Talk:1431: Marriage - Revision history

42.book.addict at 19:37, 15 November 2025

2025-11-15T19:37:07Z

172.71.241.56: I know where unisigned is coming from, and totally disagree, but they won't care about that.

2025-04-20T09:02:32Z

I know where unisigned is coming from, and totally disagree, but they won't care about that.

172.68.12.108 at 01:42, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T01:42:30Z

172.70.85.225 at 21:34, 3 April 2023

2023-04-03T21:34:23Z

172.69.34.16 at 18:27, 3 April 2023

2023-04-03T18:27:06Z

Netherin5: Undo revision 112021 by Xhfz (talk) I’m not a fan of deleting discussions, and it is related closely enough to the comic.

2019-03-11T14:26:16Z

Undo revision 112021 by Xhfz (talk) I’m not a fan of deleting discussions, and it is related closely enough to the comic.

Xhfz: Moving off topic conversation to Talk:1431: Marriage/What's next

2016-02-16T03:24:28Z

Moving off topic conversation to Talk:1431: Marriage/What's next

Spur at 02:54, 10 October 2014

2014-10-10T02:54:26Z

199.27.128.117 at 16:45, 9 October 2014

2014-10-09T16:45:46Z

Sean timmons at 21:05, 8 October 2014

2014-10-08T21:05:43Z

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.
-Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."
+Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the {{w|Gamete}} mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). {{w|UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7|United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child}} article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."
-In the US one can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted. Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].
+In the US one can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted. Depending on the situation, children are produced using {{w|Surrogacy|gestational surrogacy}} or {{w|Assisted_reproductive_technology|Assisted reproductive technology}}.
 In theory this has nothing to do with sexual orientation of the buyers.  In practice fertile couples just have babies naturally.  So the only people who buy babies are very rich people who want babies with specific features (keyword "screening"), infertile couples and people that may be technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple).  I know in my town two gay men that bought two children in the US.
-Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?
+Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates {{UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7|United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child}}, right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?
 Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
 --[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 :So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::Thank you for your reply Diszy.
@@ Line 69: / Line 67: @@
 So legalization of inter-racial marriage preceded (by quite some time) the general acceptance of it.  While acceptance of same-sex marriage is preceding it's legalization.  An interesting switch in how the country operates.  A consequence of the rise of groups like the "conservative" Tea Party folks and the increased radicalization of the right?  Where once we had politicians who did the right thing despite its not being popular, now delay doing the right thing because they are far more interested in "leading by following" than in actual leading?  [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
-::The right hasn't changed. Only the left has radicalized. No politician has ever done the right thing, for any reason. {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.108|01:42, 20 April 2025}}
+::The right hasn't changed. Only the left has radicalized. No politician has ever done the right thing, for any reason. {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.108|01:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)}}
 :Some say radicalization, some say marginalization.  Perhaps both are right.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::Yeah, both are right in that one eventually leads to the other.  Folks who get too radical (in either direction) get marginalized.  But it's a self-inflicted marginalization and an appropriate one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
-::::Not self-inflicted and not appropriate. {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.108|01:42, 20 April 2025}}
+::::Not self-inflicted and not appropriate. {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.108|01:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)}}
 :::Likewise, prolonged exclusion of a group of people may cause them to become radical. [[User:Spur|Spur]] ([[User talk:Spur|talk]]) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 So legalization of inter-racial marriage preceded (by quite some time) the general acceptance of it.  While acceptance of same-sex marriage is preceding it's legalization.  An interesting switch in how the country operates.  A consequence of the rise of groups like the "conservative" Tea Party folks and the increased radicalization of the right?  Where once we had politicians who did the right thing despite its not being popular, now delay doing the right thing because they are far more interested in "leading by following" than in actual leading?  [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
-:The right hasn't changed. Only the left has radicalized. No politician has ever done the right thing, for any reason.
+::The right hasn't changed. Only the left has radicalized. No politician has ever done the right thing, for any reason. {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.108|01:42, 20 April 2025}}
 :Some say radicalization, some say marginalization.  Perhaps both are right.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::Yeah, both are right in that one eventually leads to the other.  Folks who get too radical (in either direction) get marginalized.  But it's a self-inflicted marginalization and an appropriate one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
-:::Not self-inflicted and not appropriate.
+::::Not self-inflicted and not appropriate. {{unsigned ip|172.68.12.108|01:42, 20 April 2025}}
 :::Likewise, prolonged exclusion of a group of people may cause them to become radical. [[User:Spur|Spur]] ([[User talk:Spur|talk]]) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 So legalization of inter-racial marriage preceded (by quite some time) the general acceptance of it.  While acceptance of same-sex marriage is preceding it's legalization.  An interesting switch in how the country operates.  A consequence of the rise of groups like the "conservative" Tea Party folks and the increased radicalization of the right?  Where once we had politicians who did the right thing despite its not being popular, now delay doing the right thing because they are far more interested in "leading by following" than in actual leading?  [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 :Some say radicalization, some say marginalization.  Perhaps both are right.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::Yeah, both are right in that one eventually leads to the other.  Folks who get too radical (in either direction) get marginalized.  But it's a self-inflicted marginalization and an appropriate one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 :::Likewise, prolonged exclusion of a group of people may cause them to become radical. [[User:Spur|Spur]] ([[User talk:Spur|talk]]) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 3 April 2023
Line 82:		Line 82:

	I approve of interracial marriage, but not same-sex marriage. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.16\|172.69.34.16]] 18:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)		I approve of interracial marriage, but not same-sex marriage. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.16\|172.69.34.16]] 18:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
		+	:That's nice of you. But can we presume you're otherwise happy with congress (of all kinds)? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.225\|172.70.85.225]] 21:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 3 April 2023
Line 78:		Line 78:

	p.s. OTOH, hypothetically if SCOTUS reversed ''Loving'' and allowed interracial bans again, a lot of those disapprovers would probably turn back into active opponents. IOW, they accept it as law mainly because they know they can't change it. - [[User:Frankie\|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie\|talk]]) 18:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)		p.s. OTOH, hypothetically if SCOTUS reversed ''Loving'' and allowed interracial bans again, a lot of those disapprovers would probably turn back into active opponents. IOW, they accept it as law mainly because they know they can't change it. - [[User:Frankie\|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie\|talk]]) 18:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	I approve of interracial marriage, but not same-sex marriage. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.16\|172.69.34.16]] 18:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ----
-[[/What's next]]
 ----

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 :Graphs tend to be hard.  On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 :: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 ----