text:
Quasiturbine

The Quasiturbine or Qurbine engine is a proposed pistonless rotary engine using a rhomboidal rotor whose sides are hinged at the vertices. The volume enclosed between the sides of the rotor and the rotor casing provide compression and expansion in a fashion similar to the more familiar Wankel engine, but the hinging at the edges allows the volume ratio to increase. A geometrical indetermination (not uniquely defined) of the Quasiturbine confinement stator shape allows for a variety of profiles (including asymetrical) and design characteristics. Unlike vane pumps, in which vane extension is generally important and against which the pressure acts to generate the rotation, the Quasiturbine contour seals have a minimal extension and the rotation does not result from pressure against these seals.

Since the rotational force within the Quasiturbine comes from the pressure on the entire pivoting-blade, and not on an extensible vanes which impose a geometric back flow at chamber overlaps, the high eccentricity QT stators increases considerably the stroke displacement volumes which can exceed the whole engine volume per rotation. Such a high displacement to external engine volume ratio near unity leads to exceptional engine power density in volume and weight, while maintaining high torque. Patents for the Quasiturbine (in the most general AC concept with carriages)  are held by the family of Gilles Saint-Hilaire of Québec. As well as an internal combustion engine, the Quasiturbine has been proposed as a possible pump design, and a possible Stirling engine. It has been demonstrated as a pneumatic engine using stored compressed air, and as a steam engine.

There are at least four proposed designs:
 * Two-port with carriages, suitable for use as an internal combustion engine.
 * Four-port without carriages, suitable for use as a pneumatic engine or hydraulic engine, steam engine or pump.
 * Two-port without carriages, a conceptual design which is hoped to combine some of the advantages of the existing two- and four-port prototypes.
 * Another conceptual design using a fixed charge of gas, with no ports and without carriages, as a Stirling engine. (But not yet referring Malone engine in spite of similar function to Stirling engine)

Two-port with carriages
The earliest Quasiturbine design used a three-wheeled carriage (French chariot, hence avec chariots or AC for with carriages) to support each vertex of the rotor. The wheels of these four carriages, making twelve wheels in total, ran around the periphery of the engine chamber.

A prototype of an internal combustion engine to this design was constructed, and enthusiastically reviewed in European Automotive Design magazine September, 1999. The prototype was turned by an external engine for 40 hours.

However, ignition with fuel was never achieved. If it was attempted no results were ever released, and development work on this design was no priority, in spite of Quasiturbine internal combustion test.

Photo-detonation
The two-port design with carriages was proposed to make possible a new and superior mode of combustion, termed photo-detonation by the Quasiturbine inventors. This resembles detonation, as used in the Bourke engine, akin to knocking and pinging undesirable in common internal combustion engines. , no research has been published supporting this claim. A related idea that flame transfer would be possible through special ports is similarly unsupported.

Four-port without carriages

The second Quasiturbine design is greatly simplified to eliminate the carriages (French sans chariots or SC). At the same time, the ports were duplicated on the opposite side of the housing, thus converting the operation from four strokes per cycle to two and doubling the number of cycles per rotor revolution. This mechanism has been demonstrated running as a pneumatic engine using stored compressed air, and also as a steam engine as reported in Scholar Papers. This is also the design proposed for use as a pump, and particularly as a supercharger.

This design uses redesigned blades, longer than those for a similar sized housing of the first type owing to the absence of the carriages, and lacking the distinctive crown contour. Only the basic rotor geometry is common with the earlier design.

A pneumatic engine of this design was demonstrated powering a go-kart in November 2004, and another powering a small car in September 2005, both vehicles using stored compressed air to power the engine. a pneumatic chain saw driven by an air hose from a conventional external compressor is under development.

With a suitably redesigned housing to allow for thermal expansion, the same rotor design has been demonstrated as a steam engine.

Another potential variation of this design uses the two sets of ports independently, one as an engine and the other as a pump, thus potentially integrating the functions of a pump and its driving motor in one shaftless unit. One restriction of this usage is that the two fluids must be similar; It would not be possible for example to drive an integrated air pump with hydraulic fluid, as the rotor design is significantly different. no prototype of this variation has been demonstrated.

The Otto mode Quasiturbine uses a spark ignition, while the photo-detonation Quasiturbine eliminates the need for spark plugs and an electrical ignition system. In photo-detonation mode, the fuel/air charge auto-ignites with a short, powerful pressure pulse in the Quasiturbine's combustion chamber.

Two-port without carriages
This third design combines aspects of the first two. this design is conceptual only. It has not been built, but is used for purposes of illustration. If built it would not support photo-detonation.

Many other designs are possible within the patented Quasiturbine model, with or without carriages and with differing numbers of ports. , which design will be used for further work on the internal combustion version has not been announced.

History
Prof. J. Ignacio Martínez-Artajo (1907-1984) from Universidad Pontificia Comillas (Madrid, Spain) made sketches of an adaptative rotary compressor in the mid seventies, which led to the construction of a railway model missing of proper rotor dynamic solutions. Lately, research was conducted by Dr. Gilles Saint-Hilaire, a thermonuclear physicist, and members of his immediate family. The original objective was to make a turbo-shaft turbine engine where the compressor portion and the power portion would be in the same plane. In order to achieve this they had to disconnect the blades from the main shaft, chain them around in such a way that a single rotor acts as a compressor for a quarter turn and as an engine for the following quarter of a turn.

The general concept of the Quasiturbine engine was first patented in 1996. Small pneumatic and steam units are available from the patent holders for sale or hire for research, academic training and industrial demonstration, as is a book (largely in French) describing the concepts and development of the design. Demonstrations have been undertaken on an Air Gokart in 2004, on “APUQ Air Car” in 2005, on the University of Connecticut “Brash Steam Car” in 2010, and other products (Chainsaw and generator).

The patent holders have announced that they intend to make similar internal combustion prototypes available for demonstration.

title: Quasiturbine


text: File:The Living Daylights (soundtrack - album cover).jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: User talk:68.34.207.29

title: User talk:68.34.207.29


text:
Sutter Health Park

Sutter Health Park is a ballpark located in West Sacramento, California. It is the home of the Sacramento River Cats, a Minor League Baseball team in the Pacific Coast League. Known as Raley Field from 2000 to 2019, the facility was built on the site of old warehouses and rail yards, across the Sacramento River from the California State Capitol. It is directly adjacent to downtown Sacramento. It is planned be the home of the Oakland Athletics of Major League Baseball from 2025 through 2027 (with an option for 2028), leading up to the franchise's move to Las Vegas.

History
The $46.5 million stadium was built in eight-and-a-half months, but extended periods of bad weather forced the River Cats on a season-opening one month-long road trip, as completion was delayed by 45 days. The completion time, however, was estimated to be about two years. The home opener was played on May 15, 2000.

The stadium is one of the few professional sports facilities in the nation built without a public sector contribution. Although constructed using bonds financed by the River City Stadium Financing Authority, bond payments are paid from ticket, concession, advertising, and other revenues, not taxes. Because the $46.5 million project cost was too large for the host city to finance, Christopher Cabaldon, in his first term as Mayor of West Sacramento, recruited Sacramento County and Yolo County to join his city in a joint-powers agency which became the stadium financing authority.

The stadium has 10,624 permanent seats and grass berms in both right and left fields for a total capacity of 14,014. Its original capacity was 14,611 and was decreased to 14,414 in 2005 with the addition of a party deck. It further decreased in 2010 with the opening of the Diamond Club behind home plate. The stadium has 2,798 club seats and 750 seats in 36 suites.

The naming rights for the facility were sold to Raley's, a regional chain of supermarkets which is also based in West Sacramento, for $15 million over 20 years. The stadium was not designed with expansion in mind; therefore, if a major league ballclub ever moved to Sacramento there would be significant work required.

The ballpark hosted the 2005 Triple-A All-Star Game in which the Pacific Coast League All-Stars defeated the International League All-Stars, 11–5.

There was discussion of the Sacramento Mountain Lions, an American football team in the United Football League, using the field during the 2012 season. A final agreement to this effect was announced on August 6, 2012. The UFL, including the Mountain Lions, abruptly shut down operations in the middle of the 2012 season.

On July 18, 2013, Raley Field hosted a soccer match, a friendly featuring Mexican side Dorados de Sinaloa and Premier League side Norwich City F.C. The game finished 3–0 to Norwich, with goals from Luciano Becchio, Anthony Pilkington and Josh Murphy. The match's attendance was 14,014.

As part of the Golden State Hockey Rush, Raley Field hosted a minor league hockey game between the Stockton Heat and the Bakersfield Condors of the American Hockey League on December 18, 2015.

The ballpark was renamed Sutter Health Park before the 2020 season as part of a naming rights agreement with Sacramento-based Sutter Health.

Temporary home of Oakland Athletics
On April 4, 2024, it was announced that the Oakland Athletics of Major League Baseball (MLB) will play at Sutter Health Park from 2025 through 2027, with an option for a fourth year pending the team's move to Las Vegas. During this period of time, the team will just go by the A's or Athletics whenever playing, with no proper location distinction in mind for the franchise until the move to Las Vegas is completed.

With its total capacity of 14,014, Sutter Health Park is set to become the smallest ballpark in MLB.

On April 4, 2024, the Sacramento River Cats announced that, tentatively, they will remain at Sutter Health Park as well, playing on days when the Athletics are not playing there.

title: Sutter Health Park


text:
Felicity Palmer

Dame Felicity Joan Palmer, (born 6 April 1944), is an English mezzo-soprano and music professor. She sang soprano roles until 1983.

Palmer was born in Cheltenham and educated at Erith Grammar School, now named Erith School. She studied at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama in London and under Marianne Schech's guidance at the Munich College for Music and Theatre. In April 1970, she won first prize in the Kathleen Ferrier Memorial Scholarship. She made her operatic debut in 1971 as Dido in Dido and Aeneas with the Kent Opera. In 1973, she made her US debut with the Houston Grand Opera and her Metropolitan Opera debut was in 2000 as Waltraute (Götterdämmerung). Having made her debut with English National Opera (ENO) in 1975, her performance with the company forty years later, as the Countess in The Queen of Spades, was widely applauded and described as 'mesmerising' and 'astonishing'.

Palmer has performed and recorded Gilbert and Sullivan operas, as Katisha in The Mikado for the ENO and the Welsh National Opera (WNO), Dame Carruthers in The Yeomen of the Guard (WNO) and Little Buttercup in H.M.S. Pinafore (WNO). In 1998, she played Widow Begbick in the Lyric Opera of Chicago production of The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny. In 2003, she performed the role of Mrs Lovett in Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd at the Royal Opera House (the only musical the ROH has ever presented). She sang Venus in a 1983 BBC television broadcast of Orphée aux Enfers conducted by Alexander Faris.

Palmer is noted for her interpretation of the role of Madame de Croissy in Poulenc's Dialogues of the Carmelites, which she has sung at the Metropolitan Opera and at the Lyric Opera of Chicago's first ever production of the work. She also sang the role in English with the ENO and recorded it as part of the Chandos "Opera in English" series. Her other commercial recordings include Der fliegende Holländer and 'Love's Old Sweet Song, Victorian and Edwardian Ballads', 1978, The Decca Recording Company:1997,L.P.;Belart,C.D.,(a Polygram Company),0 28946 14902 7:( John Constable on piano).

Her work in contemporary music has included the first Glyndebourne production of Péter Eötvös's opera Love and Other Demons, in the role of Josefa Miranda.

Palmer is a professor at the Royal College of Music in London. She was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1993 and Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2011 New Year Honours for services to music.

She is a first cousin of Barclay Palmer, Olympic athlete and humanities educator and reformer.

title: Felicity Palmer


text:
User:Woodstone

My interests are:
 * linguistics, language (especially Thai)
 * science
 * music
 * travel
 * mathematics

I was born in 1949 and hold an MSC in mathematics. Other than Europe, where I was born, I have lived and worked in Thailand, the Philipines and the USA.

title: User:Woodstone


text:
Erik Acharius

Erik Acharius (10 October 1757 – 14 August 1819) was a Swedish botanist who pioneered the taxonomy of lichens and is known as the "father of lichenology". Acharius was famously the last pupil of Carl Linnaeus.

Life
Acharius was born in 1757 to Johan Eric Acharius and Catharina Margaretha Hagtorn in Gävle. He received a private education until he was admitted to Gävle Gymnasium in 1770. Later he matriculated at Uppsala University in 1773 where he studied natural history and medicine under Linnaeus and was the last student to defend a dissertation before him. Acharius's dissertation titled, Planta Aphyteia, was on a vascular plant species (Hydnora) collected in Southern Africa by Carl Peter Thunberg, which Linnaeus incorrectly classified as fungi. Thus he is known as "Carl Linnaeus last disciple" or the last pupil of Linnaeus. After graduating from Uppsala in 1776, he later worked for the Royal Academy of Sciences in Stockholm and completed his medical studies at Lund University in 1782. He was appointed town medical officer in Vadstena in 1785, district medical officer in Östergötland County in 1789, director of the new Vadstena Hospital (which he had initiated) in 1795, and titular professor in 1803. As a cartoonist, Acharius Johan illustrated Peter Westring's work Svenska lafvarne color history (1805) and Carl Peter Thunberg's Flora Capensis.

In 1787 Erik Acharius married Helena Dorotea Scholander (1762–1804), the daughter of a trader, in Landskrona. After Helena's death Acharius married Margareta Maria Hoffberg on December 31, 1804. She was the daughter of Gottfrid Hoffberg who was in charge of production of saltpeter for munitions in Skänninge. In total Erik Acharius had four children, Lars Gustaf Acharius, Jean Torkel Acharius, Catharina Theodora Ohrling (née Acharius) and Charlotta Wilhelmina Acharius.

Acharius spent the remainder of his life in Vadstena, where he died of a stroke while in his household garden examining a Spanish collection of lichens on 14 August 1819, at the age of 61.

Work in lichenology
Acharius belonged to the younger generations of Swedish botanists who continued what Linnaeus had left undone; classifying all living organisms. Acharius began the taxonomic classification of Lichenes and during his lifetime he classified over 3300 species of lichen separated into 40 different genera. At the time of Linnaeus's death all lichens were grouped into a single genus, thus Acharius was the first to expand lichen classification into the multi-divisional group of organisms it is known to be today. His first publication was Lichenographiae Suecia prodromus, published in 1798, which detailed all known lichen species found in Sweden. This was the first published work to detail lichens using binomial nomenclature and expand their classification beyond a single genus. While composing Lichenographiae Suecia prodromus, Acharius began communicating with Olof Swartz, another Linnaean disciple, and from 1780 to 1815 they sent nearly 350 letters to each other. Swartz is believed by many historians to have heavily influenced the development of Acharius's classification system. Additionally, Swartz introduced Acharius to many other Swedish naturalists as also several important international figures such as James Edward Smith, the head of the Linnean Society. This exposure aided Acharius in spreading his new findings on lichens to an international audience. After publishing his first work, he sent a copy to James Edward Smith who, in response, inducted Acharius as a foreign member of the Linnean Society. Subsequently, Acharius published Methodus qua omnes detectos Lichenes (1803), Lichenographia universalis (1810), and Synopsis methodica lichenum (1814) each of which he sent to the Society in London, accompanied by hundreds of the specimens described in each book. Over his lifetime Acharius collected over 5500 specimens of lichen most of which are housed today in the Botanical Museum of the Finnish Museum of Natural History.

In his influential works, Acharius introduced many lichen-related terminology that remain in common use today. Starting with designating the pits on the underside of Sticta lichens as in 1794, he added the terms, , , , , and  in 1803;  in 1810; and  in 1817.

Legacy
Acharius's international reputation influence many new lichenologist from all over Europe. In 1804 Friedrich Weber (1781–1823) and Daniel Matthias Heinrich Mohr (1780–1808), two German naturalists, published Naturhistorische Reise durch einen Theil Schwedens which heavily featured his work on lichens and also included four illustrations by Acharius. Furthermore, William Borrer who pioneered lichenology in Britain (and is often called the father of British lichenology) was heavily influence by Acharius's specimens and publications received by the Linnean society in London. These collections and books were studied by Borrer in 1809 and served as the basis for his own work. Additionally Thomas Gage published A Monograph of the Genus Cenomyce: Consisting of Coloured Drawings of Each Species and Variety, As Described in the Lichenographia Universalis of Acharius in 1815, which contained illustrations of every species and variation of the genus Cenomyce as described in Lichenographia universalis. To this day several of Acharius's original classification schema are still used in lichen taxonomy. The International Association for Lichenology has named its medal for lifetime achievement in lichenology the Acharius Medal after him. and also in 1992 installed a commemorative plaque on the house in Vadstena where he lived for many years.

Publications and honors

He was a member of the Royal Physiographic Society in Lund (1795), the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (1796), the Linnean Society of London (1801), appointed Knight of the Order of Vasa (1809), and the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala (1810).

The plant genus Acharia (in 1794, ), several plants species (e.g., Rosa acharii, and (type of lichen), Conferva acharii ) and one insect, Tortrix achariana have all been named after Acharius.

The collections of Acharius are distributed over several museums: the Finnish Museum of Natural History in Helsinki, which holds the Botanical Museum in Uppsala, the Swedish Museum of Natural History and the Botanical Museum in Lund. His papers are in the Library of Uppsala University. There are also specimens that he collected in the Natural History Museum, London.

The following is a list of Erik Acharius's publications:

Lichenographiae svecicae Prodromus (Beginning of a Lichenography of Sweden) 1798

Methodus qua omnes detectos Lichenes (A Method by which Everyone Can Identify Lichens) 1803

Lichenographia universalis (A Universal Lichenography) 1810

Synopsis methodica Lichenum (Taxonomical Arrangement of Lichens) 1814

title: Erik Acharius


text: User talk:68.82.103.254

title: User talk:68.82.103.254


text:
Fahud

Fahud is a permanent oil camp and oil field in the middle of the central plain area of Oman, named after the nearby Jebel Fahud believed to mean "Leopard Mountain" from the time when wild leopards roamed the area. The main oil camp is owned by Petroleum Development Oman (PDO), the national oil company.

Oil operations commenced in 1954 when a PDO survey party arrived at the jebel and began surveying it. The first well at Jebel Fahud was completed at 12,235 feet in May 1957. Unfortunately, it was a dry hole except for a very small quantity of gas and oil. Three of the PDO partners decided to withdraw from the Omani concession, leaving Shell (85%) and Partex (15%) to take it over and resume exploration. Only a few hundred yards from the original test well site, a second test well was sunk at Fahud and, in 1964, found oil in commercial quantities.

Today, Fahud is the central base of PDO's operations in the interior of Oman; the company's main offices are in Mina Al Fahal in Muscat. Many contracting companies also have camps for their workers and equipment at Fahud. The town is served by Fahud Airport.

title: Fahud


text:
File:Quasiturbine Picture1.jpg

Subject: Picture of a Quasiturbine engine Source: Quasiturbine Agency Inc.

title: File:Quasiturbine Picture1.jpg


text:
Talk:Duct/to do

 * Add other types of ducts in physiology & anatomy besides milk ducts.

title: Talk:Duct/to do


text:
Banyamulenge

Banyamulenge is a community from the Democratic Republic of the Congo's South Kivu province. The Banyamulenge are culturally and socially distinct from the Tutsi of South Kivu, with most speaking Kinyamulenge, a mix of Kinyarwanda (official language of Rwanda), Kirundi (spoken primarily in Burundi), Ha language (spoken by Ha people, one of the largest ethnic groups in ethnically diverse Tanzania), and Swahili. Banyamulenge are often discriminated against in the DRC due to their Tutsi phenotype, similar to that of people living in the Horn of Africa, their insubordination towards colonial rule, their role in Mobutu's war against and victory over the Simba Rebellion, which was supported by the majority of other tribes in South Kivu, their role during the First Congo War and subsequent regional conflicts (Rally for Congolese Democracy–Goma, Movement for the Liberation of the Congo, National Congress for the Defence of the People, and more importantly for the fact that two of the most influential presidents of their country declared them as enemy of the State both in 1996 (Mobutu Sese Seko) and 1998 (Laurent-Désiré Kabila).

The contentious political and social position of the Banyamulenge has been a point of controversy in the country, having played a key role in tensions against the Simba Rebellion of 1963–1965, First Congo War of 1996–1997, Second Congo War of 1998–2003, and Joseph Kabila's regime of 2001–2019. The wars in the DRC have affected more than 10 million lives, with casualties continuing in Ituri, North Kivu, South Kivu, and Tanganyika provinces.

In the late 1990s, political scientist René Lemarchand stated that the main ethnic groups claimed the Banyamulenge numbered around 50,000 to 70,000. Gérard Prunier quotes around 60,000–80,000, a figure of about 3–4 percent of the total provincial population. Lemarchand notes that the group represents "a rather unique case of ethnogenesis".

Etymology
Mulenge is a term historically referring to mountains concentrated on the High Plateau of South Kivu, in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, close to the Burundi-Congo-Rwanda border. The term translates literally as "people of Mulenge", a groupement on the Itombwe plateau. The name was chosen in the early 1970s to avoid being called "Banyarwanda" and seen as foreigners in what was then Zaire. In 1976, the word "Banyamulenge" first came into wide usage after Gisaro Muhazo, a South Kivutian minister of parliament, began an initiative to reclassify the Banyamulenge of Mwenga, Fizi, and Uvira into a single administrative entity. Muhazo's attempt failed, but the term he introduced remained. Over decades, it became used as a catchall label for the Kivutian Tutsi.

Origins and early political status
While the Banyarwanda/Banyamulenge may have migrated in the 17th century from Rwanda, Burundi and the Karagwa area of Tanzania, other sources suggest some early Banyamulenge came to the area in the 18th century, fleeing the rule of Rwabugiri in Rwanda.

Another significant recorded influx of Banyarwanda into South Kivu is dated to the 1880s. Two reasons are given for their migration: the migrants were composed of Tutsi trying to avoid the increasingly high taxes imposed by Mwami Rwabugiri of the Kingdom of Rwanda. Secondly, the group was fleeing the violent war of succession that erupted in 1895 after the death of Rwabugiri. This group was mostly Tutsi and their Hutu abagaragu (clients), who had been icyihuture (turned Tutsi), which negated interethnic tension. They settled above the Ruzizi Plain on the Itombwe Plateau. The plateau, which reached an altitude of 3000 meters, could not support large-scale agriculture, but allowed cattle grazing.

Banyarwanda migrants continued to arrive, particularly as labour migrants during the colonial period. The Union Minière du Haut Katanga recruited more than 7000 workers from 1925 to 1929. From the 1930s, Congolese Banyarwanda immigrants continued coming in search of work, with a major influx of Tutsi refugees in 1959–1960 following the "Social Revolution" led by Hutu Grégoire Kayibanda. While the early migrants lived primarily as pastoralists in the high plains, colonial labour migrants moved to urban areas. Refugees were placed in refugee camps. In 1924, the pastoralists received permission from colonial authorities to occupy a high plateau further south.

The groups received further immigrants during the anti-Tutsi persecutions in 1964 and 1973. Many Banyamulenge initially joined the Simba Rebellion of 1964–5, but switched sides when rebels, fleeing Jean Schramme's mercenaries and government troops, came onto the plateau and began killing the Banyarwanda's cattle for food. The Tutsi rose up, accepting weapons from the pro-Mobutu forces and assisting in the defeat of the remaining rebels. Because many of the rebels killed were from the neighbouring Bembe people, this incident created a lasting source of intra-group tension. The government rewarded the Banyamulenge efforts on its behalf by appointing individuals to high positions in the capital Bukavu, while their children were increasingly sent to missionary schools. Starting at this time, Lemarchand asserts, "From a rural, isolated, backward community, the Banyamulenge would soon become increasingly aware of themselves as a political force."

After the war, the group took advantage of a favourable political environment to expand their territory. Some moved south towards Moba port and Kalemi, while others moved onto the Ruzizi plain, where a few became chiefs among the Barundi through gifts of cattle. Still others went to work in the Bukavu, the provincial capital, or Uvira, a town experiencing a gold rush economic boom. These urban dwellers could make a fair living selling meat and milk from their herds to the gold diggers, though the group lacked the political connections to Kinshasa and the large educated class which was possessed by the North Kivu Banyarwanda.

The pastoralists were located within three territoires: Mwenga, inhabited by the Lega people; Fizi of the Bembe people, the Babwari people and the Banyindu people; and Uvira, inhabited by the Vira people, Bafuliro and Barundi. Ethnic tensions against the Tutsi rose following the end of the colonial period, as well as during the 1972 mass killing of Hutu in Burundi. In response, the Tutsi appear to have attempted to distance themselves from their ethnicity as Rwandans and lay claim to a territorial identity as residents of Mulenge. As they moved, they continued this practice. Some Tutsi Banyarwanda in South Kivu call themselves the Banya-tulambo and Banya-minembwe, after the places they were located.

Political tensions (1971–1992)
After 1971, such practices became increasingly controversial. The 1971 Citizenship Decree by President Mobutu Sese Seko granted citizenship to the Banyarwanda who had arrived as refugees from 1959 to 1963. However, some leaders, such as Chief of Staff Barthélémy Bisengimana, were concerned that this change was an alarming sign of the growing influence of the Banyarwanda in the administration.

In reaction to the apparently growing influence of the Banyamulenge, the majority ethnicities, particularly the Nande and Hunde of North Kivu, focused on dominating the 1977 legislative elections. Once accomplished, they passed the 1981 Citizenship Bill, stating that only people who could prove descent from someone resident in Congo in 1885 would qualify for citizenship. From the perspective of the so-called "indigenous ethnicities", such as the Babembe, Bafuliro, the name "Banyamulenge" was a claim to indigeneity in Mulenge.

However, the bill proved difficult to implement by the time of the 1985 provincial assembly elections, so the so-called "indigenous Kivutian majority" came up with an ad hoc measure: Banyarwanda (including Banyamulenge and Tutsi from North Kivu) were allowed to vote in elections, but not to run for political office. This appeared to aggravate the situation, as those Banyarwanda who qualified as citizens under the 1981 law still found their political rights curtailed. Some so-called Banyarwanda, particularly Banyamulenge, smashed ballot boxes in protest. Others formed Umoja, an organization of all Congolese Banyarwanda. However, in 1988, the increasing tensions within the Banyarwanda community of North Kivu led to the division of the organization into Tutsi and Hutu groups in North Kivu due to the fact that Hutus held power in Rwanda.

The 1991 Sovereign National Conference (CNS) was a sign of the increasing coherence of the anti-Mobutu forces, and came as the Congolese Banyarwanda were in a state of heightened tension. Following the beginning of the Rwandan Civil War in 1990, many young Tutsi men in Kivu crossed the border to join the Tutsi-dominated rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in its fight against the Hutu-dominated Rwandan government. In response, the Mobutu government implemented Mission d'Identification de Zaïrois au Kivu to identify non-Zairean Banyarwanda, using the end of the Berlin Conference as the division point. Many Banyarwanda whose families had come as colonial labourers were classified as aliens, resulting in yet more youth joining the RPF. The overall effect of the CNS was to strengthen the tendency of "indigenous" Congolese to differentiate Tutsi from Hutu, and lump together all Tutsi Banyarwanda as "Banyamulenge". It also underlined the fragility of their political position to the Banyamulenge. Within the Banyarwanda in the Kivus, the Hutu began defining themselves as "indigenous" in comparison to the Tutsis, who were increasingly seen as owing their allegiance to the foreign groups.

Conflict (1993–1998)
In 1993, the issue of land and indigenous claims in the Kivus erupted into bloody conflict. Hutu, and some Tutsi, landlords began buying the lands of poor Hutu and Bahunde of the Wanyanga chiefdom in Masisi, North Kivu. After being displaced, one thousand people went to Walikale, demanding the right to elect their own ethnic leaders. The Banyanga, insisting that only "indigenous people" could claim this customary right, began fighting with the Hutu.

The one thousand returned to Masisi, where the Hutu landlords, and Banyarwanda in general, supported the claim of Banyarwanda to "indigenous" rights. The government sent in the Division Spéciale Présidentielle (DSP) and Guard Civile to restore order. Ill-supplied, the security forces were forced to live off the local population: the DSP off the rich Hutu and the Guard Civile off the Bahunde and ordinary Hutu. The DSP appeared to be protecting the rights of the "non-indigenous" (primarily Hutu) against the "indigenous" (primarily Bahunde), sparking outrage and increasing the scope of the conflict. One estimate is that between 10,000 and 20,000 people were killed; another 200,000 people were forced to flee their homes.

In late 1993, about 50,000 Burundian refugees from the Burundi Civil War began streaming into primarily South Kivu. They were followed the next year by almost one million mostly Hutu refugees from the Rwandan genocide, creating the Great Lakes refugee crisis. The Hutu government responsible for the genocide came with the refugees; they turned the camps into armed bases from which they could launch attacks against the newly victorious RPF government in Rwanda. The influx of refugees dramatically changed the situation of the Banyamulenge.

The Congolese Tutsi in North Kivu were threatened by the new armed Hutu camps, while the newly established Tutsi government in Rwanda gave them a safe place to go. Their peril was underlined by a commission led by Mambweni Vangu, who declared that all Banyarwanda were refugees and must return to Rwanda. In April 1995, Anzuluni Mbembe, the co-speaker of the Parliament of Congo, signed a resolution stating that all Banyamulenge were recent refugees (regardless of how long they had lived in the Congo) and providing a list of Banyamulenge who would be expelled from the country. Between March and May 1996, the remaining Tutsi in Masisi and Rutshuru were identified and expelled into refugee camps in Gisenyi. The Bahunde, forced out by the Hutu, also took refuge there.

The situation in South Kivu took longer to develop. Once the 1994 refugees arrived, local authorities began appropriating Banyamulenge-owned property in the valley with the support of Mbembe. Threatened by both the armed Hutus to the north and a Congolese army appropriating property and land, the Banyamulenge of South Kivu sought cross-border training and supply of arms from the RPF. As threats proliferated, each Native Authority formed its own militia. Finally, in November 1996, the RPF-backed Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (AFDL), which the Banyamulenge militias joined, crossed the border and dismantled the camps, before continuing on to Kinshasa and overthrowing Mobutu. The ranks of the AFDL were composed in large part by Banyamulenge, who filled most of the administrative positions in South Kivu after the fall of Bukavu.

As documented in the DRC Mapping Exercise Report by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the success of the invasion led to revenge killings by the Tutsi Banyarwanda against their opponents. Perhaps six thousand Hutu were purged in the week following the AFDL capture of the town. It was worse in South Kivu, as Banyamulenge settled local scores and RPF soldiers appeared to conflate the génocidaires with the Hutu with the "indigenous" Congolese. One intellectual in Bukavu who was otherwise sympathetic to the Banyamulenge claim to citizenship stated: "The Banyamulenge conquered their rights by arms but the rift between them and the local population has grown. The attitude of the Tutsi soldiers—during and after the war has made them more detested by the population due to the killings, torture. For example, they will go into the village, raid all the cattle, tell the population—since when have you learned to keep cattle; we are cattle; we know cattle.  In Bukavu, they went into and stole from houses.  Not so much in Goma.  The result is the population is increasingly getting concerned over the question of the Tutsi presence."

Second Congo War (1998–2003)
The situation became more polarised with the beginning of the Second Congo War in 1998. Those who had carried out the massacres of Hutu became part of the ruling military forces in the Kivus. Meanwhile, the Congolese government of Laurent Kabila urged the "indigenous" population to fight not only the invading RPA ( Rwandan Patriotic Army ), but also the Congolese Tutsi civilians, the mostly affected being Banyamulenge. Matching actions to words, Kabila armed "indigenous" militias Mai-Mai and Congolese Hutu militias, as well as the Génocidaires (those who carried out mass killings during and after the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, in which close to a million Rwandans, primarily Tutsis, were murdered by their Hutu neighbors.) in response to the RPF's supplying arms to the Banyamulenge. The two Mai-Mai groups most active against the Banyamulenge were the Babembe and Balega militias.

The various Banyamulenge militias and the Rwandan government forces became separate because of disagreements over motives of the uprising after the creation of RCD-Goma. In early 2002, extensive fighting took place on the high plateau of South Kivu after Commandant Patrick Masunzu, then a Tutsi officer in the Rwandan-backed Rally for Congolese Democracy-Goma (RCD-Goma) rebel movement, gathered Banyamulenge support in an uprising against the RCD-Goma leadership.

By 2000, the Banyamulenge were hemmed into the high plateau by Congolese Mai-Mai, the Burundian Forces for the Defense of Democracy, and the Rwandan Hutu Armée de Libération du Rwanda (ALiR). They were unable to carry out basic economic activities without the security provided through the RCD-Goma. Numerous families fled to the relative safety of the Burundian capital of Bujumbura. Nevertheless, Banyamulenge made up much of the RCD military wing, the Armée Nationale Congolaise (ANC), and controlled the towns of Fizi, Uvira, and Minembwe, which was recently declared a "commune" among many others in 2018.

In August 2004, 166 Banyamulenge refugees were massacred at a refugee camp in Gatumba, Burundi by a force composed mostly of National Liberation Front rebels. Vice-president Azarias Ruberwa, a Munyamulenge, suspended his participation in the transitional government for one week in protest, before being persuaded to return to Kinshasa by South African pressure.

M23 War and present (2012–2019)
Many Banyamulenge were opposed to the M23 Rebel Movement. The majority of Banyamulenge opposed Rwanda support of the rebellious M23 led by Tutsi from the North Kivu province. Although many Banyamulenge residing in Rwanda as refugees or Rwandan citizens benefitted from the government of Rwanda. Some of them even occupy government posts and others can be found in lucrative private sectors while others seek residence as refugees and benefit from the US government resettlement program to relocate to the United States (which has a flourishing Banyamulenge diaspora). In DRC, the Banyamulenge have been part of the elite community in politics and the military while benefiting from Kabila himself, even though hated by some members of his inner circle. This has led to increased tensions with local communities all over the country who argue they receive government preferential treatment they do not deserve. This view is largely held by other tribes in South Kivu who have always maintained that they are more Rwandan than they are Congolese. It remains a question of interest as to how they will be treated by the Félix Tshisekedi regime, as they have, in one way or the other, been fairly treated and protected under the leadership of Joseph Kabila. Congolese identify themselves based on their territories. For example, Bembe or Lega tribe identify themselves based on the following territories including Itombwe, Lulenge, Ngandja, Tanganyika and M'tambala. In each territories the land occupants are well-known regardless of its inhabitancy. Though some part of Sud Kivu is inhabited, the dwellers of the land know well their territories and which land belonging to which tribe. In recent years, tensions over the identity of the Banyamulenge and their claims to a newly established district/"commune" (Minembwe) have created a new cycle of regional political and military disagreements which have led to new ethnic clashes, and involved foreign armed groups.

In late 2019, due to rising ethnic tensions in South Kivu, several high-ranking national political and military leaders journeyed to Minembwe as an attempt to appease ethnic tensions in the region. In the diaspora, especially in North America and European Union, a movement protesting against violence towards Banyamulenge was created using social media. International broadcasting channels reported on several demonstrations in the United States and Canada. Despite all this violence, Banyamulenge have resorted to peaceful strategies to resolve these problems. On 6 January, the Banyamulenge community endorsed a judicial inquiry/mission to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes committed in Minembwe.

In 2020, the World Youth Alliance warned that the Banyamulenge (Tutsis) people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo "are facing another wave of inhumane emotional and psychological terror and being subjected to genocidal acts of violence. A coalition of local militias has been carrying out killings of Banyamulenge people who have been in a dire humanitarian situation in the central African region for years. In addition, popular politicians, both in the provinces and the capital city Kinshasa have started campaigns whose main goal is to demonize Tutsis, the Banyamulenge community in particular, by denying their inalienable right to Congolese autochthony and scapegoating them for the woes that the country has been through since the 1990s."

title: Banyamulenge


text:
File:Jody Watley - Midnight Lounge.jpg

Album cover for Midnight Lounge by Jody Watley

Fair use rationale for

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

title: File:Jody Watley - Midnight Lounge.jpg


text:
Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 2

Archives to December 4 2003
By putting the parenthetical comment "consequently monogamous ones only" after the listing of countries that allow same-sex marriage, this implies a value judgement that somehow same-sex couples might be more likely to be less monogamous than opposite-sex couples. This is not NPOV at all. I went ahead and removed the comment. Hope it sticks. Jiminnyc

 * That is just your interpretation. It was a neutral remark that naturally arises when systematically considering which kinds of marriages there are (two special kinds, do they exclude each other?). - Patrick 07:29 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I felt that way too, but apparently some think it was a necessary addition, see the discussion further down. -- Kimiko 06:02 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-- TraxPlayer

Denmark was the first country in the world to have "Same-Sex" marriage The law is from 7. june 1989 and can be read in full from http://www.retsinfo.dk/_GETDOC_/ACCN/A19890037230-reglTARGET=%22_blank%22

It is called "Registered Partnership" and gives 100% the same rights

So the article should be changed and Belgium is then not the second country to give those right but the third country.

 * I removed the listing of Denmark. As you state, Denmark has got a marriage-like civil union system (as do other Scandinavian countries, Quebec, etc...) but that these same-sex unions are not legal marriages in that they are not called marriages and are not part of the marriage law. What the Ontario court did was to rule that marriages shall be between two people instead of a man and a woman, rather than setting up a parallel system for same-sex couples. - Montréalais

Slrubenstein

 * Wouldn't the marriage statutes in the first 13 states go back closer to two centuries? Would it be more accurate to say either "traditional Christian understanding" or maybe even "traditional Judeo-Christian understand"?

 * I was not refering solely to marriage as between a man and a woman -- remember, in the 19th century many marriages were common-law, or arranged for economc purposes. I cannot speak to a "traditional" Christian understanding of marriage; as for a traiditional Jewish understanding, for most of Jewish history that would have included polygyny. Slrubenstein

Hey, it isn't my argument (that's for damn sure). That's just what they call it. Someone else called it that and I kept it, though rewriting the sentence. I certainly think it's a spurious concept, but that's what they call it. (An article describing anti-Semitism might say, "Some believe, blah blah blah, Jewish comspiracy" even though "Jewish conspiracy" is a spurious concept too.) - user:Montrealais

What is the objection to the word "traditional" in traditional understanding of marriage? Is it that calling something traditional is tantamount to endorsing it? That is, are we trying to avoid an NPOV violation here?

 * I thought I explained my objection above Slrubenstein

Or is anyone aware of a change in the understanding of marriage that took place in the late 1890s or early 1900s? That is, when and where has the idea of "one man, one woman" been popular? (I kinda thought it was the norm nearly at all times and in all places, with rather rare exceptions. I wish someone would write an article showing the scope of one man, one woman if it's prevalence is significantly less than I (and perhaps many other readers) have thought.

 * Well, you could try your friendly local encyclopedia. Polygamy says Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones.

 * also, just read the article on marriage Slrubenstein

 * I think the term "traditional marriage" is not neutral, because it implies that marriage hasn't changed much, that the kind of marriage described as "traditional" is similar to marriage over the past centuries and millenia. I think that assertion is historically false. Among the changes in marriage over the last century or two in the U.S.:

And so on. Yes, I should write this down in marriage. In any case, since the historical validity of the concept "traditional marriage" is disputed, it is not a neutral term. I could agree with a phrase like "the late 20th century concept of 'traditional' marriage". -- JDLH
 * 1967, mixed-race marriages made legal nationwide
 * 1960s-1970s, divorce becomes more common
 * Early 1900s, contraception legalised
 * Late 1800s, women permitted to own property in a marriage
 * Early 1800s, social presumption that father is primary parent raising the child changes; mother becomes presumed primary parent.

The article reads: "However after a court case brought about by a gay couple it was concluded that restricting marriage to partners of mixed sex was in violation of the constitution, which forbids discrimination against homosexuals. Hence the marriage law was changed."

This description may confuse US-Americans, as their constitution seems to be 'the final word' on something, and laws have to conform to the constitution. In the Netherlands, the constitution has little legal standing, AFAIK; it is more like a list of intentions. Of course, it would be silly to have a list of intentions and then having law go against those intentions, but it is not impossible or illegal. A judge finding a law or situation unconstitutional is no more than a legal expert voicing his opinion. IANAL.--user:Branko

Problems Facing Same- Sex Married Couples
In addition to facing the difficulties related to finding cultural acceptance, legal rights and prejudice, perhaps the most challenging obstacle to same- sex marriages is the absolute dearth of bakeries willing to break- up a set and sell two little plastic "grooms" to sit atop the wedding cake.dave

 * oh haha. I expect the same problem befalls heterosexual couples where the woman doesn't want to dress up like a meringue. Besides, (1) they could double up with a gay couple of the opposite sex (since that happens sometimes for having children, why not for cake decorations), and (2) I expect the manufacturers of such tasteless tack will jump on any bandwagon, and won't wait long before producing a variety of naff figurines "for all lifestyle choices" ;-) -- Tarquin

 * You probably don't believe me, and I don't blame you, but they HAVE two-little-grooms figures for gay wedding cakes. I've seen them. Then again, this is the same community where you can buy rainbow candlesticks and flowerpots, so don't be too surprised. :P user:Montrealais

 * See? I was right! ;-) -- Tarquin

 * You are certainly right. See http://www.twobrides.com/browse.asp?cat=10 and http://www.twogrooms.com/browse.asp?cat=10 for an assortment of same-sex couples to top your cakes.  -- JDLH

-

I believe the more appropriate title for this entry would be Same-sex marriage. Comments???

 * At first I agreed with you. I assumed "gay" to be a colloquialism or slang, but the American Heritage Dictionary makes no such distinction, so I say leave it alone. David de Paoli

 * We might want to change the name. user:Montrealais

I agree, the name should changed to same-sex marriage since in many circles "gay" = homosexual male and is therefore more ambiguous and less inclusive compared with "same-sex". If there is general agreement on this issue say so on my talk page and I will perform the move (since this will require deleting the redirect same-sex marriage to make room for the move). --mav

 * Anon, jumped the gun. Page moved with its history now. --mav

---

Okay, things are looking good now (I think) :-)

Page should need some light editing after change.

-

 * Maybe it's because I have several friends in West Hollywood, but "gay" is used equally to refer to homosexual males as well as females. However, the activist group "GLAD" (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) does set the precedent that indeed "gay" does imply male homosexuals as differentiated from female ones. So, I hereby change my vote to support changing the title.David de Paoli

Is the "between two" necessarily true. Many cultures allow heterosexual polygamy, do any allow homosexual polygamy?

 * I believe polygamy and polyamory are separate, but related, topics. Yes, while one variant of the early-21st centry US understanding of "marriage" includes same-sex couples, another variant includes marriages with more than two people. Note that for any group of more than two people, if each person can be one of two sexes (ie none are intersexed), then at least two of the people must be the same sex. So any poly grouping will have some same-sex component.  This is why I agree we should include links. But I think we should not try to cover the polygamy and polyamory topics here. --JDLH 1. October 2002

I've changed a couple of words and sentences in the opening section of the article. Some words were needlessly POV. I personally would agree with them but Wiki isn't about expressing our own opinions but given a NPOV perspective. I qualified the mention of traditional marriage with the mention of the judeo-christian ethic, which is the underlying principle that has shaped marriage in all western societies, while pointing out that the judeo-christian ethic is no longer a shared cultural ethic in the manner it was in earlier periods. I also drew attention to the fact that the article was dealing with the issue of civil marriage, a crucial qualification, for 'marriage' is for many both a civil and a religious contract. JTD 03:12 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Is it necessary to state "monogamous only" after mentioning Dutch and Belgian same-sex marriages? Monogamous marriages are the only ones legally possible, wether same-sex or opposite-sex. I think polygamy is a completely different subject best left on its own page. -- Kimiko

 * The idea is to say that there is no overlap between the countries with polygamy and with same-sex marriage. I clarified this - Patrick 01:30 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Also, where can I find info on the Finnish plans for same-sex marriages on the net? Finland has had 'domestic partnerships' since 2001, but I hadn't heard anything about marriage there yet. -- Kimiko 21:45 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

How about this link? http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc-cont.html IMHO, it gives a good overview of the problems involved with partnerships, etc. and the introduction of same-sex marriage in the U.S. It also gives a not completely up-to-date overview of the status of same-sex relationships in many countries. It may not be NPOV enough for inclusion as an external link though. -- Kimiko 08:54 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article (from an anonymous contributor): "The vote that took place to recommend the Justice Minister not to bring this to the Supreme Court of Canada is dubious. Part way through the day two Liberal members left the committee and were replaced with two other Liberals would who vote in favour. Needless to say, the two who were replaced would not have supported the motion and it would have been defeated.

There is something else that the ruling brings to light in Ontario that the original author failed to mentioned, but was mention repeatedly during the committee just before the vote. And that is when was the judical system given the right to create new laws? The judges are not elected in Ontario they are appointed. The provincal MPs are elected to the Provincal Paraliament to create laws and create them update. This is not the responsible or within the powers granted to the Courts. This case goes beyond gay wanting to marry, but who creates the laws the Provincal Government? Or Provincal Courts? Last week, it worked in favour of the gays. Next week, next year, next decade it not, people will loss their rights, as power corrupts absolutely. Judges are not accountable to the voters and do not have to follow what the majority of Ontarians or Canadains believe, as we just saw." -- Notheruser 21:58 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

em. . . actually most courts worldwide automatically have that power. They interpret rights and require that those rights be given legislative form. It is sort of. . . well. . .standard. It is what courts do in most of the countries of the world. Whether they are appointed or elected is irrelevant. It is the job people are appointed to do. BTW governments don't make laws. Laws are passed by legislatures. Governments have to get laws they want passed by parliaments. Judges enforce rights; in some jurisdictions they can tear up laws that breach fundamental rights. Frankly the argument that the courts don'y have the right to create new laws is absurd.

 * Yep, it's called the Common Law last time I checked. The argument that courts do not make the law was at one stage commonly held in England, but in recent history this has been repeatedly rejected. Through the setting of binding precedent (which must be followed by all lower courts in their decisions), courts effectively shape the law. But this doesn't mean that the courts use this power to change the law, they use the power to creatively find solutions to legal problems that would otherwise have produced a result lacking in justice. This was demonstrated in Australia in the famous Mabo case, wherein the court gave the right to displaced Australian Aboriginal people to claim their traditional tribal land back under Native Title. While courts are not directly accountable to voters, they are by their very nature non-political. Thus they generally do not demonstrate the self-serving interests of some politicians. -- Mark Ryan 06:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

Shouldn't the comment about the judeo-christian qualms with same-sex marriages be moved to either religion and homosexuality (already linked at the top of the article), or to christian views of homosexuality (it is a quote from the KJV after all)? I don't think we need to restate those views on every page dealing with anything connected to homosexuality. -- Kimiko 06:44 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I wanted to say something similar, but didn't. There are plenty of reasons why some Christians oppose same-sex marriages, not just that one quote.  For example, some say that sex and marriage should only be used for procreation and same-sex marriages can't fulfill this role.  Others use different Biblical quotes or other rationales.  Tuf-Kat

Even then, those opinions are based on a religious background and therefore belong on their respective pages, not on this one. The link at the top is there for precisely that reason. -- Kimiko 06:57 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's a good idea to move the "Same sex marriage in ???" bits to their own pages? I can't think of a way to nest them correctly in the current page, and we could very well end up with an entry on this page for every country and jurisdiction in the world!

If nobody objects I'll move the bits to their own pages, add them to a see also: bit at the end of this page, and maybe make a table on this page showing what countries do (and don't?) recognize same-sex marriages and unions, and to what extent. -- stewacide 04:27 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * It sounds good. Be sure to refer back to this page for a generic explanation of same-sex marriages and the problems/controversy surrounding them, so as to avoid duplication. -- Kimiko 07:11 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the United States at present, it appears that the separation between Religion and State, is very thin. Citizens of the US, should be concerned about any law or constitutional amendment that dictates laws regarding religious rites or ceremonies. If a religion wishes to restrict same-gender religious agreements and rituals, they should be allowed to do so. This would pave the way toward legalization of contractual agreements between citizens regardless of gender. Most states "de-sexed" child custody laws in the 1970's, giving fathers equal rights to parent as mothers. This was done because of the prejudice against fathers as primary care-givers. Similar legislation to "de-gender" domestic contracts would achieve equality for all Americans. However, because of the strong religious control of your government in the US, this does not seem likely. - 68.0.139.141

 * Eh, what is your point? You seem to A) blame the US' troubles recognizing same-sex relationships on religion, and B) advocate getting rid of the term "marriage" to solve those troubles. Correct or incorrect, both seem rather POV to me, so what are you trying to say here? -- Kimiko 07:49 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if this person is saying that religious control is good or bad. He or she seems to think that same-sex marriage laws force the hand of religous groups, which they do not. -- Mark Ryan 06:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the Scandinavian countries and Finland, with Denmark in the front, being the first country in the world to legalize same-sex-marriages.

It is also interesting to read Johns Boswells book "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", Villard, 1994

orfeus@gyxi.dk

 * The Scandinavian countries are still stuck in the domestic partnership/civil union age. Those are mentioned and linked under other forms of same-sex partnership. -- Kimiko 23:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"in countries with monogamous marriages only, some opponents also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will re-open the door to the legalization of polyamorous marriage, or other forms they find even more objectionable"

Really? Has anyone actually come across campaign groups arguing this in their own countries? Sounds fabricated to me. M-Henry 14:41, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * This argument has been made by SSM opponents in Canada, claiming that the law would allow incestuous and polygamous marriages. Complete horsefeathers, but still. Also, if you're going to explain an edit in Talk, please write "see Talk" in the summary line. Thanks! - Montréalais

- The marriages in Poland give the couple several privileges, of which I consider three the most important:

a) Economical advantages (lower taxes, sicne you can pay tax as "virtual" one person etc) b) Right to inherit after death of your partner c) Recognition of special ties with your partner in case of his sickness (so you are allowed to go to hospital, while boyfriend is not in some cases, you are allowed not to testify against etc)

While b) c) is purely recognition of special relationship between two people, a) is privilege given by state. The question is, why? The answer IMHO is because state wants to reward special status of the marriage as _family_, that is, the basic social cell able to raise new children, stabilising society etc. Same-sex can't have children. They could adopt children, but this is another controversial issue (at least in Poland, as many here doubt whether child can be raised without having both "father" and "mother" models).

The opposition in Poland (the reasonable one) against same-sex marriages is not against b) and c), but against a), that is, against giving special privileges to couples, which are seen reserved as means of encouraging social behaviour beneficial for the society as a whole.

You can attack this arguments basing on notion that marriages are not resembling family, don't have to have children, and same-sex marriages if they could adopt children they could make the same functions as normal. But this is just my 0.3 zlp to referring opinions which should make you remember, that opposition is not only from religious fanatics and homophobs (well, not from _fanatical_ homophobs, sicne i guess refusing the right to adopt children to homosexuals can be described as homophobia is some milder form). szopen

Same sex marriage

A legal denial of rights or benefits directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection under the law.
 * I don't think that this is a serious argument. If I would live in the US, by the same argument I could request right to be married to my wristwatch in order to get over 1,049 federal rights and benefits. Or by the same argument it should be allowed for children to marry as those rights cannot be denied to them, etc. Nikola 20:55, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes it is a very serious argument and was at the heart of the Lawrence v. Texas rulling. Sorry, but you cannot compare a wristwatch to a human being in a relationship. I'm putting the sentence back, but with a qualification. --mav 21:36, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Hey, I love my wristwatch :) But, by the same measure, what about children? Polyamorous marriages? Nikola 07:38, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Ah the slippery slope logical fallacy rears its ugly head.

 * It's not slippery slope, just logical thinking. If it is logical that a homosexual couple should have the same rights granted to a heterosexual couple, why isn't it logical that an animal couple or a car couple or a buildings couple should have the same righte? Nikola

 * Are you suggesting that heterosexual people are human beings, but homosexual people are inanimate objects like cars??? - Mark Ryan 07:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * No, of course, just that homosexual people are not heterosexual people. If you would find this example more acceptable, if it is logical that homosexual couples should have the same rights granted to heterosexual couples, why isn't it logical that a police general or a scout general should have the same rights granted to an army general, or that a president of a local schoolboard should have the same rights granted to the president of the United States? Nikola 07:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Homosexual and heterosexual people are both different of course, but they are both people.

 * Well, presidents are also people, at least most of them ;)
 * If you like, heterosexual people and homosexual people have the responsibility of marriage - homosexual marriage isn't different from heterosexual marriage other than the sexes or genders of the people in the marriage.
 * It is. Homosexual marriage cannost produce new children, which is the primary function of a marriage.
 * This thread is getting out of hand! My browser window isn't that large :) Anyway, heterosexual sex (not marriage) is different from homosexual sex, as homosexual sex cannot produce new children, but that has nothing to do with marriage: unmarried people can have sex and produce new children, so the purpose of marriage is not solely to produce new children. To me, marriage is primarily a commitment between two people - and a commitment between two people is the same regardless of their sexes. Dysprosia 20:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * By the way, shoulnd't the paragraph we are talking about be moved to the "United States-specific developments" section? Nikola 20:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I think that's Kimiko's concern, below Dysprosia
 * However, a police general has the responsibility of a community, while the scout leader has the responsibility of a group of children, and an army general has the responsibility of an army of people, and a president of a schoolboard has the responsibility of a number of schools, while the president has the responsibility of a nation. Their responsibilities are wildly different, and thus they are not granted the same rights. Dysprosia 06:40, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think the point is that marriage between human beings carries with it some rights. Marriage is a human concept, and carries with it certain needs and statuses. Dysprosia 07:24, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Do heterosexuals have the right to marry children?

 * I meant among two childs. Nikola

 * The youngest age I'm aware of allowable marriage in modern times in the West is 13. But that requires parental permission. Kids cannot form consent to marriage and other things such as sex in the first place so the state has a valid right to prevent children from marrying. I don't have an opinion on multiple partner marriages - other than I find the concept odd and that it is allowed in many societies with no more ill effect that marriages in the west cause. --mav

 * Oh, no. It's very hard for poorer people to find themselves a wife in that countries. Nikola 07:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Well divorce in the US tends to make people very poor as well. ;) --mav

 * Things always find their way to balance up somehow ;) Nikola 07:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

IMO, the two paragraphs about the US constitution and the rights it gives to married couples under Proponents.. should be moved to Same-sex marriage in the United States as they are specific to that country. Could someone who is familiar with the US situation merge them into that article? -- Kimiko 10:06, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reversion?
Reverted line 31 to read "same-sex couples" rather than "homosexual couples." In the very article we're editing it states that the term "same-sex marriage" is becoming more frequently used than "gay-" or "homosexual marriage" for a variety of reasons. Also, the term "homosexual couples" ignores the fact that not all people in same-sex relationships are necessarily homosexual. Exploding Boy 22:29, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Reverted line 31? hmmm ...
 * "same-sex couples" rather than "homosexual couples"? It's less accurate to use the euphemism of "same-sex" rather than it's implies meaning of "homosexual" ....
 * "very article we're editing it states that the term "same-sex marriage" is becoming more frequently used than "gay-" or "homosexual marriage" for a variety of reasons"? it doesn't mention "homosexual" ... it does gay ... nothing wrong, IMO, with any of them (and all can be used) ... the gay is being "phased" out "mainly" due to political activism ...
 * term "homosexual couples" ignores the fact that not all people in same-sex relationships are necessarily homosexual? what ... as I just recently responded to a person that is doublespeak ... as to "a person's bisexuality" and "in a 'same sex' marriage" ... a person is, in reality, in a "homosexual marriage" (though that person's "orientation" (ie., self-identity) is bisexual, that person is in a homosexual relationship (the use the buzzword of "same-sex" is applicable though))
 * Sincerely, JDR

Reversion of homosexual marriage to same-sex marriage
Not only is same-sex the term that is used most frequently on the Wikipedia, a Google search reveals: "homosexual marriage" = 68,300 hits; "same-sex marriage" = 276,000 hits.

Regardless of whether or not an individual user prefers the term homosexual, in order for an encyclopedia to be user-friendly, it must use the preferred terms. -- Paige 23:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "homosexual marriage" is used (ie., 68,300 hits) AND should be noted
 * "individual user"? 68,300+ other potential readers need "user-friendly" status also.
 * Sincerely, JDR

 * NOT ALL SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ARE HOMOSEXUAL! Please do not POV the article.  The words same-sex and homosexual are not interchangable.  If it says in the very first line that it's also known as, should all of those terms be repeated throughout the entire body of the SAME-SEX mariage article?  Paige 01:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Please do the same (re: POV]
 * "same sex marriage" is equivalent to "homosexual marriage" ... sorry to info you ...
 * "it's also known as" that ... and "can be" used ... the use of multiple terms is not a "bad thing" [especially when accuracy is needed]
 * The article should use the term "Homosexual marriages" when it is applicable ...
 * "should all of those terms be repeated"? No ... though, the various terms should be interspersed (as needed) ...
 * JDR

 * I'm not sure what you're "sorry to info me" of, but the terms same-sex and homosexual are most certainly NOT equivalent. I tried earlier to point out to you several circumstances in which non-homosexuals would join same-sex partners, including bisexuals and the transgendered.  I was not the first person to suggest this to you, and yet you seem to be the only person defending these changes.  You may personally believe that a same-sex marriage automatically defines those individuals as homosexual, but that is not the preferred term, nor the most-frequently used term and, in cases where non-homosexuals are involved, it makes the article LESS acurate.

 * As it stands the term homosexual is found twice in the first paragraph, and there is also a repetative link to Religion and Homosexuality within the body as well. Why does the term need to be used further when it is not the most accurate or the most popular?  This does not seem like good practice for an encylcopedia.  And under any circumstance, why should one less frequently used term REPLACE the more popular term becuase one Wikipedian prefers it?

 * Perhaps we could both devise plans for compromise and post them here? I would appreciate it.  Paige 02:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * the terms "same-sex" and "homosexual" are most certainly equivilant.
 * As to the "several circumstances" in which non-homosexuals would join same-sex partners, including bisexuals and the transgendered ... the practical reality (and the corresponding physical sexual classification) is the important factor. Someone may, in some conception, be portrayed as a male (but are female; or the converse [or even be transgendered ]) ... BUT if that persons is in the legally binding relationship of the like sex classification ... it is a "homosexual marriage".
 * "not the first person"? and probaly not the last ...
 * "only person defending these changes"? your direction of the discussion toward me, does implies the facts are not there ... please let's discuss the topic and not what you or I believe ...
 * "You may personally believe" ... please let not "attack the person"
 * same-sex marriage does NOT further an individual's orientation ... but "Same-sex" relationships are homosexual
 * "preferred term"? hmmm ... who's preference? an NPOV position would allow both (not a wieght on one side or the other)
 * "most-frequently used term"? Both should be interspered ...
 * "Same-sex" relationships are homosexual ... calling it anything else is making the article LESS acurate.
 * [snip no. of times it's used]
 * "Why does the term need to be used further when it is not the most accurate or the most popular"? it is the most accurate when describing "same-sex" "relationships" ...
 * "good practice for an encylcopedia"? YMMV on that ....
 * "And under any circumstance, why should one less frequently used term REPLACE the more popular term"? for NPOV ....
 * "becuase one Wikipedian prefers it"? no ... because it helps provide a balance and accurate view to the overall topic ...
 * "devise plans for compromise"? I would also appreciate that. A combination of the points would be good for the article.
 * "and post them here"? or in a subdir? mabey not? ...
 * Sincerely, JDR

 * Anyone considering the use of "homosexual" in this (or any other) article, please see User:Hyacinth/Style guide. An example, from Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language by Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern, American Psychological Association:
 * "Lesbian and gay male are preferred to the word 'homosexual' when used as an adjective referring to specific persons or groups, and lesbians and gay men are preferred terms over 'homosexuals' used as a noun when referring to specific persons or groups. The word 'homosexual' has several problems of designation. First, it may perpetuate negative stereotypes because of its historical associations with pathology and criminal behavior. Second, it is ambiguous in reference because it is often assumed to refer exclusively to men and thus renders lesbians invisible. Third, it is often unclear."
 * These terms are not at all "equivalent" and this is not just a matter of accuracy. -Hyacinth 02:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The POV of the "Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern" should not imbalance the article [nor wikipedia] (it is a panel to address specific viewpoint. ie., pro-homosexuality) ...
 * The terms are "equivalent" and this is a matter of accuracy.
 * Sincerely, JDR

 * It is respectful to refer to people by the terms they wish or prefer. While I'm concerned about accuracy, its respectful to call people who are predominately or exclusively romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same gender gay, just as it is respectful to call females women and Native Americans (in Montana) Indian. Of course this doesn't apply to all people a term supposedly covers (or is supposed to cover by the people who use it). Those people will let you know how they would like this article to be written, but I am asking that we at most mention that same sex marriage is called homosexual marriage by some, but not use it repeatedly throughout the article.
 * from The Guardian style guide edited by David Marsh and Nikki Marshall:
 * "gay: synonymous with homosexual, and on the whole preferable"
 * -http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/0,5817,184913,00.html
 * from the Newswatch Diversity Style Guide:
 * "gay: Preferable in all references as a synonym for male homosexual. Lesbian is preferred term for women. To include both, use 'gay men and lesbians. Best to use 'gay' as an adjective, not a noun, such as 'gay man,' 'gay woman,' 'gay people.' In headlines where space is an issue, gay(s) is acceptable to describe both."
 * -http://newswatch.sfsu.edu/guide/g.html
 * -Hyacinth 07:09, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, 'same-sex' is both more common and more inclusive. So we should use that. As already noted same-sex couples other than homosexual couples would like to get married as well (such as two transgendered people who, technically are both male). --mav

 * The technically part is the important point there ... but (as it is now) the article does mention it in the intro, so the accuracy is improved (though it should be usable in the body of the article, also) JDR 12:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I honestly don't care either way (I think the terms are 100% interchangable), but if the respectable groups hyacinth refers to above think that using gay instead of homosexual is a good idea, I'll agree with him. →Raul654 07:17, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think Paige has a point before, which I had originally missed. Dysprosia 07:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Everything Hyacinth said, plus I'd add that while a marriage between two bisexual men would be "homosexual", it would only be so in the sense of "same-sex" and would therefore be inaccurately described.

 * One further reason: most proponents of same-sex marriage prefer to avoid qualifications at all, which is to say, it's MARRIAGE we're talking about, not "gay marriage," so the use of "homosexual" even in its sense of "same-sex loving" would be best avoided. Exploding Boy 07:49, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * "Avoid qualifications" = euphemism
 * "marriage"? YMMV on that ...
 * JDR

Neutrality? NPOV?
Why is the neutrality of the article suddenly disputed? And how is it not NPOV?

 * I've read this article several times and I can't see how its accuracy can be disputed. It's a fairly dispassionate listing of the facts as far as I can see.  As for being NPOV, it lists the cases both for and against; what more do you want? Exploding Boy 09:27, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

JDR added both of those while the issues were under discussion. (See talk above.) I think this was a useful idea, since the neutrality of the language was in fact being worked out here. Since it would appear that the Wikipedians have now spoken on this matter, I have reverted similar changes to Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health and Full Faith and Credit clause from "homosexual" to "same-sex" and removed the NPOV message from those two articles, since I was the one who added those originally. I would like to wait for JDR (User:Reddi) to remove these two, since I beleive it is policy that the side of a dispute that adds the message should remove it once the dispute is resolved. (If I am mistaken about this, though, please take whatever action is appropriate.) Thanks, Paige 23:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "the neutrality of the language"? Using euphemisms is not NPOV. JDR

 * There is no policy on that that I know of. If the consensus on the talk page is that the message should be removed, then remove it. --mav 01:35, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, Mav, based on the fact that JDR just added the NPOV dispute messages (with no comments as to why) to both Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health and Full Faith and Credit clause, I'm guessing that he does not concur with the apparent consensus here. Paige 03:57, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * So what's the procedure? I mean, given that there was no discussion of why the article is supposedly factually inaccurate and non-NPOV, what recourse is there?

 * Exploding Boy 03:58, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm, you got me there, my exploding chum. This is precisely why I avoid unpleasantness and disputes with fellow wikis like the plague.  I really regret having bothered with this mess now.  :o(  Any suggestions?  Paige 04:07, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * well we could list on Peer Review, but I'm not sure that would help. I don't know. Maybe I'll do that.  Exploding Boy 04:11, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

JDR wrote: "the neutrality of the language"? Using euphemisms is not NPOV."

Exactly what are the "euphemisms" you're referring to? If you mean the use of 'same-sex' vs 'homosexual,' I'm afraid you've got it wrong, and I suggest you look at the relavent pages for more information as to why. Exploding Boy 14:42, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * "got it wrong"? YMMV on that ... "When a phrase becomes a euphemism, its literal meaning is often pushed aside" [read literal meaning as "accuracy"] ... "Euphemisms are also used to hide unpleasant ideas, even when the term for them is not necessarily offensive" ... JDR 15:00, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, it's kind of confusing when you put your remarks part way up the page. Can we continue the discussion here at the bottom? Also, what does YMMV mean? Could you be a little clearer in your posts please? Exploding Boy 14:48, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * "confusing"? sorry for your confusion (that is not my intent) ... but I'll place my comments @ the place that it addresses ... others may do as they like though ... Sincerely, JDR

I'm quite aware of the definition of euphemism, thanks. What exactly are you referring to when you speak of euphemisms in the context of Same-sex marriage? And what does YMMV mean? Exploding Boy 15:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Exploding Boy, YMMV is an abbreviation for "Your Mileage May Vary." This is the primary reason I cannot believe JDR is the kind of linguistic purist he claims to be in rejecting what he sees as a euphemism.  The euphemism in question, he's argued, is calling "homosexual marriage" "same-sex," and thus leaving out the negative historical image related by the word homosexual.  However, his unilateral effort to change the terminology is actually a dysphemism, an offensive substitute for neutral word.  As discussed on Talk:Full Faith and Credit clause, the preference for the outdated, less accurate, less common term is associated with opposition to same-sex marriage.  Its use is intended skew the discussion toward condemnation of specific lifestyles.  So, he's trying to twist the previously neutral language, erroneously claiming that the two terms are "equivalent," though he simultaneously argues that same-sex is merely a "euphemism" to be avoided.  He calls logically cogent arguments counter to his POV "doublespeak."  In response to this very reply, I predict that he's going to say I'm trying to shift the discussion to him and away from the topic at hand.  However, it is clearly about him since he is the sole user claiming objection to the current terminology and I've come to the conclusion that it's POV nonsense.  His actions corresponded to the timing of the Goodridge opinion, and were more than likely a reactionary response to that.  I'm hoping it will pass.  In the meantime, I believe a clear majority decision has been reached (six against the change, only one for it), a compromise was put in place and I'm content with the current status of all three articles.  I will be watching them to look for future POV edits from either side of the discussion though. The point, as I see it, is that these articles should avoid ALL POV, not strive to incorporate all POVs and call that neutral.  To do so would be a euphemism, wouldn't you agree?  -- Paige 17:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 1st ... seems like some behind the scenes editing was done to the article ... as the "and, less frequently," part in the intro was not in there earlier (IIRC) ... must be the "cabal's magic" (eg., admin inserting the line and rm the edit from the history) ...
 * now ... I'm not a "linguistic purist" ... I have said that "same-sex" and "homosexual" should BOTH be used, I believe ... I think you are missing that (or just mischaracterizing what I've said) ...
 * The reference is currently used (not just by the "religious" as you alluded to in the wlnk talk page), accurate (see the technical comment above), and common (slightly less than "same-sex")...
 * And, about the "association"s, the term "same-sex" is associated with proponents to homosexual marriages ....
 * As your "prediction", yes ... you are right ... but I don't need to say it now ...
 * "sole user"? mabey ... and how is that applicable to the facts?
 * I do agree with you that the articles should avoid ALL POV ... not acknowledging various points (even the ones you don't agree with) is not NPOV ...
 * Sincerely, JDR

1. There was no "behind the scenes editing" done to the article. If you check the page history you'll see that I was the one who added and, less frequently to the introduction. This is true; the term "homosexual marriage" is used less frequently than gay- or same-sex marriage. 2. Most of us have preferred to use "same-sex marriage" in the article for reasons stated above; to name a few, 3. "Homosexual marriage" is, in fact, a term most frequently used by those who are opposed to the concept; most of those who are neutral or in favour use same-sex marriage or simply marriage 4. If it is necessary to be specific, same-sex marriage is the most neutral, most inclusive term 5. As for your being the sole user who disputes the article, absent other dissention at some point the clear majority must rule 6. Your posts are often very difficult to decipher. I am not trying to be rude, just suggesting that full sentences and clear language make it easier to get your point accross without misunderstanding. Exploding Boy 00:36, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Same-sex and homosexual are not always synomymous
 * Not all same-sex couples are homosexual
 * The word "homosexual" has negative implications for many people

 * 1. Hmm ... the history look different than the other day ... but, thanks Exploding Boy, mabey I was in error (I have no problem with sayin that) ....
 * 2. as to and, less frequently? By who? the proponents of "homosexual marriage"? probably ... this is not true always (being used slightly more in other groups) ...
 * 3. As to the "preferred" ... that preference is from the POV of proponents ...

 * Same-sex and homosexual are usually synomymous
 * Same-sex couples are homosexual [as cited above repeatedly] (some see it as technically; other see it explicitly )
 * "homosexual" has negative implications? Many people see "negative implications" from many thing in wikipedia (ex. take a look around @ the Isreali-Palestinian topics) ... that is not a reason to use other language when the more accurate term is applicable ...
 * 4. "Homosexual marriage" is a term most frequently used by those who are opposed to the concept? Ok ... that doesn't mean it's inaccurate; nor does it mean that it is used frequently by others (eg., neutral observers); most individuals in favour of "Homosexual marriage" use "same-sex marriage" or "marriage".
 * 5. As to being specific, same-sex marriage is not the most neutral; nor most inclusive term [see bullets above]
 * 6. majority must rule? "rule by the mob" is not always fair nor neutral (see the federalist papers and why they didn't implement that scheme) ... mabey this topic can never be NPOV because of "majority rule"
 * 7. My comments are difficult to decipher? Sorry, that is not my intent ... as to your comment on "spelling and grammar", let not try to redirect away from the issues by attacking spelling / grammar. JDR 16:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 Exploding Boy 22:16, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Less frequently": by anybody. On the news, in the papers, in discussions in parliament, the term most often used is same-sex marriage.
 * "preferred"''' ... that preference is from the POV of proponents"
 * and those who are neutral. You'll notice that the title of the article is not "Queer marriage," "Homosexual marriage," "Same-gender marriage," or "Gay marriage."  It's Same-sex marriage.  That alone makes it the most appropriate term to use in the article.
 * "Same-sex and homosexual are usually synomymous"
 * That is not true as has been demonstrated amply. Besides that, even if it were "usually" synonymous, that still wouldn't make it appropriate for use in the article.
 * "Same-sex couples are homosexual [as cited above repeatedly]"
 * Only in the sense of being the "same sex," as also cited repeatedly. Why do you insist on using a potentially inaccurate term?
 * "homosexual" has negative implications? Many people see "negative implications" from many thing in wikipedia (ex. take a look around @ the Isreali-Palestinian topics) ... that is not a reason to use other language when the more accurate term is applicable ...
 * First, "homosexual" is NOT the most accurate term as has been repeated ad nauseam
 * Second, there are a variety of reasons why "homosexual" has negative implications. Obviously you've not followed the links I provided earlier to find out why.  Here are a few reasons from the article homosexual:
 * " Many people regard the term homosexual as derogatory or clinical because of its cold, antiseptic connotation, particularly when applied to a person, and because 'homosexual' was used as a description of a pathologial state, before same-sex attraction was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders. Most western people who regard themselves as having a homosexual orientation prefer the term gay, lesbian, or, less frequently, queer (sometimes capitalized as Queer) or 'same-gender loving'."
 * The term homosexuality was coined in 1869 by Karl Maria Kertbeny in an anonymous pamphlet advocating the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws. It was listed in 1886 in Richard von Krafft-Ebing's detailed study on deviant sexual practices, Psychopathia Sexualis."
 * "The use of homosexuality to describe sexual behavior between people of the same sex sometimes causes confusion and controversy. "
 * "<U>Some people find the use of the word homosexual to describe individuals to be offensive or at least inaccurate</U>. For instance the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for school employees advises: "Gay: Preferred synonym for homosexual." "Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest." The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, and the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language all agree that gay is the preferred synonym."
 * "Homosexual marriage" is a term most frequently used by those who are opposed to the concept? Ok ... that doesn't mean it's inaccurate;
 * No, that in itself doesn't mean its inaccurate, but we avoid words that have negative implications because they're inherently non-NPOV. Nigger is a term used by some black Americans amongst themselves; it is also used by those who are biased against them.  You'll notice that the article nigger is not about people, it's about the word.  It would be highly inappropriate to use the word nigger as the title of an article about black people.
 * By that rational, we could also call it "fag marriage" or "faggot marriage," because some people use that word in a positive way even though many do not.
 * "As to being specific, same-sex marriage is not the most neutral; nor most inclusive term [see bullets above]"
 * Sorry, but your "bullets" say nothing about why same-sex marriage is not the most neutral; nor most inclusive term. It is the most neutral and inclusive term, as has been demonstrated both here and in the article repeatedly.
 * majority must rule? "rule by the mob" is not always fair nor neutral
 * While that's absolutely true, so far you're the only user to object. I'm going to list this article on Peer Review and see if anyone shares your views.
 * "mabey this topic can never be NPOV because of "majority rule""
 * This article is NPOV. Nowhere does it say "same-sex marriage is good, its opponents are evil."  There is a section on opposition.
 * "as to your comment on "spelling and grammar"
 * I never made any comments on spelling and grammar.
 * I have a very hard time understanding why you are so insistent upon using the word "homosexual" when there are very good reasons (enumerated several times by a couple of different posters) why we should use a different term. Your main argument seems to be that "homosexual" is not always inaccurate when used in the context of marriage.  That in itself makes it a poor choice.  You also claim that "same-sex marriage" is not the most inclusive term, yet have failed to offer any alternatives except "homosexual marriage," a term which at very least (besides the reasons pointed out earlier) fails to include bisexuals and transsexuals.

title: Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 2


text:
Edward Acheson

Edward Acheson may refer to:

 * Edward Goodrich Acheson (1856–1931), American chemist
 * Edward Campion Acheson (1858–1934), bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut
 * Edward Acheson (British Army officer) (1844–1921), English cricketer and British Army officer

title: Edward Acheson


text: User talk:65.141.182.61

title: User talk:65.141.182.61


text:
Edward Goodrich Acheson

Edward Goodrich Acheson (March 9, 1856 – July 6, 1931) was an American chemist. Born in Washington, Pennsylvania, he was the inventor of the Acheson process, which is still used to make silicon carbide (carborundum) and later a manufacturer of carborundum and graphite.

Biography

Acheson (1856–1931) was raised in the coal fields of southwestern Pennsylvania. Acheson attended the Bellefonte Academy for three years, 1870–72; this being the totality of his formal education. He left school at the age of 16 to help support his family after his father died, and worked as a surveying assistant for the Pittsburgh Southern Railroad.

He devoted his evenings to scientific pursuits—primarily electrical experiments. In 1880, he had the temerity to attempt to sell a battery of his own invention to Thomas Edison and wound up being hired. Edison put him to work on September 12, 1880, at his Menlo Park, New Jersey laboratory under John Kruesi. Acheson experimented on making a conducting carbon that Edison could use in his electric light bulbs.

In 1881, he was sent to the International Exposition of Electricity in Paris, as part of the team led by Charles Batchelor, and he remained in Europe in 1882 to install demonstrations of the Edison system of electrical lighting in Antwerp City Hall in Belgium and in La Scala in Milan, among other public places.

In 1884, Acheson left Edison and became supervisor at a plant competing to manufacture electric lamps. He began working on the development of methods to produce artificial diamond in an electric furnace. After heating a mixture of clay and coke in an iron bowl with a carbon arc light he found shiny, hexagonal crystals (silicon carbide) attached to the carbon electrode. He called it carborundum.

In 1891, Acheson built an electricity plant in Port Huron, Michigan, at the suggestion of Edison and used the electricity to experiment with carborundum. On February 28, 1893, he received a patent on this highly effective abrasive although a 1900 decision gave "priority broadly" to the Electric Smelting and Aluminum Company "for reducing ores and other substances by the incandescent method". Acheson received 70 patents relating to abrasives, graphite products, reduction of oxides, and refractories. He was awarded the first Acheson Award, named in his honour, by the Electrochemical Society in 1931.

He died on July 6, 1931, in New York City.

Recognition
In 1953, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission installed a historical marker outside his home, noting the historic importance of his achievements. In 1997, Acheson was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. His house, the Edward G. Acheson House in Monongahela, Pennsylvania is a National Historic Landmark.

As one of The Electrochemical Society's most prestigious members, the organization presents an award in his name every two years to distinguish contributions to the advancement of any of the objects, purposes, or activities of the Society.

title: Edward Goodrich Acheson


text:
Midnight Lounge

Midnight Lounge is the eighth studio album by American singer Jody Watley. Originally released only in Japan on her Avitone label (in conjunction with Universal Music Group), critical acclaim prompted Watley to release the album Stateside by way of a distribution deal with Avitone and Shanachie. The U.S. release also included productions from King Britt and Eastwest Connection.

Track listings
All songs written by Rodney Lee and Jody Watley, except where noted.

Personnel

 * Jody Watley – vocals, backing vocals
 * Roy Ayers – vibraphone
 * Michael Ciro – guitar
 * Dave Karasony – drums
 * Rodney Lee – multiple instruments
 * Mornington Lockett – saxophone
 * Barney McAll – keyboard

 * Josh Milan – keyboard, hammond organ
 * John Scarpulla – saxophone
 * Martin Shaw – trumpet
 * Chris Standring – guitar
 * Dave Warrin – musician
 * John Warrin – guitar
 * John Wheeler – trombone

 * Production

 * Producers – Kenny "Dope" Gonzalez, King Britt, Rodney Lee, Ron Trent, Little Louie Vega, Dave Warrin, Jody Watley
 * Executive producers – Bill Coleman, Kenny "Dope" Gonzalez, Little Louie Vega
 * Engineer – Dave Darlington
 * Mixing – Steven Barkan, Jay-J, Ron Trent
 * Remixing – Dave Warrin
 * Mastering – Steve Hall
 * Editing – Albert Cabrera
 * Programming – Rodney Lee
 * Vocal arrangement – Jody Watley
 * Drum programming – Ron Trent
 * Instrumentation – Rodney Lee
 * Arrangers – Ron Trent, Dave Warrin
 * Art direction – Allen Hori, Jody Watley
 * Photography – Michael Walls

title: Midnight Lounge