Talk:gay marriage

gay marriage
Gay wedding failed with a heavy majority. I see no reason why this shouldn't go the same way. Gay and marriage cover it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bit different. A wedding, gay or otherwise, is an event without legal consequences. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is a legal status. A couple can have a wedding, have their marriage recognized by their church, and have every other indicia of being married, but not be in a gay marriage because the laws of their state prohibit this, even while the laws of a neighboring state would recognize the marriage as existing. bd2412 T 23:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the definition. It's a marriage between two people of the same gender, not two homosexuals. With this in mind, it should be kept, as it is idiomatic. ---&gt; Tooironic 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. --Anatoli 00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as fixed. bd2412 T 03:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. I think it's pure SOP, despite what Tooironic says — "gay" is frequently used in reference to same-sex relationships, even if one or both partners is bisexual — but the backformation seems to prove that  is a term meriting inclusion, no? —Ruakh TALK 02:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is tricky. A marriage between a lesbian female and a gay male is not a "gay marriage", even though both partners are gay (nor would it be a "gay relationship" if a lesbian female and a gay male started dating), and this, unlike "gay wedding", seems to be a set phrase... so, weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If marriage between a lesbian and a gay man isn't gay marriage, that's because gay there is not the noun. It's an adjective (our sense 4, " Homosexual: being between two people of the same gender or the same sex; being between two men"), and this is SOP. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly say delete except for Ruakh's argument above, but I think I say delete anyway. I'm not (but amwilling to be) convinced that the fact that something is the source of a back-formation means that it's entered the vocabulary as a unit. (And as for as formatting goes, the etymology section at gay marry can indicate the back-formation, linking to the individual parts.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

keep it is in the reuters and ap manual of styleGtroy 21:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep, for the sake of not adding a sense to gay that would only apply to the word marriage. —  [Ric Laurent] — 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have the relevant sense of gay already (I quote it above), and it's listed as applying also to wedding and couple. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Striking as kept. bd2412 T 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)