to me the really weird thing is that a lot of that stuff is NOT actually a MOM,
For instance people who (knowingly) marry someone of an inappropriate gender in order to hide their actual orientation for gain & social approval belongs instead under "marriage of convenience" (and it is most properly listed there):
or possibly some sort of fraud along with others who also marry for gain, such as fortune-hunters and gold-diggers.
A Mixed Orientation Marriage would ONLY be a bisexual/non-monosexual person married to a heterosexual or a gay/lesbian person. And those should be the major subheadings. The other stuff should be removed from this items and moved to their correct places.
you have a very good point, and in the interest of... the WP term is "merging"... we can get rid a lot of the garbage here without causing too much of a fuss. but we need content to fill the article back up. and to be fair, a marriage of convenience is still a MOM, so it deserves some info here. i actually might wiki-debate some people about moving "Lavender marriage" into the new article, since it's frightfully stubby.
like i said, the real problem is that it's one-sided. but it appears that there may be some useful info already in the sources. i'm working on it now.... so i'm gonna be mute on here for a bit. but please forward web-friendly sources i can use on the fly ;-)
respectfully, are we SURE it belong in there since is seems to indicate deception and marriage of convenience. IMHO it should only be bisexual/non-monosexual person married to a heterosexual or a gay/lesbian person. It should be:
intro
Bisexual in same sex relationships:
Gay Men
Lesbian Women
Bisexual in different gender relationship
See Also
Marriage
Same-sex marriage
Bisexual community
Marriage of convenience
Lavender Marriage
Beard
I think it would currently be "stubby" becasue there is not appropriate research on it. And also becasue (frankly) the reality is, it is unremarkable.
i really appreciate your feedback, i'm just trying to be balanced and neutral about this. lavender marriages are in fact remarkable and notable... famous even. also, they strictly fit the definition of a mixed-orientation marriage. one person is homosexual, the other heterosexual. it doesn't matter if the marriage is about deception... i understand the political motive for distancing the topics, but i personally detest politicking in educational sources. it's about the definition of the word.
I wasn't trying to be political, I really don't think they fit the actual definition, which is in fact made up of two concepts:
Mixed Orientation = bisexual/non-monosexual person married to a heterosexual or a gay/lesbian person
Marriage = "usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged" (en.wikipedia)
The fact that wikipedia already has the two articles (Lavender Marriage & Marriage of Convenience) separated out from the main Marriage seems to me to be an acknowledgement that they are different from the commonly accepted idea of "marriage".
Also remember I'm an HK person so my initial ideas of "marriage" are sometimes different.
If we don't include gay/straight marriages, the article will get reverted for a NPOV violation, and if we keep reverting it to ours after that, we'll get banned.
I think we have a good argument that it isn't NPOV becasue those items are extensively covered in other areas
We cover it minimally under a subheading "Controversies" and point out being closeted is sometimes misidentified as an MOM and redirect them to the correct articles
as I remember when I found this article is was an orphan and basically a shill piece for anti-LGBT people and for Buxton, et. al., very few people paid/pay much attention to it.
@CyntWorkStuff - sorry if i came off bitey, inflection is so hard to convey through text.
back to your definition of MOM: mixed-orientation include gay and straight. they're two different orientations. in a majority of public discourse out there, that's usually what's being referred to. we simply can't use wikipedia to change a definition to what we want it to mean. that's what i meant by politicizing it. we can CERTAINLY point out the differences between the layspeak about problematic gay/straight relationships, and the completely workable bisexual MOM.
the other part of your definition, focusing on the WP def of marriage isn't a great idea since many marriages stop being physical but maintain a strong sense of interdependence. some of the best MOMs worked like that, and i know you could name off the famous couples better than I where each became extramaritally involved more than they were involved with eachother, to the point of sleeping in seperate beds. but stayed devoted. --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria21:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
