [[Hong-Kong]], [[Philippines]], [[Taiwan]], [[Austria]], [[Faroe Islands]], [[Gibraltar]], [[Greece]], [[Gernsey]], [[Ireland]], [[Isle of Man]], [[Jersey]], [[Lichtenstein]], [[Poland]], [[Bermuda]], [[Costa Rica]], [[New Caledonia]], [[Chile]], [[Colombia]], [[Uruguay]].<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world Homosexuality laws of the world at Wikipedia]</ref>

== Comments ==
I suggest also removing the last paragraph. It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter.

I am not sure it is correct to say that Mass. has same-sex marriage under the definition given in the article. Two Mass. people of the same sex can have the same Mass. legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman, but not the same under federal law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Your second comment: What did you have in mind to do about it? Qualify any statements about Massachusetts in the article, accordingly? Tweak the definition, which I don't think is quite right but didn't want to tinker with myself?

:The article currently says only that Massachusetts is "the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses."

:Or are you just pointing this out as relevant to discussions here on the talk page?

::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Here is a link to the HRC page of international marriage status. Surely that is a good enough source to re-include the list of countries that do permit it?
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENTID=26546&TEMPLATE=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=70

:Why not just add the link itself? I'd add that although I'd personally accept their information as accurate, HRC is not exactly a neutral source, and has an obvious interest in creating an impression that same-sex marriage is widespread. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:14, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

==Section on [[%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Line-drawing_and_the_.22slippery_slope.22_argument|Line-Drawing & Gay Rights]]==
(I tweaked the phrasing to read "Line-drawing and the slippery slope argument," because I think it's best to avoid the phrase "gay rights" here, as I don't think it's Conservapedian consensus that gay marriage is related to legitimate gay "rights.")

RSchlafly says "It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter." I agree. In its present form, on the face of it, it's a personal essay and unsourced opinion by [[User:SpeakerOfTheDead]]. It would not be allowed at Wikipedia.

Both paragraphs begin with weasel terms: "Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest..." and "Gay rights workers suggest..."

In order for it to be valid content in this article, SpeakerOfTheDead needs to show ''by citing sources'' that the slippery-slope argument is an important part of the same-sex marriage debate, not just a peripheral add-on.

That is, he needs to show that opponents are saying something along the lines of "The reason I oppose gay marriage is not so much because of gay marriage in itself, but because of what it could lead to." Rather than "I oppose gay marriage for these moral/religious/societal reasons, oh and by the way here's a bunch of other problems: it would also inevitably lead to legalizing bestiality, etc."

If this can't be done, I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: The problems are worse than that. The section just gives a weak version of the slippery slope argument, as if that is the most important argument against same-sex marriage. It is not. I say that the whole section should be omitted. Maybe some real arguments could be put in later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I pretty much agree with you. Too bad that RobS and SpeakerOfTheDead ''and others'' haven't weighed in. I left a note on SpeakerOfTheDead's Talk page. I would not oppose cutting the text from the article and pasting it here for discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed from article:
:Gay rights activists claim they are seeking equality.

What does "seeking equality" mean? Is it a suggestion that sexual intercourse is in the same moral category as [[race]]? That's funny, because liberals keep saying "race is a construct" and also that "homosexuality is a construct". Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?

I'd like to see an argument from gay rights advocates which says why they think two men (or two women) should be allowed to marry. We can then see whether this argument leads to the idea that a man could marry his dog (she'd be his bitch!) or that three men could marry, or that adoptive homosexual parents could give their consent to a 14-year-old girl "marrying" a lesbian woman.

What's the distinction between same-sex "marriage" and other outrages like [[bigamy]] and [[pedophilia]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed - you asked "Are they saying that marriage is just a human invention too?" Last time I went on a camping trip, I saw some chipmunks engaging in sexual intercourse, I saw a fish eat a crawdad, and I saw a pair of birds engaging in a real bitter fight, or a hot night of passion. Nowhere in the woods did I see a pair of animals in front of a priest, exchanging vows and rings, and dancing like idiots near the open bar. Long story short - only humans get married, because, yes, marriage is a human construct. Care to try again? --[[User:WWillis|WWillis]] 12:32, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Criticism of the "slippery-slope" argument is just an effort to denigrate the underlying argument. The first "criticism" of defenders of marriage must address the fact that these proposals upset a couple of milleniums of understanding what the idea of marraige is common to all cultures and civilizations. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: This is indeed a criticism (although I don't agree exactly about the idea of marriage being common to *all* cultures), but the same-sex marriage debate does often collapse into the slippery-slope argument. Santorum was mercifully mocked for making exactly that argument, for example. It's not the only argument, but it is a frequent argument and probably deserves some coverage here. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 13:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, once we get to current politics. But marriage itself must be defined first, and it is not defined by agenda driven activists seeking to redefine it right now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, re your question a few posts up: 2 consenting adults is maybe the most important difference between SSM and the other things you mention. In your view, aside from the anatomy, what's the distinction between SSM and "traditional" marriage? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's call it the "anti-procreationist lobby". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Not sure I understand the objection. Could you flesh it out a bit? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Dr. Dobson says,
::::::''Opponents of traditional marriage suggest legislative action to redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman simply masks the real homosexual agenda, the intent to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) '''without limiting the number of partners or their gender.'''''[http://www.conservapedia.com/%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Issues]

(undent)So it's the slippery slope argument. What's the evidence that the "real homosexual agenda" is to destroy marriage? Do you (or Dobson, or whoever) genuinely believe that the purpose of seeking to legalize same sex marriages is to allow bigamy? Sometimes a cigar is just that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:Dr. Dobson says,
::''For millennia, traditional marriage has been celebrated by every culture on earth as the cornerstone of society. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws, radical feminism and a sweeping [[sexual revolution]] combined here in the United States to rip open the fabric of the family. They left it shaken and wounded. It was a growing apprehension about this situation that led me to resign from my academic position in 1977 and start a fledgling new organization called Focus on the Family. In the 26 years since, we have been working tirelessly to bolster and preserve traditional marriage and parenthood. ''[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm]
:There is nothing there that cannot be supported by evidence, and there is no reason to not take Dr. Dobson's word for what he says about his life's work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But there's nothing in there about gay people being out to destroy traditional marriage. And there is good reason not to take Dr. Dobson at his word if he does make that specific claim without evidence, although I'm sure he sincerely believes what he says. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Worldwide Laws==

Why was the section on worldwide laws on same sex marriage deleted? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 15:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:(a) the sources (b) the sources refered to 'partnerships' and 'relationships', not marriage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:23, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

=="The word's definition"==
RobS, what's your authority for the definition of the word "marriage?" I know you don't accept the dictionary, but I'd like you to cite the source for the definition you use.

And please revise the opening sentence. "Same-sex marriage" is not "also known as homosexuality." For example, homosexuality exists in all fifty states of the United States, but same-sex marriage does not. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Having received no answer, I am citing "the marriage services of Christian denominations" as a source for the definition, and specifically citing the language of the Episcopalian prayer book. I'm also noting that this definition was written into Federal law. Since marriage laws are primarily a state matter, I'm further noting that a few states permit civil unions and one allows same-sex "marriages" under that name, while noting that the Federal government does not recognize these marriages. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:43, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

=="Line-drawing & Gay Rights" section==
I'm moving this here, because although I think it's an arguable point, this section is, as noted a few weeks ago, basically a personal essay, and since that time it hasn't been changed. It doesn't cite or quote what opponents of same-sex marriage actually say, it doesn't cite or quote what gay rights workers actually say, and so forth.

It shouldn't be reinserted unless supporting material can be added clarifying these points. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:39, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

===Material removed===
'''Line-Drawing & [[Gay Rights]]'''

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that allowing same-sex marriage will place society on a "slippery slope" towards allowing bigamy, incest, and other moral "wrongs." The argument rests on the idea that the only legal or moral "line" preventing same-sex marriage is morality, which is also the only "line" preventing acceptance of bigamy ''et all''.

Gay rights workers suggest that such argumentation downplays the danger, though, of the evils at the bottom of the slippery slope, and society's interest in preventing these evils. The state has a compelling interest in preventing bigamous relationships, which are (1) a burden on state funding, since marriage triggers social benefits and (2) have a higher incidence of spousal abuse. These "lines" are not predicated on morality, but on facts. Similarly, incest is an evil that society has a factual interest in preventing, since incestual relationships often (1) entail abuse, and (2) result in unhealthy offspring. Since there are non-moral reasons to reject both of these "horribles", gay rights workers insist that acceptance of same-sex marriage (by abrogation of a legitimate state interest in preserving "morality") does not entail acceptance of bigamy or incest.