![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The current opener is "Same-sex marriage is a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage"... which makes this sound like a weak dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia one. We don't start biography section saying "Charles M. Schulz is a name used to identify the man who created the comic strip which is identified by the term 'Peanuts'." I say let's kill the phrase "term used to describe a", leaving "Same-sex marriage is legally or socially recognized marriage..." -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
While the article talks about same sex marriages globally, how it is viewed in different religions, societies, etc., it doesn't make mention of the effects of same sex marriages on immigration in different countries (legal aspect). Care to contribute? Thanks. -- Weekeejames ( talk) 11:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The second sentence is a bit of an odd duck. "Other terms used to describe this type of recognition include gay marriage or gender-neutral marriage." Gender-neutral marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage; it is rather the legal inclusion of both same-sex and mixed-sex marriage without differentiation. This would be better handled by making the opening sentence "Same-sex marriage' (also referred to as gay marriage) is..." and then either eliminating the second sentence or replacing it with "Jurisdictions that do not distinguish between same-sex and mixed-sex marriage are said to have gender-neutral marriage (also known as marriage equality)." -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The section that was on effects on the "whole economy" was only on the US and jurisdictions within the US. I've now labeled it as such. Ideally, it should be fleshed out with pieces on economic effects in other nations; barring that, we may want to reduce it, shuttling off to Same-sex marriage in the U.S. any bits that aren't already there, and just including a summary and/or a see-also link. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss editing of the article, not one's belief about the "gay mafia", nor to protect children. If poster gets some reliable sources, he is welcome to edit the appropriate article.
-- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why has the section of genetic implications of gay marriage on children been deleted - Achieved (non visible) Obviously the gay mafia run wiki - that's very sad and points to corruption. I gave money to this site thinking wiki was for FREEDOM OF SPEECH but obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions. Freedom of speech died today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.132.47 ( talk) 08:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions" - I'm sorry, do you have any evidence for that statement or is this just another personal opinion that has no validity or basis whatsoever? The problem with some editors, like yourself, is they don't want to do their homework, and when they do do their homework they don't like what they find, so they do the next best thing and that's victimize themselves into thinking there's some violation of speech, when the only thing being violated is ignorance. Look at the "ancient history" discussion, we we're debating over a single word and look at the sources, research, time, and effort that was put into place. We didn't just cross our arms and pout when people disagreed. -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to the protection of children NO comments should be Archived!, which my comments were very quickly. Which points to strong gay mafia bias on this site. As to source, how many sources do you need for genetic inheritance? Even a 5 year old child knows about inheritance. But any excuse to stop the truth from being told, another example of gay bias on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.65.13 ( talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
I had edited the legal and judicial section by adding:
From a strictly legal standpoint the Burden of proof lies with the party laying charges or wanting a change. In the case of same-sex marriage or same-sex parenting that burden lies with the proponents.
It was removed with the comment that the same could be said about interracial marriage.
My response: So? Yes it could, but correct scientific study would not have found sufficient harm of it to legally prevent its occurrence. I do not believe your objection warrants the removal of the link. At the most, you may be justified in removing my second sentence. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Very well, it appears then that all I must do is find an authoritative source on how the burden of proof in this case rests on proponents of same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As I say below- perhaps my arguments are more fitting in another article. But Same-sex marriage has not always existed in U.S. law, nor in British law from which it is largely derived. U.S. law, nor that of most countries would expect proof that something has never existed as a reason why it should not exist now. The burden of proof would (often) lay with those seeking the change from existing law- which in most places is that same-sex marriage is not legalized. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Then those questions of appropriateness should be brought up. But yeh, perhaps it would better fit in the article Same-sex marriage in the U.S. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
I am not trying to debate semantics on the word marriage. In almost every civil case the burden of proof belongs to those seeking a change in law. Yes, the argument could be used against black and women voting, and it was, and it was shown by common sense and most likely some study that it would not cause harm. The burden of proof in U.S. likewise rests most likely with the plaintiff/ those seeking relief aka those seeking same-sex marriage. (See below).
Proof of what? of not causing a net harm to the population of course, in mental health, physical health, the effect on the beliefs of the population as a whole if they lead to an increase in things that have been proven to be detrimental to society like increased divorce rates (which some studies have shown increase when same-sex unions or marriage are recognized by the state, while others have shown the opposite) etc, and in the development of children.
"In Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), the United States Supreme Court stated: “There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.’” For support, the Court cited 9 John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 2486, at 275 (3d ed. 1940). In Keyes, the Supreme Court held that if “school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system,” the burden of persuasion shifts to the school to prove that it did not engaged in such discrimination in other segregated schools in the same system.
In Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994), the Supreme Court explained that burden of proof is ambiguous because it has historically referred to two distinct burdens: the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production.
The Supreme Court discussed how courts should allocate the burden of proof (i.e., the burden of persuasion) in Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005). The Supreme Court explained that if a statute is silent about the burden of persuasion, the court will “begin with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims.” In support of this proposition, the Court cited 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 337, 412 (5th ed. 1999), which states:
The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. At the same time, the Supreme Court also recognized “The ordinary default rule, of course, admits of exceptions.” “For example, the burden of persuasion as to certain elements of a plaintiff's claim may be shifted to defendants, when such elements can fairly be characterized as affirmative defenses or exemptions. See, e.g., FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1948). Under some circumstances this Court has even placed the burden of persuasion over an entire claim on the defendant. See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004).” Nonetheless, “[a]bsent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, therefore, [the Supreme Court] will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.” ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
I already agreed that that article is where this information belongs (please read full discussions before posting). However, I desired to continue the debate here for the time-being because I would likely face similar opposition on many points (from perhaps some of the same people), were I to post it there. ( MatLocke ( talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
Wrong, huh? And yet, what evidence has been supplied that has not been sufficiently refuted, (or admitted in a couple cases). Irrelevant to this article (in this case)- ok, but that is different than wrong. David has convinced me to move this conversation to the other article though- should I leave what we have already discussed here or should I delete it? ( MatLocke ( talk) 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
I have posted the following information (not thinking beforehand to discuss it here as this is my first wikipedia edit) but will edit further if new information or problems with it come up.
I realize that some of the information more directly relates to homosexuality, but as the effects of homosexual behavior is a key concern over same-sex marriage, I thought it important to include them in the article. It does have great bearing on the subject.
If you have problems with my edits I wish you would delete the parts you specifically have cause against instead of deleting all the information.
Physical Health Edit
A study done by Hogg and Strathdee in a major urban center in Canada found that the life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8-20 years less than for all men, and that if the same patterns were to continue, nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. [1] Studies by the CDC have declared that the sole, or potential cause of more than seventy percent of all AIDS cases that have been reported in the United States from the first case through 2004 is male homosexual behavior. And that of the 402,722 cumulative AIDS cases reported through 2004, 55% involved the single mode of exposure of men who had sex with men. [2] Extensive medical evidence supports greater rates of other medical disease among homosexuals as well, including 10 times the rate of anal cancer infection in homosexual males compared to heterosexual males, hemorrhoids, penile edema and others. And in Lesbians leading to higher rates of hepatitis B & C, bacterial vaginosis, heavy cigarette smoking, intravenous drug use and abuse of alcohol. [3]
Here is my edit on the Mental Health section- it includes all the previous parts of the article.
Recently, several psychological studies [4] [5] [6] have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.
One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse. [7]
Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis. [8]
Ferguson, Horwood, and Beautrais conducted research and concluded that “Gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression...generalized anxiety disorder...conduct disorder...nicotine dependence...multiple disorders...suicidal ideation...suicide attempts.” [9]
Other researchers claim that the idea that this is the result of social pressures is unlikely because the study was replicated in The Netherlands with similar, more robust results. [10]
Researchers have concluded that lesbians have a much higher rate of substance abuse disorders during their lifetime as well as a higher prevalence of mood disorders. [11] [12]
There are also higher rates of sexual molestation reported in the history of homosexuals. One study found that 46% of gay men and 22% of lesbians were sexually abused as children compared to 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women. The study also found that 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not self-identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation. [13]
There are also significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. [14]
Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity. [15] [16]
Other studies have shown that the civilizing effects of marriage that lead to lower crime rates among men, spending more time with relatives than friends, and working longer hours, [17]as well as being less promiscuous and less likely to abuse alcohol, [18] [19]was not an artifact of selection [20]and is a result of gender complementarity. [21] [22] [23]
After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage, Gregory M. Herek claims that the data [24] indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Herek concludes that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships. [24]
Critics claim that many such studies claiming no difference in children raised by homosexual parents, compared to heterosexual parents, primarily compared children who were conceived in a heterosexual relationship whose mothers later divorced and self-identified as lesbians, and that these children were the ones compared to divorced, heterosexual, mother-headed families. [25]
Other research and review has been done that also claim these studies showing no difference suffered from methodological flaws, in addition to not dealing adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious correlation. [26] [27] [28] [29]
Yet other research has demonstrated that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two bilogical parents in a low-conflict marriage...and that there is value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents [30], while other research has focused on how dual gender parenting and child-rearing is crucial to healthy child development. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
Studies have also been conducted on the importance of gender identification in children and found that parenting can derail biological priming. [45] [46] ( MatLocke ( talk) 03:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Admittedly, there is a difference. That does not mean the information is not pertinent to the topic. Perhaps I should create a new section on science based objections to Same-sex marriage?
Also, if you wish I can remove citations from A. Dean Byrd, despite the fact that there are many other social scientists and psychologists- including now the doctor who was most responsible for the APA's removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder) who have shown that such conversion therapy can work.
In regards to the sources on fatherless households- it pertains to same-sex couple childrearing. I believe I should move this to a different article. However, there is information currently in the article section on mental health that deals with the effects on children but is allowed in because of the mention of marriage bestowing substantial psychological, social, and health benefits- which is another topic entirely, and one addressed also in some of the sources I cited. ( MatLocke ( talk) 04:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
First, they are not mere claims, they are supported by scientific evidence. And as I said above- information on homosexuality is very important to the issue of same-sex marriage and it's legalization. To claim that much of my material is 'bunk' is an unjustifiable position when you certainly have not had the time to find and read the sources. Your point on the Hogg and Strathdee study being outdated is well taken- that is why we have editing- therefore it would have been more fair to have edited my edit with this newer information than for someone to delete it all. Overall- Aids, and perhaps even all of the physical health data is not as crucial to the topic. Therefore I now see no need to include it in the article on Same-sex marriage. ( MatLocke ( talk) 04:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Alright, I will attempt to spell it out (in regards to the mental health data- as I have already said I am willing to remove the physical health data) (though if you had actually read what I pointed to above with the 'very important' quote, you would have seen a little more relevancy shown). Same-sex marriage legalization is a controversial subject- yes? It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values. One side claims that Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it creates a government incentive and promotion of homosexual relations, and because it then leads to an increase in same-sex parenting. (You may claim that sexual orientation is strictly biological and that government legalization would have no effect- but I, and many others, could argue the other way. However I personally do believe there is a genetic factor involved.) Thus the utilitarian issue of harm enters the picture. Therefore, any evidence concerning the harm of same-sex relationships, or same-sex parenting, becomes a deciding factor in the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Also, the chance that you have had opportunity to read all, or even most of the studies I have posted is astronomical. If you had indeed done so you would likely provide detailed analysis of the methodological flaws that make them 'bunk.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't say you hadn't read some of them, or that you haven't had time to read a few more. But this new information is very helpful- please continue to provide such refutations so that the article can include only those which are accurate. I am going to read that article now. But what is your response on the relevancy issue? And I suppose here is as good a place as any to mention that if you have issue with the relevancy of my data, you should also take issue with "A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts." Which is just as connected to the issue of same-sex marriage as is my information. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
True enough, and they will be removed once shown to be invalid. I have already said on numerous occasions that I am willing to give up on the physical health data- And while some of the physical health data is just as relevant as I hope I showed above the mental health data to be, I would not use such an argument against interracial marriages etc. because they don't also have the fact on their side that gay males participate in more risky sexual behavior (such as not wearing protection for one thing). Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 17 (7), 1029-1038 ( MatLocke ( talk)
Thanks for signing for me- I often forget. But hold on now! Yes, when specific evidence has been brought up- it has sometimes been correct. I do not have infinite knowledge of sociological studies and therefore rely on others to help edit wikipedia. I have provided scientific sources, not made foundationless claims. I do not appreciate the comparison to one who has. A few of my sources may have flaws that I did not notice. What do you expect- that no one should post sources to scholarly articles unless they have knowledge of every possible counter to them? ( MatLocke ( talk) 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
To NatGertler: Your statements on the child trends research was misleading. For one thing they specifically said that children did best when raised by biological parents. The caveat on same-sex couples pertained to the other concerns of the article, such as communication and intimacy and emotional support etc. (
MatLocke (
talk)
06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
As to validity (and I have addressed much of this before, but apparently you decided to ignore my statements and continue with your original supposition. Every time I bring up a counter you move on to another argument and then another and another until we are back at the first again- it is all very cyclical. On the other hand I like to admit when evidence or reason goes against one of my sources or address it. Historyguy- please stop making accusations against me and read what I have written.): who is to determine if my source is valid or not? Have you read through all my sources and decided they are all invalid? If so, unless you have evidence against such an one- as Natgertler has provided against 2 of my many sources- you have no right to suppress it based on your opinion on the matter. And as I have already said- I cannot be expected to have all knowledge on the subject- so further research and editing by others on specific studies is appreciated. Have you read through all the studies cited by the others who provided favorable evidence and decided that they all had no flaws? Your assumption that the studies are misleading or fallacious is based on a couple of ones that have been proven such, and that the evidence (apparently) goes against your previously held beliefs.
As to relevancy: Yes, I should and will create new sections or subsections for most of the information- as it is, as I now realize, where it is more appropriate. Some of my information more directly applies where it was originally put. Based on your own arguments against my evidence, why have you not deleted: A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts.
For it is only as directly applicable to this page as is: There are also significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. [47]
Or A study on marriage statistics of opposite-sex married couples by researcher Darren Spedale found that 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples marriage-like partnership status, rates of opposite-sex marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of opposite-sex divorce had gone down, contradicting the concept that same-sex marriages would have a negative effect on traditional marriages.[117] Because it is talking about civil unions and not same-sex marriages except in the opinion that the same results could be obtained when studying same-sex marriage (which was, once again, not part of the study). ( MatLocke ( talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Natgertler, first of all- thank you for relying on evidence and logic and kindness to get your points across. I do appreciate it. I was not referring to you so much as historyguy on my comment on reading my sources. Though, can you honestly say you have read more than half of them? And as I have said before, I do not have all sociological knowledge, I have not noticed every flaw in my citations. I would hope you are as diligent in looking for flaws such as non-representational sample groups in the sources cited by others. But, because they are scientific sources, and I am only human, they should not be removed just based on accusation, but on evidence, as you have provided in a few cases. I am going to create a break and post reformed suggestions. Please look through the studies and point out flaws if there are any. ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Oh, and I just looked at the Waldner-Haugrud study again. The fact that it was not proportional actually goes in my favor when you look at the sampling. Mostly college educated whites... a group with normally less domestic violence problems... Response? ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
My track record so far is this...and correct me if I am mistaken. Of my many sources you have shown that one was irrelevant where I had placed it, not inaccurate or flawed, that being the Hogg and Strathdee study (which I just looked through again). There was no such admission of not being able to apply to the general population (and I'm not sure what you are saying would not apply). The methodological limitations they say exist provide only for the possibility that they underestimated the impact of AIDS among homosexuals.
The Child Trends study- you are correct- they did not study same-sex couples. But they did say children were raised by biological parents- and I only said what the study said. You did find a more recent article that proves the study has been updated (which goes not to show that my information is not credible for the most part- but that you are intelligent and resourceful).
And the Waldner-Haugrud study was addressed above... it would appear when it comes to evidence against my sources my track record is not so bad...
And if I go find methodological reviews of the evidence already in the article- would I be required to show it as an authoritative source? If so, I would like to see your authoritative sources on future studies which will be brought into question. ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
1: Hogg and Stathdee. The study was published in 1997, this is not outdated. Age does not make a scientific study outdated. 2: The quote you claim came from Hogg's study was no where in there! (That is twice you have claimed a study said something that it did not). (Edit: Woops, my appologies, I have found the article where you got your information on.) 3: Ok, so the Waldner study will be alright if I can prove relevancy (I think I have but will go further later) and state that Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants (primarily college educated whites)that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. This shows a higher rate than among heterosexual partners of the same background (if I provide a source here).
Still, the validity of the article itself remains- if you read my previous rebuttal on it.
4: As for the Child Trends study- I already admitted the relevancy was questionable (as I now realize). That does not harm my track record on validity at all.
5: And I must have missed your comments on the xiridou study. For one thing- I had not mentioned that study in the edits. I was using it to prove a separate point- that gay males participate in more risky behavior. If I was going to use it in an edit I would have put it in the context that the study was about young gays with steady and casual partners and that the incidence was higher with the steady partners. ( MatLocke ( talk) 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Addition: Ok, I see your point about the data being outdated. Note that in my edit though I only said what the study had said and made no inappropriate generalizations. ( MatLocke ( talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
We all do homework for eachother- that IS what wikipedia is about- someone researches and posts scientific studies and then if there are flaws which that person did not see- others may bring them up and delete those specific citations. How many times must I state the obvious point that no one has all knowledge on these things. And once again you appear to have not read previous things I had said and to have gone cyclically back to what we have already debated. This argument can go on forever if you keep ignoring my refutations and moving back to something asked and answered. As I said before: "Same-sex marriage legalization is a controversial subject- yes? It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values. One side claims that Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it creates a government incentive and promotion of homosexual relations, and because it then leads to an increase in same-sex parenting. (You may claim that sexual orientation is strictly biological and that government legalization would have no effect- but I, and many others, could argue the other way. However I personally do believe there is a genetic factor involved.) Thus the utilitarian issue of harm enters the picture. Therefore, any evidence concerning the harm of same-sex relationships, or same-sex parenting, becomes a deciding factor in the legalization of same-sex marriage."
And I have already said I would take out a few citations that were less relevant- but most fit with my argument made ^^ ( MatLocke ( talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
A further note on the Xiridou study. I think I found the site you (Natgertler) got your information from on this. (I would be fine with you looking to non-authoritative sources who make claims about the methodology without enough backup- but I doubt I would be afforded the same courtesy.) The Xiridou study was indeed based on the Amsterdam Cohort Study- which has run from the mid 1980's to present. Only in certain years were the study population additions limited to those under 30, or with multiple partners, or only those with HIV. ( MatLocke ( talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
metropolitan area." (That less-than sign should be a less-than-or-equal thing; not sure how to paste that in.) The study in both the abstract and the full paper talks about that they were working with specifically young homosexual men. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Recall that I brought up the Xiridou study in Talk and never had it in my edits to the actual article. I will not include the Xiridou study but will include the Amsterdam Cohort Study (more likely in a different article on homosexuality though.) ( MatLocke ( talk) 00:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
And once again you ignore what I have already said on many of these issues... Perhaps the only way to get you to address my rebuttal would be to use the Socratic method, but I don't have time for that now. I have already addressed relevancy numerous times- and unlike some people- like to admit when I am wrong. In a few cases I have conceded (mostly on the issues of physical health data among homosexuals) would be better posted somewhere else. You have not countered my arguments as to the relevancy of most of it though- and it appears you have not even read them.
Only a 2 of my sources have been shown to have flaws. (The Hogg study was outdated and the Xiridou study (that I never put in my edits) was not as good as the Amsterdam Cohort study from which it was derived (but the fact that the Xiridou study included only males under 30 does not make it flawed- it just means I can't claim most homosexuals have riskier behavior (but the cohort study does allow that)) The others couple I have shown to not in fact be flawed.
If you indeed studied some of sources at random I would love to see your evidence against them. However, by study, I suspect you mean that you have gone to sites like boxturtlebulletin.com instead of to the studies themselves.
My position is not so obvious. There is already scientific evidence in the article that goes to the support of gay marriage. Instead of deleting it or even as yet looking for flaws in their specific methodology I only want to add those countering scientific studies which can not easily be proven flawed- which is why the issue is being discussed here. (Though I originally put it directly into the article because I was new on editing wikipedia.) (You may be surprised to know that I actually favor civil unions and believe homosexuality has a biological component.)
I do not have time to carry on with your cyclical arguments that ignore my rebuttals and make false accusations and generalizations about what I have said.
I would much rather focus on reviewing my edits, trimming those that have less relevance (but not equal) than some of the things already in the article (that do not pertain to same-sex marriage but instead to same-sex unions and same-sex relationships), and further reviewing the studies themselves as well as looking on blogs biased in favor of same-sex marriage for possible flaws in the studies, addressing them, and then cutting out the studies that have flaws or sampling that does actual harm to the conclusion I or the researchers reached. As you have been no help whatsoever in doing such things, but have done the things I said above, I see my only hope is to talk to Natgertler who has been reasonable (except in generalizing that all my studies were bunk) and intelligent. (Though I recommend that if you have not done so already (and maybe you have in some cases) you look at the studies themselves as well as the blogs.) ( MatLocke ( talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
I do not recall accusing you of generalization NatGertler. Everything I wrote in my last post was addressed at Historyguy1965 except for my compliments about you. But now you are making a false accusation that makes it seem you have not read my other posts. By the way you worded your sentence about my rebuttals it appears you are specifically addressing my rebuttals on accuracy of data. While true, one of my rebuttals did indicate a desire that my sources be treated as innocent until proven guilty (unless wikipedia follows the same rules for posting that the U.S. does in civil law that puts the burden of proof on me- which would not seem right as there is no way to conclusively prove that a scientific study is not flawed) My other rebuttals that you have not addressed dealt with counters to your claims that my studies were flawed. These are the things which I accused Historyguy of ignoring.
Please address this, but then also answer me this: Were you as diligent in forcing the burden of proof on those who posted other scientific studies that supported your views? Would I still have the burden of proof (which, like I said, in science can only belong to the scientist in a small degree because of the impossibility of proving a scientific study perfect) if I desired to delete such studies already on the article because of the lack of relevancy or if I found a small flaw in their studies? ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
And on the Amsterdam Cohort Study, it would appear you got your rebuttal from a blog or did not read the study carefully- for the Homosexual population was separate from the IV drug users in the study and only Homosexuals (though it does only allow me to make my previous claim about homosexual males) were involved in studying risk behaviors.
"In 2007, 558 HM (551 participants visiting the APHS and 7 HIV-positive men followed outside the APHS) filled in the behavioural questionnaire at least once. Of the 499 HIV-negative HM, 51.7% reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the past 6 months. Of the 59 HIV-positive HM, 23.3% reported UAI in the past 6 months. Like the HIV incidence, trends in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) amongst young (<36 years of age) HIV-negative HM participating in the ACS have remained relatively stable in recent years. (A table then follows this part of the study.) ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
And in case this is the last post for the evening, and other people enter the discussion as they did this morning. I would just like to remind them that many of my edits are only as relevant as other edits that have not applied to same-sex marriage, but only to civil unions and homosexual relationships, while a few have been more relevant, and that some we have already agreed should be moved to a different article or section of this article. I would also like to remind them that I have provided specific evidence against claims that my sources were fallacious, in such cases as those claims were supported by evidence and not simply claimed, except in 1 (and perhaps 1/2) cases where the study should not have been put as it was in the edit. ( MatLocke ( talk) 06:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
Ah yes, there is where I made that accusation. Ok, you generalized that most of my studies were bunk. "In addition, much of your material is, well, bunk." (Unless of course the value you place on the word "much" does not mean greater than 50%- this is what it always means to me.)
You cannot limit your contribution to opposing my edits as pressing the undo button- you have looked specifically and diligently for opposing viewpoints and evidence to some of my studies- have you done so with the studies in the article supporting same-sex marriage?
Please address my comments on burden of proof above.
If your comments on the ACS study are again referring to the drug user comment, then perhaps you missed my response: "the Homosexual population was separate from the IV drug users in the study and only Homosexuals (though it does only allow me to make my previous claim about homosexual males) were involved in studying risk behaviors.
"In 2007, 558 HM (edit for Natgertler: this means Homosexual Males and was a separate group from the drug users as was made clear in the second paragraph) (551 participants visiting the APHS and 7 HIV-positive men followed outside the APHS) filled in the behavioural questionnaire at least once. Of the 499 HIV-negative HM, 51.7% reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the past 6 months. Of the 59 HIV-positive HM, 23.3% reported UAI in the past 6 months."
But of course if you had read the study you would have known that. Instead did you only read the first couple paragraphs?
On the Waldner study... I do not need the second source and therefore would not be synthesizing. I only thought it fair (but apparently that is not ok?) to include for the readers benefit the numbers among heterosexual couples (which is what the second source I offered adding would have done). ( MatLocke ( talk) 06:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
To Historyguy: UHHH... wow...do you just not read anything I post or what, or do you just read the last 2 posts and nothing before... I have only conceded 1 and (1/2?) sources to be incorrect (All my other admissions were only on the relevancy of some of the data, and 1 inappropriate generalization.) I have provided evidence that the claims against the other sources were wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood the statement of mine that you quoted- I said he had (had) looked diligently for evidence against my statements- but questioned if he had done the same on studies already in the article- such as citation 128.
It has been made abundantly clear that I never put the xiridou study or the ACS in my edits. And I have already addressed (when I first brought the xiridou study up) why I would not apply them to other marriages. But, once again, all points other than on the validity of the ACS studies themselves seems moot- because I never included them in the edits.
To Joshua: Thank you. As I will put in my revised edits, many of these things will be put in another section of the article, some will be moved to other articles, and some will either go side by side with equally relevant material, or such other material should be deleted as well.
And since Natgerler has decided to give up on proving his point by refuting my evidence I think this is a good point for me to either give up, or work further on my revised edits... we will see what time allows. ( MatLocke ( talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
To Joshua: I am not trying to debate if they are in fact healthy or not so much as I am trying to put the information in the article because it is an objection to same-sex marriage. As I will point out in my revisions- there are already parts of the article which are equally as relevant in this article as are some of my points and sources. I am fine if these get deleted or mine get added. If we were to use the paragraph you provided I would hope that some of the studies could be used as direct references there so that people don't go to those less than scientific sources and think that the argument has a weak foundation.
To historyguy: I am doing a revised edit that I believe follows the template you suggested.
Did you read the link you provided: "The logical fallacy which she is exposing in this case is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.
Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …" I am very glad you provided that link :)
I have provided proof of my statements with scientific study by authoritative sources (which you have only your opinion to claim they are not- based not even on your opinion of their qualifications but of their beliefs). When I provide these (if we are going with burden of proof based on civil law and common sense (upon which wikipedia's policy seems based) I have fulfilled my burden of proof and the burden is passed.) If a flaw is found in my study the burden is passed back to me ( and in every case but 1 I have then provided proof that the claim of flaw was itself false or flawed in the context given). (This is not counting my couple admissions that a piece of data was less relevant where it was placed- but those are moot to the current argument on validity.)
If we are using the philosophical burden of proof that you yourself linked, then my hypothesis (or sources) should not be rejected as unjustified without argument against it.
Once again I will also remind you that with scientific study it is impossible to prove a theory or research to be perfect. Just look at physics move from Newtonian to Relativity to Quantum.
I hope that you will address my responses instead of continuing the tag team with Natgertler where you make claims and then never address my response, but instead wait for another to provide new arguments that you hope will make me forget about my previous discussion with you. - MatLocke
I am ok with starting fresh. I have a couple questions first. Is it proper wiki procedure for me to indent my responses to others responses, or should the original poster stay un-indented?
Second: please let me know your specific and objective criteria for relevancy to this topic.
Third: I am trying to do further research on one of the sources I want to post in my revised edits (I will argue it's relevancy later)- for now- would you be willing to help me find the number of sexual partners for single heterosexual males in a single year (that year being anywhere from the mid 90's to 2000) from an authoritative source, so that I have a comparison to my data on homosexual males. My searching so far has only yielded results likely to be lifetime numbers- but I will keep searching. ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
I just deleted a ref that used this source to claim "same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father". What Blankenhorn does say is that "Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him" -- note that's couples, not just married couples, and he doesn't claim that the marriage is what causes this denial. In fact, he says that "Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes." So it doesn't really support what it was being used for. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I read over this article and noticed some big gaps between arguments covered in the media and on this page. For example, I know a lot of the arguments concern how same-sex marriage affects education. Some think schools will benefit from teaching more diverse concept of marriage, while others think schools should teach marriage is between a man and a woman, while others don't think it will affect the way schools teach. Also, many have expressed concern that by legalizing same-sex marriage those who oppose it will be marginalized and treated like racists or other types of bigots. Others think that those who oppose it should be treated that way. There also used to be a discussion of religious freedoms that was taken out. I put it back in the page on SSM and religious views, but I think it deserves at least a passing mention here. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
At issue are these points=
Neither of these are a U.S. only issue. The former, in my opinion, is actually a more contentious issue outside of the United States than within. I believe that's it is already mentioned in this article already in due weight.
For the latter, I am not so sure. An argument can be made that since the U.S. is very unique (sui generis?) in the world for both the breadth, extension, and depth of its 1st amendment-based civil liberties, the latter point focuses too much on the U.S. What European governments consider to be non-controversial routine measures for promoting LGBT equality (e.g. internet censorship, books removed from libraries, slander laws, libel laws, incitement laws, standards on what clothes to wear, firing of government employees for their personal opinions, etc) would cause Americans to raise Cain. Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedia, so it describes the opinions that most world citizens have about SSM. The Squicks ( talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindented)I don't think it is our job to explain one thing or the other. That would be original research. We report what is out there. We don't create anything ourselves. That would be original research and synthesis. The point is that people all over the globe are concerned with how same sex marriage will affect education and freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That needs to be documented. If we personally disagree with it, it doesn't matter. For example, I personally think all the stuff about economics is a bunch of sophisticated manipulation of statistics. Same-sex marriage will save couples money, because they get benefits from their employers and from the government, but at the same time it won't cost employers any more money, and actually create money from the government. Where is all this money coming from? Everyone makes money on same-sex marriage and no one loses money? That can't be. Anyway, the point is I completely disagree with it, and I personally think it is flawed, but that does not give me the right to remove it. However, if I were to find some source that says giving same-sex couples benefits would cost business owners, which I am planning on doing, I can add that to the claim, but I can't take away the original claim because I as a Wikipedia editor have been able to conclude that their reasoning is wrong. That is original research and synthesis. It is the same with the argument about freedom of speech and religion. You might think the argument doesn't make sense because of the 1st amendment or whatever argument you come up with, but unless you can find a reliable source that makes that contention, you cannot add it to Wikipedia. Even if you do find a reliable source that makes that contention, all you can do is add it to the article. You can't remove other information. We are not supposed to censor it based on our opinions on the content. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Almost every additon suggested in this thread should taken to a subarticle. We have subarticles for SSM and religion (for any in depth freedom of religion discussion), and SSM and children/family (for discussion of education). The sections here are already to large for summaries, and far too dependant on US sources and POVs. I have no problem with controversies, whether legitimate or propaganda, being massively expanded on - but it should not be done in this worldwide overview article! It is impossible to write fair NPOV summaries of these issues when people keep adding new info, without consideration of overall balance or summary style. Yob Mod 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been accusation that the section on freedom of speech is only a US issue. Here are some google hits:
It really isn't hard to find discussion about freedom of speech and SSM from any country that has any significant amount of discussion on SSM. This is not only a US issue. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindented) Forget the Google counts. Look at the references that I included in the article. I will repost them here:
This is sufficient evidence to show that the conflict between freedom of speech and same-sex marriage is not limited to the US. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
So all in all, your sources are illegitimate and unsubstantiated. Simply putting junk inside some ref tags doesn't make them any less junk. Read up on WP:RS -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Part of the debate over freedom of speech is that many people have complained that groups like these [24] [25][www.eightmaps.com] intimidate people who sign petitions and who donate money. Common in the same-sex marriage debate are accusation of intimidation. [26] [27] [28] [29] The argument is that intimidating voters puts a limit on freedom of speech. [30] It was removed originally with the comment "article said nothing about "Freedom of speech"" (it talked about the right to speak your mind). Then with the comment "This is not an article on voter intimidation. And names don't need protection; what are people going to do, change their spellings?" and then again with no explanation. Voter intimidation is a serious issue that needs to be explored. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This will be one of the last times I do your homework for you, either check your sources or read WP:RELIABLE if you're confused. -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Voter intimidation is a serious issue that needs to be explored." -- then start an article on "voter intimidation". This is an article on Same-sex marriage. The topic of voter intimidation as you're trying to discuss it is several large leaps away from being about SSM, and is also quite local. - Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] This article is about same-sex marriage, not about the anxieties of oppponents of same-sex marriage. Therefore, I have deleted the section. I someone wants to write about the "concerns" and "worries" of oppponents of same-sex marriage, then I suggest he/she start Mental health of opponents of same-sex marriage. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The current opener is "Same-sex marriage is a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage"... which makes this sound like a weak dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia one. We don't start biography section saying "Charles M. Schulz is a name used to identify the man who created the comic strip which is identified by the term 'Peanuts'." I say let's kill the phrase "term used to describe a", leaving "Same-sex marriage is legally or socially recognized marriage..." -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
While the article talks about same sex marriages globally, how it is viewed in different religions, societies, etc., it doesn't make mention of the effects of same sex marriages on immigration in different countries (legal aspect). Care to contribute? Thanks. -- Weekeejames ( talk) 11:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The second sentence is a bit of an odd duck. "Other terms used to describe this type of recognition include gay marriage or gender-neutral marriage." Gender-neutral marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage; it is rather the legal inclusion of both same-sex and mixed-sex marriage without differentiation. This would be better handled by making the opening sentence "Same-sex marriage' (also referred to as gay marriage) is..." and then either eliminating the second sentence or replacing it with "Jurisdictions that do not distinguish between same-sex and mixed-sex marriage are said to have gender-neutral marriage (also known as marriage equality)." -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The section that was on effects on the "whole economy" was only on the US and jurisdictions within the US. I've now labeled it as such. Ideally, it should be fleshed out with pieces on economic effects in other nations; barring that, we may want to reduce it, shuttling off to Same-sex marriage in the U.S. any bits that aren't already there, and just including a summary and/or a see-also link. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss editing of the article, not one's belief about the "gay mafia", nor to protect children. If poster gets some reliable sources, he is welcome to edit the appropriate article.
-- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why has the section of genetic implications of gay marriage on children been deleted - Achieved (non visible) Obviously the gay mafia run wiki - that's very sad and points to corruption. I gave money to this site thinking wiki was for FREEDOM OF SPEECH but obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions. Freedom of speech died today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.132.47 ( talk) 08:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"obviously the gay mafia is very strong and have corrupted this site as well. Just like many other institutions" - I'm sorry, do you have any evidence for that statement or is this just another personal opinion that has no validity or basis whatsoever? The problem with some editors, like yourself, is they don't want to do their homework, and when they do do their homework they don't like what they find, so they do the next best thing and that's victimize themselves into thinking there's some violation of speech, when the only thing being violated is ignorance. Look at the "ancient history" discussion, we we're debating over a single word and look at the sources, research, time, and effort that was put into place. We didn't just cross our arms and pout when people disagreed. -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to the protection of children NO comments should be Archived!, which my comments were very quickly. Which points to strong gay mafia bias on this site. As to source, how many sources do you need for genetic inheritance? Even a 5 year old child knows about inheritance. But any excuse to stop the truth from being told, another example of gay bias on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.65.13 ( talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
I had edited the legal and judicial section by adding:
From a strictly legal standpoint the Burden of proof lies with the party laying charges or wanting a change. In the case of same-sex marriage or same-sex parenting that burden lies with the proponents.
It was removed with the comment that the same could be said about interracial marriage.
My response: So? Yes it could, but correct scientific study would not have found sufficient harm of it to legally prevent its occurrence. I do not believe your objection warrants the removal of the link. At the most, you may be justified in removing my second sentence. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Very well, it appears then that all I must do is find an authoritative source on how the burden of proof in this case rests on proponents of same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As I say below- perhaps my arguments are more fitting in another article. But Same-sex marriage has not always existed in U.S. law, nor in British law from which it is largely derived. U.S. law, nor that of most countries would expect proof that something has never existed as a reason why it should not exist now. The burden of proof would (often) lay with those seeking the change from existing law- which in most places is that same-sex marriage is not legalized. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Then those questions of appropriateness should be brought up. But yeh, perhaps it would better fit in the article Same-sex marriage in the U.S. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
I am not trying to debate semantics on the word marriage. In almost every civil case the burden of proof belongs to those seeking a change in law. Yes, the argument could be used against black and women voting, and it was, and it was shown by common sense and most likely some study that it would not cause harm. The burden of proof in U.S. likewise rests most likely with the plaintiff/ those seeking relief aka those seeking same-sex marriage. (See below).
Proof of what? of not causing a net harm to the population of course, in mental health, physical health, the effect on the beliefs of the population as a whole if they lead to an increase in things that have been proven to be detrimental to society like increased divorce rates (which some studies have shown increase when same-sex unions or marriage are recognized by the state, while others have shown the opposite) etc, and in the development of children.
"In Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), the United States Supreme Court stated: “There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.’” For support, the Court cited 9 John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 2486, at 275 (3d ed. 1940). In Keyes, the Supreme Court held that if “school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system,” the burden of persuasion shifts to the school to prove that it did not engaged in such discrimination in other segregated schools in the same system.
In Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994), the Supreme Court explained that burden of proof is ambiguous because it has historically referred to two distinct burdens: the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production.
The Supreme Court discussed how courts should allocate the burden of proof (i.e., the burden of persuasion) in Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005). The Supreme Court explained that if a statute is silent about the burden of persuasion, the court will “begin with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims.” In support of this proposition, the Court cited 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 337, 412 (5th ed. 1999), which states:
The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. At the same time, the Supreme Court also recognized “The ordinary default rule, of course, admits of exceptions.” “For example, the burden of persuasion as to certain elements of a plaintiff's claim may be shifted to defendants, when such elements can fairly be characterized as affirmative defenses or exemptions. See, e.g., FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1948). Under some circumstances this Court has even placed the burden of persuasion over an entire claim on the defendant. See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004).” Nonetheless, “[a]bsent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, therefore, [the Supreme Court] will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief.” ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
I already agreed that that article is where this information belongs (please read full discussions before posting). However, I desired to continue the debate here for the time-being because I would likely face similar opposition on many points (from perhaps some of the same people), were I to post it there. ( MatLocke ( talk) 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
Wrong, huh? And yet, what evidence has been supplied that has not been sufficiently refuted, (or admitted in a couple cases). Irrelevant to this article (in this case)- ok, but that is different than wrong. David has convinced me to move this conversation to the other article though- should I leave what we have already discussed here or should I delete it? ( MatLocke ( talk) 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
I have posted the following information (not thinking beforehand to discuss it here as this is my first wikipedia edit) but will edit further if new information or problems with it come up.
I realize that some of the information more directly relates to homosexuality, but as the effects of homosexual behavior is a key concern over same-sex marriage, I thought it important to include them in the article. It does have great bearing on the subject.
If you have problems with my edits I wish you would delete the parts you specifically have cause against instead of deleting all the information.
Physical Health Edit
A study done by Hogg and Strathdee in a major urban center in Canada found that the life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8-20 years less than for all men, and that if the same patterns were to continue, nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. [1] Studies by the CDC have declared that the sole, or potential cause of more than seventy percent of all AIDS cases that have been reported in the United States from the first case through 2004 is male homosexual behavior. And that of the 402,722 cumulative AIDS cases reported through 2004, 55% involved the single mode of exposure of men who had sex with men. [2] Extensive medical evidence supports greater rates of other medical disease among homosexuals as well, including 10 times the rate of anal cancer infection in homosexual males compared to heterosexual males, hemorrhoids, penile edema and others. And in Lesbians leading to higher rates of hepatitis B & C, bacterial vaginosis, heavy cigarette smoking, intravenous drug use and abuse of alcohol. [3]
Here is my edit on the Mental Health section- it includes all the previous parts of the article.
Recently, several psychological studies [4] [5] [6] have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.
One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse. [7]
Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis. [8]
Ferguson, Horwood, and Beautrais conducted research and concluded that “Gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression...generalized anxiety disorder...conduct disorder...nicotine dependence...multiple disorders...suicidal ideation...suicide attempts.” [9]
Other researchers claim that the idea that this is the result of social pressures is unlikely because the study was replicated in The Netherlands with similar, more robust results. [10]
Researchers have concluded that lesbians have a much higher rate of substance abuse disorders during their lifetime as well as a higher prevalence of mood disorders. [11] [12]
There are also higher rates of sexual molestation reported in the history of homosexuals. One study found that 46% of gay men and 22% of lesbians were sexually abused as children compared to 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women. The study also found that 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not self-identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation. [13]
There are also significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. [14]
Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity. [15] [16]
Other studies have shown that the civilizing effects of marriage that lead to lower crime rates among men, spending more time with relatives than friends, and working longer hours, [17]as well as being less promiscuous and less likely to abuse alcohol, [18] [19]was not an artifact of selection [20]and is a result of gender complementarity. [21] [22] [23]
After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage, Gregory M. Herek claims that the data [24] indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Herek concludes that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships. [24]
Critics claim that many such studies claiming no difference in children raised by homosexual parents, compared to heterosexual parents, primarily compared children who were conceived in a heterosexual relationship whose mothers later divorced and self-identified as lesbians, and that these children were the ones compared to divorced, heterosexual, mother-headed families. [25]
Other research and review has been done that also claim these studies showing no difference suffered from methodological flaws, in addition to not dealing adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious correlation. [26] [27] [28] [29]
Yet other research has demonstrated that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two bilogical parents in a low-conflict marriage...and that there is value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents [30], while other research has focused on how dual gender parenting and child-rearing is crucial to healthy child development. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
Studies have also been conducted on the importance of gender identification in children and found that parenting can derail biological priming. [45] [46] ( MatLocke ( talk) 03:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Admittedly, there is a difference. That does not mean the information is not pertinent to the topic. Perhaps I should create a new section on science based objections to Same-sex marriage?
Also, if you wish I can remove citations from A. Dean Byrd, despite the fact that there are many other social scientists and psychologists- including now the doctor who was most responsible for the APA's removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder) who have shown that such conversion therapy can work.
In regards to the sources on fatherless households- it pertains to same-sex couple childrearing. I believe I should move this to a different article. However, there is information currently in the article section on mental health that deals with the effects on children but is allowed in because of the mention of marriage bestowing substantial psychological, social, and health benefits- which is another topic entirely, and one addressed also in some of the sources I cited. ( MatLocke ( talk) 04:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
First, they are not mere claims, they are supported by scientific evidence. And as I said above- information on homosexuality is very important to the issue of same-sex marriage and it's legalization. To claim that much of my material is 'bunk' is an unjustifiable position when you certainly have not had the time to find and read the sources. Your point on the Hogg and Strathdee study being outdated is well taken- that is why we have editing- therefore it would have been more fair to have edited my edit with this newer information than for someone to delete it all. Overall- Aids, and perhaps even all of the physical health data is not as crucial to the topic. Therefore I now see no need to include it in the article on Same-sex marriage. ( MatLocke ( talk) 04:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Alright, I will attempt to spell it out (in regards to the mental health data- as I have already said I am willing to remove the physical health data) (though if you had actually read what I pointed to above with the 'very important' quote, you would have seen a little more relevancy shown). Same-sex marriage legalization is a controversial subject- yes? It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values. One side claims that Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it creates a government incentive and promotion of homosexual relations, and because it then leads to an increase in same-sex parenting. (You may claim that sexual orientation is strictly biological and that government legalization would have no effect- but I, and many others, could argue the other way. However I personally do believe there is a genetic factor involved.) Thus the utilitarian issue of harm enters the picture. Therefore, any evidence concerning the harm of same-sex relationships, or same-sex parenting, becomes a deciding factor in the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Also, the chance that you have had opportunity to read all, or even most of the studies I have posted is astronomical. If you had indeed done so you would likely provide detailed analysis of the methodological flaws that make them 'bunk.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatLocke ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't say you hadn't read some of them, or that you haven't had time to read a few more. But this new information is very helpful- please continue to provide such refutations so that the article can include only those which are accurate. I am going to read that article now. But what is your response on the relevancy issue? And I suppose here is as good a place as any to mention that if you have issue with the relevancy of my data, you should also take issue with "A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts." Which is just as connected to the issue of same-sex marriage as is my information. ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
True enough, and they will be removed once shown to be invalid. I have already said on numerous occasions that I am willing to give up on the physical health data- And while some of the physical health data is just as relevant as I hope I showed above the mental health data to be, I would not use such an argument against interracial marriages etc. because they don't also have the fact on their side that gay males participate in more risky sexual behavior (such as not wearing protection for one thing). Xiridou, M. et al. (2003). The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS, 17 (7), 1029-1038 ( MatLocke ( talk)
Thanks for signing for me- I often forget. But hold on now! Yes, when specific evidence has been brought up- it has sometimes been correct. I do not have infinite knowledge of sociological studies and therefore rely on others to help edit wikipedia. I have provided scientific sources, not made foundationless claims. I do not appreciate the comparison to one who has. A few of my sources may have flaws that I did not notice. What do you expect- that no one should post sources to scholarly articles unless they have knowledge of every possible counter to them? ( MatLocke ( talk) 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
To NatGertler: Your statements on the child trends research was misleading. For one thing they specifically said that children did best when raised by biological parents. The caveat on same-sex couples pertained to the other concerns of the article, such as communication and intimacy and emotional support etc. (
MatLocke (
talk)
06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
As to validity (and I have addressed much of this before, but apparently you decided to ignore my statements and continue with your original supposition. Every time I bring up a counter you move on to another argument and then another and another until we are back at the first again- it is all very cyclical. On the other hand I like to admit when evidence or reason goes against one of my sources or address it. Historyguy- please stop making accusations against me and read what I have written.): who is to determine if my source is valid or not? Have you read through all my sources and decided they are all invalid? If so, unless you have evidence against such an one- as Natgertler has provided against 2 of my many sources- you have no right to suppress it based on your opinion on the matter. And as I have already said- I cannot be expected to have all knowledge on the subject- so further research and editing by others on specific studies is appreciated. Have you read through all the studies cited by the others who provided favorable evidence and decided that they all had no flaws? Your assumption that the studies are misleading or fallacious is based on a couple of ones that have been proven such, and that the evidence (apparently) goes against your previously held beliefs.
As to relevancy: Yes, I should and will create new sections or subsections for most of the information- as it is, as I now realize, where it is more appropriate. Some of my information more directly applies where it was originally put. Based on your own arguments against my evidence, why have you not deleted: A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008.[119] Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts.
For it is only as directly applicable to this page as is: There are also significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual relationships. Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. [47]
Or A study on marriage statistics of opposite-sex married couples by researcher Darren Spedale found that 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples marriage-like partnership status, rates of opposite-sex marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of opposite-sex divorce had gone down, contradicting the concept that same-sex marriages would have a negative effect on traditional marriages.[117] Because it is talking about civil unions and not same-sex marriages except in the opinion that the same results could be obtained when studying same-sex marriage (which was, once again, not part of the study). ( MatLocke ( talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Natgertler, first of all- thank you for relying on evidence and logic and kindness to get your points across. I do appreciate it. I was not referring to you so much as historyguy on my comment on reading my sources. Though, can you honestly say you have read more than half of them? And as I have said before, I do not have all sociological knowledge, I have not noticed every flaw in my citations. I would hope you are as diligent in looking for flaws such as non-representational sample groups in the sources cited by others. But, because they are scientific sources, and I am only human, they should not be removed just based on accusation, but on evidence, as you have provided in a few cases. I am going to create a break and post reformed suggestions. Please look through the studies and point out flaws if there are any. ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Oh, and I just looked at the Waldner-Haugrud study again. The fact that it was not proportional actually goes in my favor when you look at the sampling. Mostly college educated whites... a group with normally less domestic violence problems... Response? ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
My track record so far is this...and correct me if I am mistaken. Of my many sources you have shown that one was irrelevant where I had placed it, not inaccurate or flawed, that being the Hogg and Strathdee study (which I just looked through again). There was no such admission of not being able to apply to the general population (and I'm not sure what you are saying would not apply). The methodological limitations they say exist provide only for the possibility that they underestimated the impact of AIDS among homosexuals.
The Child Trends study- you are correct- they did not study same-sex couples. But they did say children were raised by biological parents- and I only said what the study said. You did find a more recent article that proves the study has been updated (which goes not to show that my information is not credible for the most part- but that you are intelligent and resourceful).
And the Waldner-Haugrud study was addressed above... it would appear when it comes to evidence against my sources my track record is not so bad...
And if I go find methodological reviews of the evidence already in the article- would I be required to show it as an authoritative source? If so, I would like to see your authoritative sources on future studies which will be brought into question. ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
1: Hogg and Stathdee. The study was published in 1997, this is not outdated. Age does not make a scientific study outdated. 2: The quote you claim came from Hogg's study was no where in there! (That is twice you have claimed a study said something that it did not). (Edit: Woops, my appologies, I have found the article where you got your information on.) 3: Ok, so the Waldner study will be alright if I can prove relevancy (I think I have but will go further later) and state that Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, and Magruder concluded from their sample of 283 participants (primarily college educated whites)that 47% of the lesbians and 29.7% of the gay men had been victimized by a gay partner. This shows a higher rate than among heterosexual partners of the same background (if I provide a source here).
Still, the validity of the article itself remains- if you read my previous rebuttal on it.
4: As for the Child Trends study- I already admitted the relevancy was questionable (as I now realize). That does not harm my track record on validity at all.
5: And I must have missed your comments on the xiridou study. For one thing- I had not mentioned that study in the edits. I was using it to prove a separate point- that gay males participate in more risky behavior. If I was going to use it in an edit I would have put it in the context that the study was about young gays with steady and casual partners and that the incidence was higher with the steady partners. ( MatLocke ( talk) 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
Addition: Ok, I see your point about the data being outdated. Note that in my edit though I only said what the study had said and made no inappropriate generalizations. ( MatLocke ( talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
We all do homework for eachother- that IS what wikipedia is about- someone researches and posts scientific studies and then if there are flaws which that person did not see- others may bring them up and delete those specific citations. How many times must I state the obvious point that no one has all knowledge on these things. And once again you appear to have not read previous things I had said and to have gone cyclically back to what we have already debated. This argument can go on forever if you keep ignoring my refutations and moving back to something asked and answered. As I said before: "Same-sex marriage legalization is a controversial subject- yes? It is controversial because of claims on both sides pitting facts against facts and values against other values. One side claims that Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it creates a government incentive and promotion of homosexual relations, and because it then leads to an increase in same-sex parenting. (You may claim that sexual orientation is strictly biological and that government legalization would have no effect- but I, and many others, could argue the other way. However I personally do believe there is a genetic factor involved.) Thus the utilitarian issue of harm enters the picture. Therefore, any evidence concerning the harm of same-sex relationships, or same-sex parenting, becomes a deciding factor in the legalization of same-sex marriage."
And I have already said I would take out a few citations that were less relevant- but most fit with my argument made ^^ ( MatLocke ( talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
A further note on the Xiridou study. I think I found the site you (Natgertler) got your information from on this. (I would be fine with you looking to non-authoritative sources who make claims about the methodology without enough backup- but I doubt I would be afforded the same courtesy.) The Xiridou study was indeed based on the Amsterdam Cohort Study- which has run from the mid 1980's to present. Only in certain years were the study population additions limited to those under 30, or with multiple partners, or only those with HIV. ( MatLocke ( talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC))
metropolitan area." (That less-than sign should be a less-than-or-equal thing; not sure how to paste that in.) The study in both the abstract and the full paper talks about that they were working with specifically young homosexual men. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Recall that I brought up the Xiridou study in Talk and never had it in my edits to the actual article. I will not include the Xiridou study but will include the Amsterdam Cohort Study (more likely in a different article on homosexuality though.) ( MatLocke ( talk) 00:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
And once again you ignore what I have already said on many of these issues... Perhaps the only way to get you to address my rebuttal would be to use the Socratic method, but I don't have time for that now. I have already addressed relevancy numerous times- and unlike some people- like to admit when I am wrong. In a few cases I have conceded (mostly on the issues of physical health data among homosexuals) would be better posted somewhere else. You have not countered my arguments as to the relevancy of most of it though- and it appears you have not even read them.
Only a 2 of my sources have been shown to have flaws. (The Hogg study was outdated and the Xiridou study (that I never put in my edits) was not as good as the Amsterdam Cohort study from which it was derived (but the fact that the Xiridou study included only males under 30 does not make it flawed- it just means I can't claim most homosexuals have riskier behavior (but the cohort study does allow that)) The others couple I have shown to not in fact be flawed.
If you indeed studied some of sources at random I would love to see your evidence against them. However, by study, I suspect you mean that you have gone to sites like boxturtlebulletin.com instead of to the studies themselves.
My position is not so obvious. There is already scientific evidence in the article that goes to the support of gay marriage. Instead of deleting it or even as yet looking for flaws in their specific methodology I only want to add those countering scientific studies which can not easily be proven flawed- which is why the issue is being discussed here. (Though I originally put it directly into the article because I was new on editing wikipedia.) (You may be surprised to know that I actually favor civil unions and believe homosexuality has a biological component.)
I do not have time to carry on with your cyclical arguments that ignore my rebuttals and make false accusations and generalizations about what I have said.
I would much rather focus on reviewing my edits, trimming those that have less relevance (but not equal) than some of the things already in the article (that do not pertain to same-sex marriage but instead to same-sex unions and same-sex relationships), and further reviewing the studies themselves as well as looking on blogs biased in favor of same-sex marriage for possible flaws in the studies, addressing them, and then cutting out the studies that have flaws or sampling that does actual harm to the conclusion I or the researchers reached. As you have been no help whatsoever in doing such things, but have done the things I said above, I see my only hope is to talk to Natgertler who has been reasonable (except in generalizing that all my studies were bunk) and intelligent. (Though I recommend that if you have not done so already (and maybe you have in some cases) you look at the studies themselves as well as the blogs.) ( MatLocke ( talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
I do not recall accusing you of generalization NatGertler. Everything I wrote in my last post was addressed at Historyguy1965 except for my compliments about you. But now you are making a false accusation that makes it seem you have not read my other posts. By the way you worded your sentence about my rebuttals it appears you are specifically addressing my rebuttals on accuracy of data. While true, one of my rebuttals did indicate a desire that my sources be treated as innocent until proven guilty (unless wikipedia follows the same rules for posting that the U.S. does in civil law that puts the burden of proof on me- which would not seem right as there is no way to conclusively prove that a scientific study is not flawed) My other rebuttals that you have not addressed dealt with counters to your claims that my studies were flawed. These are the things which I accused Historyguy of ignoring.
Please address this, but then also answer me this: Were you as diligent in forcing the burden of proof on those who posted other scientific studies that supported your views? Would I still have the burden of proof (which, like I said, in science can only belong to the scientist in a small degree because of the impossibility of proving a scientific study perfect) if I desired to delete such studies already on the article because of the lack of relevancy or if I found a small flaw in their studies? ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
And on the Amsterdam Cohort Study, it would appear you got your rebuttal from a blog or did not read the study carefully- for the Homosexual population was separate from the IV drug users in the study and only Homosexuals (though it does only allow me to make my previous claim about homosexual males) were involved in studying risk behaviors.
"In 2007, 558 HM (551 participants visiting the APHS and 7 HIV-positive men followed outside the APHS) filled in the behavioural questionnaire at least once. Of the 499 HIV-negative HM, 51.7% reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the past 6 months. Of the 59 HIV-positive HM, 23.3% reported UAI in the past 6 months. Like the HIV incidence, trends in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) amongst young (<36 years of age) HIV-negative HM participating in the ACS have remained relatively stable in recent years. (A table then follows this part of the study.) ( MatLocke ( talk) 05:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
And in case this is the last post for the evening, and other people enter the discussion as they did this morning. I would just like to remind them that many of my edits are only as relevant as other edits that have not applied to same-sex marriage, but only to civil unions and homosexual relationships, while a few have been more relevant, and that some we have already agreed should be moved to a different article or section of this article. I would also like to remind them that I have provided specific evidence against claims that my sources were fallacious, in such cases as those claims were supported by evidence and not simply claimed, except in 1 (and perhaps 1/2) cases where the study should not have been put as it was in the edit. ( MatLocke ( talk) 06:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
Ah yes, there is where I made that accusation. Ok, you generalized that most of my studies were bunk. "In addition, much of your material is, well, bunk." (Unless of course the value you place on the word "much" does not mean greater than 50%- this is what it always means to me.)
You cannot limit your contribution to opposing my edits as pressing the undo button- you have looked specifically and diligently for opposing viewpoints and evidence to some of my studies- have you done so with the studies in the article supporting same-sex marriage?
Please address my comments on burden of proof above.
If your comments on the ACS study are again referring to the drug user comment, then perhaps you missed my response: "the Homosexual population was separate from the IV drug users in the study and only Homosexuals (though it does only allow me to make my previous claim about homosexual males) were involved in studying risk behaviors.
"In 2007, 558 HM (edit for Natgertler: this means Homosexual Males and was a separate group from the drug users as was made clear in the second paragraph) (551 participants visiting the APHS and 7 HIV-positive men followed outside the APHS) filled in the behavioural questionnaire at least once. Of the 499 HIV-negative HM, 51.7% reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the past 6 months. Of the 59 HIV-positive HM, 23.3% reported UAI in the past 6 months."
But of course if you had read the study you would have known that. Instead did you only read the first couple paragraphs?
On the Waldner study... I do not need the second source and therefore would not be synthesizing. I only thought it fair (but apparently that is not ok?) to include for the readers benefit the numbers among heterosexual couples (which is what the second source I offered adding would have done). ( MatLocke ( talk) 06:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
To Historyguy: UHHH... wow...do you just not read anything I post or what, or do you just read the last 2 posts and nothing before... I have only conceded 1 and (1/2?) sources to be incorrect (All my other admissions were only on the relevancy of some of the data, and 1 inappropriate generalization.) I have provided evidence that the claims against the other sources were wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood the statement of mine that you quoted- I said he had (had) looked diligently for evidence against my statements- but questioned if he had done the same on studies already in the article- such as citation 128.
It has been made abundantly clear that I never put the xiridou study or the ACS in my edits. And I have already addressed (when I first brought the xiridou study up) why I would not apply them to other marriages. But, once again, all points other than on the validity of the ACS studies themselves seems moot- because I never included them in the edits.
To Joshua: Thank you. As I will put in my revised edits, many of these things will be put in another section of the article, some will be moved to other articles, and some will either go side by side with equally relevant material, or such other material should be deleted as well.
And since Natgerler has decided to give up on proving his point by refuting my evidence I think this is a good point for me to either give up, or work further on my revised edits... we will see what time allows. ( MatLocke ( talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
To Joshua: I am not trying to debate if they are in fact healthy or not so much as I am trying to put the information in the article because it is an objection to same-sex marriage. As I will point out in my revisions- there are already parts of the article which are equally as relevant in this article as are some of my points and sources. I am fine if these get deleted or mine get added. If we were to use the paragraph you provided I would hope that some of the studies could be used as direct references there so that people don't go to those less than scientific sources and think that the argument has a weak foundation.
To historyguy: I am doing a revised edit that I believe follows the template you suggested.
Did you read the link you provided: "The logical fallacy which she is exposing in this case is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.
Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …" I am very glad you provided that link :)
I have provided proof of my statements with scientific study by authoritative sources (which you have only your opinion to claim they are not- based not even on your opinion of their qualifications but of their beliefs). When I provide these (if we are going with burden of proof based on civil law and common sense (upon which wikipedia's policy seems based) I have fulfilled my burden of proof and the burden is passed.) If a flaw is found in my study the burden is passed back to me ( and in every case but 1 I have then provided proof that the claim of flaw was itself false or flawed in the context given). (This is not counting my couple admissions that a piece of data was less relevant where it was placed- but those are moot to the current argument on validity.)
If we are using the philosophical burden of proof that you yourself linked, then my hypothesis (or sources) should not be rejected as unjustified without argument against it.
Once again I will also remind you that with scientific study it is impossible to prove a theory or research to be perfect. Just look at physics move from Newtonian to Relativity to Quantum.
I hope that you will address my responses instead of continuing the tag team with Natgertler where you make claims and then never address my response, but instead wait for another to provide new arguments that you hope will make me forget about my previous discussion with you. - MatLocke
I am ok with starting fresh. I have a couple questions first. Is it proper wiki procedure for me to indent my responses to others responses, or should the original poster stay un-indented?
Second: please let me know your specific and objective criteria for relevancy to this topic.
Third: I am trying to do further research on one of the sources I want to post in my revised edits (I will argue it's relevancy later)- for now- would you be willing to help me find the number of sexual partners for single heterosexual males in a single year (that year being anywhere from the mid 90's to 2000) from an authoritative source, so that I have a comparison to my data on homosexual males. My searching so far has only yielded results likely to be lifetime numbers- but I will keep searching. ( MatLocke ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
I just deleted a ref that used this source to claim "same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father". What Blankenhorn does say is that "Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him" -- note that's couples, not just married couples, and he doesn't claim that the marriage is what causes this denial. In fact, he says that "Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes." So it doesn't really support what it was being used for. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I read over this article and noticed some big gaps between arguments covered in the media and on this page. For example, I know a lot of the arguments concern how same-sex marriage affects education. Some think schools will benefit from teaching more diverse concept of marriage, while others think schools should teach marriage is between a man and a woman, while others don't think it will affect the way schools teach. Also, many have expressed concern that by legalizing same-sex marriage those who oppose it will be marginalized and treated like racists or other types of bigots. Others think that those who oppose it should be treated that way. There also used to be a discussion of religious freedoms that was taken out. I put it back in the page on SSM and religious views, but I think it deserves at least a passing mention here. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
At issue are these points=
Neither of these are a U.S. only issue. The former, in my opinion, is actually a more contentious issue outside of the United States than within. I believe that's it is already mentioned in this article already in due weight.
For the latter, I am not so sure. An argument can be made that since the U.S. is very unique (sui generis?) in the world for both the breadth, extension, and depth of its 1st amendment-based civil liberties, the latter point focuses too much on the U.S. What European governments consider to be non-controversial routine measures for promoting LGBT equality (e.g. internet censorship, books removed from libraries, slander laws, libel laws, incitement laws, standards on what clothes to wear, firing of government employees for their personal opinions, etc) would cause Americans to raise Cain. Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedia, so it describes the opinions that most world citizens have about SSM. The Squicks ( talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindented)I don't think it is our job to explain one thing or the other. That would be original research. We report what is out there. We don't create anything ourselves. That would be original research and synthesis. The point is that people all over the globe are concerned with how same sex marriage will affect education and freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That needs to be documented. If we personally disagree with it, it doesn't matter. For example, I personally think all the stuff about economics is a bunch of sophisticated manipulation of statistics. Same-sex marriage will save couples money, because they get benefits from their employers and from the government, but at the same time it won't cost employers any more money, and actually create money from the government. Where is all this money coming from? Everyone makes money on same-sex marriage and no one loses money? That can't be. Anyway, the point is I completely disagree with it, and I personally think it is flawed, but that does not give me the right to remove it. However, if I were to find some source that says giving same-sex couples benefits would cost business owners, which I am planning on doing, I can add that to the claim, but I can't take away the original claim because I as a Wikipedia editor have been able to conclude that their reasoning is wrong. That is original research and synthesis. It is the same with the argument about freedom of speech and religion. You might think the argument doesn't make sense because of the 1st amendment or whatever argument you come up with, but unless you can find a reliable source that makes that contention, you cannot add it to Wikipedia. Even if you do find a reliable source that makes that contention, all you can do is add it to the article. You can't remove other information. We are not supposed to censor it based on our opinions on the content. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Almost every additon suggested in this thread should taken to a subarticle. We have subarticles for SSM and religion (for any in depth freedom of religion discussion), and SSM and children/family (for discussion of education). The sections here are already to large for summaries, and far too dependant on US sources and POVs. I have no problem with controversies, whether legitimate or propaganda, being massively expanded on - but it should not be done in this worldwide overview article! It is impossible to write fair NPOV summaries of these issues when people keep adding new info, without consideration of overall balance or summary style. Yob Mod 13:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been accusation that the section on freedom of speech is only a US issue. Here are some google hits:
It really isn't hard to find discussion about freedom of speech and SSM from any country that has any significant amount of discussion on SSM. This is not only a US issue. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindented) Forget the Google counts. Look at the references that I included in the article. I will repost them here:
This is sufficient evidence to show that the conflict between freedom of speech and same-sex marriage is not limited to the US. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
So all in all, your sources are illegitimate and unsubstantiated. Simply putting junk inside some ref tags doesn't make them any less junk. Read up on WP:RS -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Part of the debate over freedom of speech is that many people have complained that groups like these [24] [25][www.eightmaps.com] intimidate people who sign petitions and who donate money. Common in the same-sex marriage debate are accusation of intimidation. [26] [27] [28] [29] The argument is that intimidating voters puts a limit on freedom of speech. [30] It was removed originally with the comment "article said nothing about "Freedom of speech"" (it talked about the right to speak your mind). Then with the comment "This is not an article on voter intimidation. And names don't need protection; what are people going to do, change their spellings?" and then again with no explanation. Voter intimidation is a serious issue that needs to be explored. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This will be one of the last times I do your homework for you, either check your sources or read WP:RELIABLE if you're confused. -- Historyguy1965 ( talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Voter intimidation is a serious issue that needs to be explored." -- then start an article on "voter intimidation". This is an article on Same-sex marriage. The topic of voter intimidation as you're trying to discuss it is several large leaps away from being about SSM, and is also quite local. - Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] This article is about same-sex marriage, not about the anxieties of oppponents of same-sex marriage. Therefore, I have deleted the section. I someone wants to write about the "concerns" and "worries" of oppponents of same-sex marriage, then I suggest he/she start Mental health of opponents of same-sex marriage. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)