Jump to content

Talk:Marriage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

POV

"the most sacred form of Marriage is found among the Hindus" is obviously biased. ( Maiaminna 2006-03-31 11:07:34 )

Maiaminna, I agree that the sentence you quote is POV and you were right to delete it. Unfortunately, you also deleted the following sentence, which was about polyandry and polygyny, was there before the sentence about Hindus, and I think belongs in the article. I reverted back to an earlier version, which keeps the Hindu sentence but only that sentence deleted. --Jdlh | Talk 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense.

Rewritten, sort of

I've largely rewritten this article in the sense that I have restructured it and thoroughly copyedited much (though not all) of it. I've eliminated a fair bit of repetition and introduced a lot of new headings. There is more work to do along these lines, but I've run out of energy for now. I have not changed any of the substantive claims made in the article as I found it, except where it had a couple of sentences that were clearly just editorial comments.

I hope that this has added to the logic and clarity of the text. With all the disagreements going on, the article was suffering in these ways - I found it difficult to follow my way through it.

I'll leave the substantive disagreements for others to work on. I hope this is now a better basis for further editing than we had. Apologies if I have inadvertently stepped on anyone's toes with any changes that I've made. Almost nothing is lost except repeated material, so please try to improve this version rather than reverting to an earlier version. Metamagician3000 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying to remove bias ...

For the person who never found other reference to marriage as something beyond legitimizing sexual relations, please - do some research. Marriage is pre-historic, not simply modern, Western.

As for removing the comment about incest, with the justification that it is biological: incest taboo is older than the germ theory! It was around before anyone thought about the biology of it.

Criticism of Marriage section rife with grammar errors

The Criticism of Marriage section is rife with grammar errors, mostly sentence fragments. It looks like it was written by an idiot. I started to edit it, but without knowing what the fragment was intended to express, it's impossible to fix most of them. I'm tempted to just cut out anything that's grammatically hopeless in this section. Vaxalon 13:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

70.180.50.167 adding non-encyclopediac info, also POV.

70.180.50.167 continuously pasting what in my opinion is very unencylopediac and also more than a bit POV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage&diff=prev&oldid=15515050

Looking for backup to see if others agree with my interpretation. --John Kenneth Fisher 20:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting out of hand. I reverted em also, but e re-added the material a few minutes later. Maybe we should ask about page protection? Maybe e'll just go away though. Jeeves 00:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, newcomers

This article has received a lot of attention and edits, which is good. Unfortunately, it's also been a topic where everyone thinks they're an expert, and the article reads a bit too much like a debate rather than an encyclopedia article. Please remember to aim for verifiability and to cite your sources. Don't spend too much time on well-known definitions and viewpoints. (I see this as a problem in the introduction and first few sections of this article.) This article should present the history, geographical variation, and philosophy of marriage, and the various debates, although relevant, should have secondary importance. In my opinion, the August 2003 version contained some good seed text for a history section - I would like to bring it back. Having said all this, I still encourage you to be bold with your edits. (Which is something I'm not doing today for lack of time.)--Yannick 23:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a secondary issue, this Talk page could use some clean-up and summarization as well. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines for some suggestions. --Yannick 23:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


On the issue of marriage, I strongly encourage the addition of the following information, in whole or in part, possibly with the exclusion or correction of any and all bias or advertising which its author or editors may demonstrate in any way:

The ultimate common sense definition and explanation:

Sex is for marriage; marriage is for sex.


Essentially, in its most successful model, and for it to play the most positive, purposeful role in society as a whole, marriage is a certification, registration, and proclamation that

1. A man & a woman intend on having sex 2. The man intends on doing everything he can to take care of, protect, respect, value, love the woman; 3. The man and woman certify & register for a potential family, and commit to learning all they can and doing their very best to raise that family in a nurturing environment. 4. The woman commits to taking a comforting, nurturing, life-giving role in the family, while relying on the security and provision of the man

Marriage essentially guarantees clean and secure environments and practices within the home. For example: it is next to impossible for two lovingly married heterosexual virgins, who have lived otherwise responsible lives, to engage in marriage-related activities such as oral & vaginal sex, & have such activity result in a crisis pregnancy, physical or emotional damage, or Venereal Disease. Marriage is the ultimate and only guaranteed "Protection" and the only “Safe Sex” (Planned Parenthood can no longer call teenage sex “safe sex”, because they know it isn't safe, and now opt for the term “safer sex”.)

The new word for real, true marriage (i.e. as aforementioned) - as the definition of marriage evolves within Western society during the 21st century - is "Unification". This is made to contrast the gradual shift of marriage being solely for heterosexuals, to being solely for homosexuals, and eventually becoming inclusive to bisexuals, polygamists, swingers, buggers, prostitutes, pedophiles, and incestuous relationships.

Civil unions are simply registrations for cohabitation or intimate interaction of any two or more persons, with the expectations of possible sexual or otherwise intimate activity; as contrasted with real marriage. Interdependent partners should all have the same legal rights (opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples, or interdependent relationships such as a person caring for an elderly parent), as should all human beings.

On the issue of homosexual marriage:

In modern society, there is a great need to eradicate heterophobia and homophobophobia, and put an end to the societal progression toward omni sexuality.

Perhaps people are born homophobic also.

Just as alcoholism comes from three different causes (according to Alcoholics Anonymous), one of which is being born with deficient levels of dopamine, all of which are related to chemical imbalances of the neurochemical dopamine, scientific exploration of the biological anomaly known as homosexualism clearly points to its very probable cause being a treatable case of excess or lacking genetic substance, element, or compound. If people can use a 12-step program to treat themselves – albeit with some difficulty, resistance, and challenges - of a disease called alcoholism which they may or may not have been born with, then one can easily deduce…

Homosexuals are in fact not born homosexuals; they are likely born with a treatable deficiency or imbalance of one or more hormones, neurotransmitters, or other medical chemicals (one of them possibly being testosterone). Conclusive evidence has yet to prove otherwise, as repeated attempts to duplicate a study which claimed otherwise, has failed to reproduce results in favor of a “gay gene” and other eccentric hypotheses.

For more information on these and similar issues, visit datevice.tripod.com

This has also raised the question among many special interest groups of the questionable and controversial exclusion of all other sexual orientations from the definition of marital and other government and charter-protected status. They include: bisexuality, polygamy, swinging, bestiality, prostitution, pedophilia, and incest. The question remains: once marital and other law is open to any and all minority groups, what legislation can be put in place to prevent further deviation from traditional law, which would not be in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Society's rules of conduct - right and wrong - , rooted in common sense, and the protection of generally accepted values. Generally not related in any way to religion or spirituality, Traditional Law is yet another device in conflict with various forms of established law, such as a country's governmental Bill of Rights. -- Anonymous


It's certainly no surprise that the above ranting was left anonymous, I understand why noone in their right mind would want to be associated with such an uneducated, biased diatribe. "The woman commits to taking a comforting, nurturing, life-giving role in the family, while relying on the security and provision of the man" Really? How about the idea that marriage can be considered a joint enterprise, or partnership of equals, free to determine their own roles? And as for the rant on homosexuality, I have to admit I got a little bored after the first two paragraphs, but what I read was ridiculous: 'homophobophobia'? Whats next... racismism? --Khushi


In response: Homophobophobia is a legitimate issue, as can be verified below and therefore this topic has reason for receiving a voice.

An example of homophobophobia is deleting this thoroughly thought out and thoroughly researched article without discussion or attempts to improve it. The author made a tenacious attempt to purge all traces of attacks, vanity, spam, and nonsense from this piece. If ones political or otherwise biased views cause this article to appear to be “utter nonsense,” one is encouraged to make the necessary changes to improve said piece in this regard.

Please feel free to edit for the purposes of improving non-biased accuracy, as well as removing bias itself. Current information as contained is based on original research.

For those who have doubts as to the usefulness of this article and the definitions and disambiguation therein, may freely consult [1], in which you will discover an entire page of “philias.” If, therefore, the English language is capable of producing such a great many forms of sexual expression, love, and risk-taking, then one must equally acknowledge an equally numerous set of phobias, if not in greater quantity, regardless of their relation to sexuality, the evidence of which can be seen bellow.

One may also be referred to [2] for further guidance.

‘’

Example quotes from electronic media:

"…A prime example of this is what I call ‘Homophobophobia.’ The instant someone expresses an opinion of homosexuality that is something other than total, uncritical acceptance, the ‘homophiles’ declare that person a ‘bigot.’ Whether the person merely favors marriage laws staying as they always have been, or wants all homosexuals and anyone who looks kindly upon them tortured to death. It does not matter. The person is a ‘bigot,’ and not to be listened to. Diversity of opinion on this matter is something they can't stand." 

 - From Cryonet | Olaf and Mike


"I note that some certainly do seem to be homophobophobes. I.e. they have an irrational fear of irrational fear. This ‘homophobophobia’ seems to cause some social scientists to hide various facts and the like. Also, it's exploited to the point of becoming passé by homophiles in just such a way, to hide facts and the like." 

 - From a group discussion on sexual deviations, their corollaries and society’s reaction to them


Sources:

Ex Isle Forum | an example of usage of the word in context

The Reaction | A discussion on homophobia, with references to homophobophobia

News article from MSNBC's Newsweek referencing the word | by Maggie Cutler

Article Examining Homosexuality as a Researched Phenomenon | Confers, in part, actions of activism to condemn homophobophobia

The Reach | One of the first Blogs to identify and define homophobophobia

Article ‘On Heterophobia’ | Free Republic

"gay rights" v. "homosexual advocacy"

Seems to be a minor back and forth between "homosexual advocacy groups" and "gay rights groups". I can see arguments that both are mildly POV, but the one that was there just prior to my changing it was the VERY POV "homosexual advocacy (or so-called gay rights) groups" (emphasis mine.) I think we should stick with "gay rights", as it is the term used elsewhere on wikipedia (note the existence of gay rights v. homosexual advocacy), far more common (ex: this very talk page many times by both viewpoints, with "homosexual advocacy" not used once), and, though I don't want to get tied up in this part too much, arguably far more accurate. Even if you debate that last point, I believe the other two points warrant the use of "gay rights" in the article. --John Kenneth Fisher 20:06, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments that were not in a section

but homosexual marriage is beginning to gain acceptance.
In recent years there has been a growing movement to extend the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples.

Where??? That seems like a very important piece of information to impart. Remember, this isn't just an encyclopedia about the United States. (I would supply the desired information but frankly, I don't know where it's beginning to gain acceptance.)

I think the article could also stand to have a bit more information about traditional marriage between members of the opposite sex, since that's by far the most common type of marriage practiced... For example, statistics on marriage in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China, and other countries would be very interesting to consider. Moreover, some considerations of the purposes of marriage--the most obvious being to provide a home for children. Again, I'd add this information myself, but I think I'd have to do too much research to be able to do it quickly. --LMS

Try all over Europe: Netherlands has legalized full gay marriage, as I believe Belgium has as well. Germany, France, Denmark have introduced or are in the process of introducing domestic partnership legislation, which is often a step along the way. So it isn't just the US. Of course, this isn't happening without a lot of controversy, but you can see where the trend is heading at the moment. -- Simon J Kissane

Yeah, but anywhere else? Europe and the U.S. is not the world.
Argentina is part of the world as well, and gay marrage is legal here in Buenos Aires.--209.13.220.29 05:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here in Brazil Marriage is a lot more informal (even couples of high social class often simply don't bother with either a religious or a civil cerimony - any couple living together may well be called "weds" by immediate family). There is not much effort to legalize gay and lesbian marriage, largely because there is little point in doing so. Even Life Ensurance (sp?) companies are already making contracts that fully recognize homossexual "de facto" marriages.

I don't know, but I don't think so. As far as I'm aware the gay rights movement hasn't been particularly successful yet except in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand. In most of the rest of the world they've still got too many more basic issues to be worrying about than gay marriage. As to Australia (where I live), while the gay rights movement has been successful in a lot of ways (witness the Mardi Gras), they haven't managed to get gay marriage on the political agenda yet -- the only stuff I have heard about in the Australian media is what is going on overseas.

But even if its only a sizeable movement in the US and Europe, I'd say that while the US and Europe are not the whole world, they are a significant portion of it. -- SJK

I don't know anything about the Oneida Community. Was its form of marriage the usually seen of lifelong procreative marriage or merely a religious ritual? --rmhermen

Procreative, I believe. I don't know enough to go into detail (19th century religious movements amuse me more than they fascinate me, but I live in Upstate NY, home of Mormonism (Joseph Smith found the golden plates within 10 miles of where I sit typing), the Oneida Community, the Fox Sisters and spiritualism, and other exciting flavors of American Religious Expression.

The Oneida Community was a utopian community that evolved (or devolved, depending on your committment to the founder's mission) into the Oneida Ltd. silverware company. --MichaelTinkler

Makes you wonder what goes on at the Oneida Ltd. board meetings...

Funny. And yet, somehow rude....

I have qualms with the initial claim of this article. In anthropology classes (I have an A.B. in Anthro), we learned that the primary purpose of marriage in most societies is to establish familial ties for the children, *not* the people getting married. Another element was establishing ties between the families. That's why arranged marriages made sense for the society; you were going to let your young and impetuous children decide your familial ties? The whole "love" concept of marriage is largely Western, and makes sense in a society where people are more distant -- both physically and emotionally -- and thus the relationship between the two individuals is of overriding importance. (And as a result, more divorces -- the marriage is more dependent on that one relationship, and that relationship is under greater pressure.) -- Belltower

If you've got an A.B. in Anthro and learned stuff to improve the article, by golly then, don't be shy about improving it! Go right ahead! --LMS
Not sure this comment is in the correct place, but I won't contribute because a closed-mind who "knew better" edited my attempt to make this more "universal" and less modern, Western. I also have a B.A. in Anthropology, and understand the difference between perspectives in anthropology, sociology, psychology. Seems like most of the people here let their own psychological - and worse, political- agendas drive the discussion. If you want to debate gay marriage, go to a news site. Back to the other anthropology major: I don't see how one does one do something for the kids that don't yet exist, but you may support that. From a significant school, marriage's universal and unique attribute is the creation of affinal ties - marry out or die (get killed) out. The focus on kids and legitimizing sex is modern, not universal (which accounts for "prehistoric" societies as evidenced by aboriginal or other cultures). Good luck and 'bye!
I guess the current wording is more objective? However, it strikes me (from personal experience) that the article is now heavily slanted towards defining marriage as a social, rather than a personal bond, whereas most people I know (in the Netherlands) marry because it signifies the strength of the bond between the two of them, rather than the starting of a family. In most cases, the family has already started.
Also, gay marriage is now effective in the Netherlands, so perhaps that weird comment can be changed? And why is gay marriage an oxymoron? Am I missing the ethymology here of either 'gay' or 'marriage'?
Finally, through the public debate in the Netherlands over gay marriage it became clear that many Christians feel 'marriage' is a term that should be reserved for a religiously instigated marriage (although it never became clear to me why 'civil marriage' had been tolerated for so long then). In other words, they objected to the word 'huwelijk' being used to indicate a formal (sexual-familial) bond between to members of the same sex. I never quite got what it was about, but it seemed to be important to them, and therefor may deserve mention. -- branko

I also have qualms with the intro of the article. I think it presents one opinion on marriage as unvarying fact when there is controversy and change. I changed the first sentence from "Marriage is the socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. It may do this biologically, through children, and/or socially, through forming a household. " to

Marriage is the social institution by which people join together their lives in emotional and economic ways through forming a household. It confers rights and obligations with respect to raising children, holding property, sexual behaviour, kinship ties, tribal membership, relationship to society, inheritance, emotional intimacy, and love. These rights and responsibilities differ from culture to culture, and over time within a culture. Marriage is found in all societies, but in widely varying forms.

Jim DeLaHunt (jdlh)

I thought the article as a whole presented marriage in a rather negative light, so I added a Religion section that attempts to summarize marriage as viewed by the five great world religions, and added some other comments here and there just to balance some negative aspects of marriage with some positive ones. I don't think I deleted much, if anything, and I've tried to be objective. Hope no one is too offended. --Wesley

In most societies, marriage is monogamous, meaning that a person can be married to only one other person at once. Some societies however, permit polygamy, the having of multiple marriage partners at the same time.

Afaik the proportions are exactly opposite. Most societies allow small-size polygyny, only recently due to expansion of Europeans the proportions were changed. Taw

I second that. Conflicting with the polygamy article. [3] --Jimworm

"In most of Europe, the first recognized legal union between a man and a woman was marriage by capture. A man would kidnap a woman from her home and rape her, afterwards she was considered his wife. That practice died out and the practice of marriage by purchase took its place."

It would be nice if someone give some kind of references for this, as it sounds somewhat more like speculation than it does like well-established history.
Seconded. Took the passage off the page until we get some refs.
Homer is the earliest source I know, though not nearly the earliest available, and here we find both bridal prices and dowries, but nothing like formalized kidnap-marriage, and in contemporary tribal societies one usually hears about arranged marriages and special ceremonies instead.
AFAIK "kidnap-marriage" has existed in some societies, but the idea of a semi-standardized evolutionary timeline of "marriage by kidnap" replaced by "marriage by purchase" replaced by "marriage by mutual consent" sounds very suspicious.

I propose splitting off homosexual marriage as it's a considerable topic in itself. Ed Poor

Ed. No. Stop. There is no paper limitation here -- the article can be as long as it needs to be to be inclusive. You are leaning towards exclusivity.
Otherwise, the article currently suffers from incorrect or at least faulty usage in terms of brideprice and dowry. They aren't the same. Brideprice (in Germanic societies, Morgengeld) is paid byy the groom. Dowry is provided by the wife's family.

Okay, I won't split it, 209.20.225.xxx (I generally avoid making major changes like an article split when others object). Ed Poor

Thanks, Ed! ;-)

Someone linked Spouse to Marriage, but it's not defined there.

I've made a few changes to this page, and I intend to make more as I can pull the words together. I've made quite a study of the sociology and history of marriage as practised in the United States. I've listed my changes at other places on this /Talk page. Jim DeLaHunt (JDLH)

I think the new opening is flawed in that it would not apply to marriage in all cultures. I put back the previous introduction, which I think provides the best general description of marriage, not only in the US but elsewhere. I did not remove any of the newly added material, but I did add some qualifying words. Slrubenstein

Removed this and replaced it with a description of how marriage varies from culture to culture.

The most common type of marriage is the union of one or more men with one or more women. Marriage is usually heterosexual and entails exclusive rights and duties of sexual performance, but there are instructive exceptions (see Same-sex marriage).

I have big problems with the section on history of marriage. The view of the history of marriage seems awfully stereotypical.

Moved to talk:

Other topics that could be mentioned on this page (or on pages of their own): criteria for validity of marriage, arranged marriage, differing laws on divorce, arguments for/against gay marriage, common-law marriage, annulment in the Catholic tradition, minimum legal age for marriage, polygamy, wedding ceremonies, honeymoon, mail-order bride

Many of these items have articles of their own by now. - Montréalais

I removed the following: Generally, but not always, religious marriages are also endorsed by the state.

This is absolutely and utterly wrong. Religious marriage is NOT endorsed by the state in the vast majority of states in the world. Many states allow the civil and religious ceremonies of marriage to take place together, ie the civil requirement (the signing of the register) is slotted in in a momentary break in the religious ceremony. But, and this is vitally important, the civil bit in a religious ceremony is not a recognition of religious marriage. It is that 'civil' bit that is recognised in law. The state couldn't care less what else happens that day in the church where the wedding ceremony takes place, once the civil bit of the ceremony takes place. And if it isn't done properly, then no valid civil marriage exists, even if religion sees the marriage ceremony as valid. At the moment where that civil bit takes place, the priest or minister ceases to be the employee of the church but becomes an agent of the state registering a civil marriage. In effect, though people take about one marriage ceremony and one wedding, there actually are two marriage ceremonies, the religious and the civil, with the state not recognising the religious ceremony, and the religion not recognising the state. Both ceremonies co-exist, with the civil one slotted in to what is in effect a break in the religious ceremony. For practical reasons the state does not require the taking of vows in such circumstances, accepting the vows used in the religious ceremony. But if the register ceremony is mucked up, there ain't no marriage, in the eyes of the law.

I am surprised such a fundamental error was not spotted earlier. ÉÍREman 02:18 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

In an effort to reword the line above, someone put in In most American states the marriage may be officiated by an minister, priest or religious authority and in such a case the religious and civil marriage have merged.

Again it is wrong and again it has been removed. The officiating cleric acts with two separate roles, religious celebrant of a religious ceremony, and state official registering a state civil ceremony. At a point in the 'ceremony', the religious element ceases and the civil element takes over, albeit only for a minute or two. At that point, the officiating minister changes his or her role from religious celebrant to state official. Under no circumstances is the state and civil ceremony merged, they co-exist with each taking 100% dominance at a particular point in the full ceremony. Apart from anything, the merger talked about would breach the US constitution on the separation of church and state. Please be careful to get the facts right. ÉÍREman 02:51 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree with the above interpretation. In most jurisdictions of which I am aware that allow marriages to be officiated by a religious authority the certification that such an event took place is often enough to cure any irregularities in the ceremony. In fact the statutes often state that the relgious authority (priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc.) is empowered by the state to conduct the ceremony. As far as your separation of church and state argument is concerned, the state still has the authority to regulate religion otherwise it would be legal for someone to do anything in the name of religion. I really do not think that what you bring up here has any real significance, though I do beleive that I have stated the law correctly -- the state can allow ministers to act as their agents, if the ministers and the members wish, of course if the minister does not want to conduct a state sanctioned marriage then he can undertake one of these secret marriages. Alex756 03:04 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the US constitution. The first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It only forbids the government from having a official religion and from outlawing a religion. There is no legal separation. Jobarts-Talk 00:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The "History of Marriage" section is simply unbelievable. Besides being biased and plain awful, it's not even anything remotely like a history of marriage. More like "Feminist interpretations of marriage". It should maybe even be NPOV'ed. --VV Aug 12, 2003

I went ahead and reluctantly NPOV'ed the section (is this done?) in question. My reasons are that it provides a wildly negative view of marriage, both past and present, and is an obviously feminist perspective. (Also, it's not a history at all.) If someone thinks these are bad reasons they can undo it I suppose. Ideally, of course, I'd like to write something better, but I don't really know enough about the history of marriage to do so. Maybe even just tossing in ancient love poetry to balance would help. Comments welcome. Unrelated comment: the initial segment should probably be organized into a section (or more) so that the Table of Contents is not halfway through. VeryVerily 05:19, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The history of marriage section contradicts itself. It talks about dowrys and bridesprices as if they are happening at the same time. As I understand, they happened in different societies or at different times, depending upon the different availabilities of spouces. I think the "history of marriage" section should be moved to another page, possibly under the heading "Perspectives on Marriage"? M-Henry 11:54, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here's an interesting (to me) article I came across today. http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=7854 Not so much because of the gay marriage items as the history of marriage tidbits. Information like this could be quite interesting if added to this page. -Kadril 3/1/2005

I don't know exactly how to submit this suggestion so I am putting it here. Marriage is historically the union of one man and one woman. Arguments about polygamy need to consider the root of that word; poly from the Greek meaning 'many' and gamy also from the Greek meaning 'marriage'. Polygamy is not a 'form of marriage', it is 'many marriages'.

references to (Roman) Catholic Church

In the section "Marriage and religion", the RCC is first called the Roman Catholic Church and then called the Catholic Church (and elsewhere it is called the Catholic church) -- should these be made consistent (is there a prevailing standard) ? -- ll

There is more to the Catholic Church than just the Roman Catholic Church. It's the biggest, but not the only. (akin to calling the USSR "Russia") If it applies to the entire Catholic Church under the Pope, use "Catholic" not "Roman Catholic". If it applies specifically to the Roman Rite, than RCC is appropriate. Most of the time, you'll find CC is more correct than RCC. --John Kenneth Fisher 20:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed wades in

I hope I'm not rocking the boat. I'm no expert on marriage, as my wife would be sure to mention (avidly!). So I'll just stop for the day.

My aim was to balance and neutralize what looked like rhetoric favoring the gay rights POV of marriage. If I've gone to far, please chastise me; I'm actually rather easily teachable. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's the name for a same-sex wedding?

I too hope I'm not rocking the boat, and am no expert on marriage. But, the definition of Wedding on the page seems not to apply to same-sex marriage ceremonies. Maybe. Moriori 20:37, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

It all hinges on whether a marriage really is a "union of a man and a woman" as US federal law states, or not.
Gay rights activists want same-sex unions to be regarded as the equivalent in every way of marriage. Having the same legal rights or privileges is not enough: they want others to conceded that they ARE married.
I suspect the next step after gaining legal recognition for same-sex "marriage" would be to make it illegal for opponents to place scare quotes around the word (call it hate speech).
There's a very heated battle going on over this. --Uncle Ed 20:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Ed, I wasn't clear. I was asking about wedding (ceremony), not marriage (state of union). Wiki's wedding ceremony entry seems to me to specify opposite sex partners. Therefor, when Bill and Ben are off to be married, what ceremony are they going to? Moriori 21:24, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
It still hinges on the definition of "marriage". If, as most people think, marriage is only "a man + a woman" then they're going off to a fake wedding ceremony, like a mock trial conducted by people who don't have jurisdiction. Some might even accuse B&B of deliberately "making a mockery" of the institution of marriage, for some ulterior motive.
But if "marriage" is defined as a "socially-santioned institution" and some society (like Canada) sanctions it, then they're participating a a "wedding ceremony". I guess there would be 2 grooms... :-( --Uncle Ed 14:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then we need to remove reference to gender in the wiki Wedding page. Moriori 01:00, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Marriage in the USA

In the United States, a marriage is typically a formally declared, officially recognized, and ostensibly permanent relationship existing between a man and a woman. Indeed, 36 states have laws defining marriage as "a union between a man and a woman". On closer examination, "marriage" has four main facets:

  1. a personal commitment between the people who are married to each other,
  2. social recognition and acknowledgement of that commitment by the community of the married people (family, friends, and religious community),
  3. religious treatment of the relationship and rules for how that relationship is entered into (referred to as "religious marriage"),
  4. a civil status defined by law and recognised by society generally (referred to as "civil marriage")

The above text, originally under "variations" section heading, mixes specific and general descriptions of marriage in a misleading way. I daresay this was intended to make "gay marriage" seem more logical. Let's rewrite it so that the POV is clearly distinguished from the facts (if any).

It is an argument of the form:

  1. You said one thing, but
  2. A closer examination reveals these other things, so
  3. You are wrong!

Let's fix this, or just leave it out. --Uncle Ed 15:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps we should say:

  • Some advocates assert that the same kind of relationship between a man and a woman (i.e., "marriage") could also exist between two men, two women.

If we say this, we should probably name one or two advocates of this POV. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your above statement, and I think you are providing a great service that I could not. For the record however, I feel that this point of view, that the kind of relationship "marriage" could exist people two people of the same gender, is, depending on your definition of relationship and marriage is fact, as, statistically, some POVs must be.
Now that that's out of the way: My problem with the statement "Some advocates assert that the same kind of relationship between a man and a woman (i.e., "marriage") could also exist between two men, two women," is that is is horribly vague. I, myself, would assert that, "the romance, commitment, monogamy, financial and other interdependence, security, and mutual child-rearing aspects of the relationship marriage can and do occur between people two of the same gender." Does this help?Hyacinth 23:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you phrase it as some advocates assert that the romance, etc., can and do occur then it helps. But if you want the Wikipedia to agree with your POV, then it won't help. --Uncle Ed 17:59, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Please add something like the following to the appropriate place in the article (as I can not find the appropriate spot). I'm looking for examples of advocates, but they may be hard to find:
"Some conservative advocates, such as ___ and ___ assert that same-sex couples are not capable of marriage-like relationships. However, civil rights advocates such as ___ and ___ assert that the romance, life-commitment, monogamy, financial and other interdependence, security, and mutual child-rearing aspects of the relationship marriage can and do occur between people two of the same gender. Some conservatives, however, such as Andrew Sullivan argue that support of legal same-sex marriage is a conservative stance that will strengthen families, gay, lesbian, and straight."
Possible sources: http://www.cc.org/, http://www.hrc.org/, http://www.pfox.org/, http://www.exodus-international.org/, http://members.aol.com/Hawebpage/index.html, http://www.godhatesfags.com/, http://www.family.org/. However, Dr. Dobson of Focus On the Family said recently on Larry King Live that at least a minority of lgb people are capable of loving life-long monogamous relationships.

"Marriage is found in all societies" - are you sure of that? Won't there be some obscure tribe in the Amazon where children are all brought up in common and people have sex without a one-to-one relationship? 82.225.77.14 03:41, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Marriage between a man and a woman

To the person who keeps changing "marriage is usually (but not always) between a man and a woman" to something else; note as discussed on this page that marriage is sometimes between a man and several women; between a woman and several men; or between people of the same sex (and it doesn't say so, but it is also sometimes between two children, more historically than now). It is incorrect to say that it is always between a man and a woman, and this is an encyclopedia, so if you want to discuss some of the issues in an NPOV (neutral point of view) manner, you're welcome to. Elf | Talk 19:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the external links from this article because they were all highly POV. Buddhainabucket 11:25 AM Aug 19, 2004

origin of marriage

It might be interesting to include some information regarding theories about the origin of marriage, and analogues it has in non-human animals. --NeuronExMachina 08:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that "marriage" has any anologues in non-human animals. Marriage is a human social construct (although some may also argue for "divine"). The "analogues" between humans and non-human animals would be various relationships between sexual partners, parents and offspring, etc. but not "marriage".

Mmmm..is it stretching the point to consider animals which mate for life as being in a relationship that is analogous to marriage? I'm not tied to eitehr interpretation, but if it isn't too anthropomorphic, it may provide a natural history precedent for marriage.

BTW I for one would greatly appreciate if some knowledgable person COULD flesh in the history/evolution of marriage. That is specifically what I was looking for and was greatly surprised to see there is little or no info on that topic, although I did find this text in the topic "courtly love":

The courtly love tradition was non-Christian, providing an alternative to the love of God and the Church, placing salvation in the love of your lady (or man). Marriage had recently been declared a sacrament of the Church, at the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, and within Christian marriage, the only purpose was procreation with any sex beyond that purpose seen as non-pious. The ideal state of a Christian was celibacy, even in marriage.

--209.242.154.132 22:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Adraeus' view on marriage

Marriage is a process which two individuals use in order to form a contract that legally binds their assets for legal, logistical, and governmental purposes (e.g., taxes.) While the social aspect of marriage can vary in meaning, an officially sanctioned marriage is merely a contract devoid of romantics and morality. From that perspective, I am not troubled by supporting homosexual marriage. There lacks a reason why a class of people, determined by sexuality, should be restricted from entering into a marriage contract. Nobody benefits from that restriction. Adraeus 01:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stereotype?

Quoted from this article-- "In Judaism, marriage is so important that remaining unmarried is deemed unnatural." I have two problems with this- Is there any culture/religion that deems being unmarried "natural"?? I think even in Christian and Muslim societies, it is also deemed "unnatural" to not be married. Secondly, the fact that Judaism is singled out makes the statement seem like it is based on a Jewish mother stereotype of calling their unmarried daughters "spinsters," and sons...well, they just get nagged, "Why can't you find yourself a girl?" (This statement of course, is also a stereotype). In any case, I find this statement in the article troubling and recommend it be removed unless someone can find a reputable source that can support it and its nature of singling out Judaism. — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]] 20:35, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There are so many flavors of judaism (as there are christianity,etc.) that I think it would be hard to make a statement like this & have it be accurate in any but a small number of cases. Elf | Talk 21:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the statement and after a little researching, replaced it with another fact about how marriage is a bond between two families, prolonging the religion and culture. This, of course, also applies to the Islam, though in Islam, there is an additional emphasis on material exchanges. — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]] 13:35, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

expanded a little

I've added a paragraph that talks about divorce in Islam and included references to specific verses in Qur'an that describe the process to be followed.

There was also a point in there that Islam allows marriage up to 4 wives. I changed that slightly to say that polygamy is only allowed under specific circunstances and that the default and generally promoted view is of monogamy, as explained in the Qur'an.Karim S 04:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any print sources for the numerous factual claims, or to facilitate further research? I can add some, but they won't match the material exactly. Deirdre Golash 00:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleted

Marriage has been described as a "socially sanctioned union", implying that any sort of selfless relationship can be called marriage if a given society approves of it.

"socially sanctioned union" is too vague to be useful. And there's no reason to describe marriage as a "selfless" relationship -- it serves the interests of both parties.
-Deirdre Golash 22:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's EXTREMELY important to make entries in the Wikipedia as unbiased as possible, especially in politically contentious issues like gay marriage. For example, when the author wrote that "many people" support ammending the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he/she overlooks the fact that poll after poll shows very little support for a constitutional ammendment, regardless of personal opinion on gay marriage. That's why I changed that sentence to "some people", a statement no one can disagree with. --RDM.

Refactor

Could someone with more experience refactor this talk page? Jobarts-Talk 20:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of "one man one woman" marriage idea in Christianity

From bajaboy

Couldn't figure out how to work the box to explain why the edit.

Get so tired of the "one man one woman since the dawn of mankind schtick" when everyone knows (even pagans like me) that God gave multiple wives to David and knew full well that Noah, Moses and other patriachs had multiple wives.

Anyway, when I googled the Christian marriage origin, instead of getting 1280 AD like I expected, I kept getting referred to St. Augustine and Justinian. Catholic sites in latin and devout polygamists credit or blame these two for codifying monogomy. (and criminalizing homosexuality for 1500 years and counting)

Sorry my edit is so crude, but I thought a definition of marriage that the pres. thinks is important enough to change the Constitution over should have a little background info.

If this is in the wrong place, I'm referring to "Marriage", "restrictions"

Frequency of monogamy

This article states:

"Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far less common than those that do not and monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced"

but the article on polygamy states that:

"Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. "

Which is correct?

Filur 11:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for the almighty and useful contradict tag: {{contradict}} Just kidding. Does anyone know the sources for either of those two claims? Daniel Pritchard 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I changed the linking to the template so this page doesn't show up on the list of articels that are contradictory. Sum total addition besides this comment was "tl|". 68.39.174.238 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrible bias

Hey, just look what this guy writes here: "Marriage Marriage means many different things according to the time and place of the culture and people involved. What for some people are obvious assumptions are for others unthinkable. No-one is correct, there are simply different forms of marriage. It is the right of no culture to impose it's own ideas of marriage on other cultures, and the right of no sub-culture or religion to control marriage taboos within their own culture. So some believe in multiple marriage partners, some believe in having only straight marriages, some believe in certain age restrictions. None are right, all are different.

Governments should allow their people access to all forms of marriage according to peoples' wishes but this is impossible. In order for legal contracts to have legal value, they must abide by certain known specifications. So in the West we have a particular type of marriage that is legal; other forms are illegal. What this does is alienate and standardize marriage, codifying traditions into unchanging legal codes and making them stagnant as society changes. What is worse is that in modern legalized culture, the illegalisation of forms of marriage not recognized by one set of institutionalized norms causes other unrecognized forms to become taboo, wrong and looked down upon.

A problem of modern cultures therefore is that we become biased towards our own form of marriage and come to consider any other form "wrong", "stupid", "silly", etc. (...)

And even within cultures, marriage means different things to different people. So apart from looking at a few forms of marriage outside of traditional Western ones, I also talk a bit about some internal differences in the West of how people think marriage should be."

Boy, if one was to make a text to show what SHOULD NOT be in a Wikipedia article, this is the best example. First of all, BUDDY (whoever you are), NO WRITING IN THE FIRST PERSON IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. The articles of this encyclopedia should be written in a NPOV (=NO POINT OF VIEW) style. Therefore no "should", no "must", no definitive sentences about matters that are still discussed or controversial.
Also, for your information, here we try to create a neutral source of information. A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. This is an academic project, not a political magazine. Therefore no "It is the right of no culture to..."
You are also violating the NPOV policy by taking the part of the liberal (I'd say extreme liberal) point of view ("What this does is alienate and standardize marriage, codifying traditions into unchanging legal codes and making them stagnant as society changes.")
Finally and most importantly (and most annoying I must say), WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT BELONG TO THE WESTERN CULTURE! ("in the West we have") It belongs to all humanity and all cultures, being an open project. People from all over the world (scholars or otherwise) contribute to this encyclopedia, bearing in mind the quest for truth and the will to write taking no part in a dispute.

I URGE ANYONE WHO SUPERVISES THIS ARTICLE TO REMOVE THE WHOLE SECTION IMMEDIATELY, SO THAT WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT LOSE ITS POPULARITY IN THE EYES OF THE ONES WHO READ THIS ARTICLE IN SEARCH OF INFORMATION AND FIND HERE INSTEAD A POLITICAL PLEA. (which is very badly written in my opinion)

I agree. Additionally, it would be nice to see some kinda of history section in this article. ObsidianOP 16:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


On the issue of marriage, I strongly encourage the addition of the following information, in whole or in part, possibly with the exclusion or correction of any and all bias or advertising which its author or editors may demonstrate in any way:

The ultimate common sense definition and explanation:

Sex is for marriage; marriage is for sex.


Essentially, in its most successful model, and for it to play the most positive, purposeful role in society as a whole, marriage is a certification, registration, and proclamation that

1. A man & a woman intend on having sex 2. The man intends on doing everything he can to take care of, protect, respect, value, love the woman; 3. The man and woman certify & register for a potential family, and commit to learning all they can and doing their very best to raise that family in a nurturing environment. 4. The woman commits to taking a comforting, nurturing, life-giving role in the family, while relying on the security and provision of the man

Marriage essentially guarantees clean and secure environments and practices within the home. For example: it is next to impossible for two lovingly married heterosexual virgins, who have lived otherwise responsible lives, to engage in marriage-related activities such as oral & vaginal sex, & have such activity result in a crisis pregnancy, physical or emotional damage, or Venereal Disease. Marriage is the ultimate and only guaranteed "Protection" and the only “Safe Sex” (Planned Parenthood can no longer call teenage sex “safe sex”, because they know it isn't safe, and now opt for the term “safer sex”.)

The new word for real, true marriage (i.e. as aforementioned) - as the definition of marriage evolves within Western society during the 21st century - is "Unification". This is made to contrast the gradual shift of marriage being solely for heterosexuals, to being solely for homosexuals, and eventually becoming inclusive to bisexuals, polygamists, swingers, buggers, prostitutes, pedophiles, and incestuous relationships.

Civil unions are simply registrations for cohabitation or intimate interaction of any two or more persons, with the expectations of possible sexual or otherwise intimate activity; as contrasted with real marriage. Interdependent partners should all have the same legal rights (opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples, or interdependent relationships such as a person caring for an elderly parent), as should all human beings.

On the issue of homosexual marriage:

In modern society, there is a great need to eradicate heterophobia and homophobophobia, and put an end to the societal progression toward omni sexuality.

Perhaps people are born homophobic also.

Just as alcoholism comes from three different causes (according to Alcoholics Anonymous), one of which is being born with deficient levels of dopamine, all of which are related to chemical imbalances of the neurochemical dopamine, scientific exploration of the biological anomaly known as homosexualism clearly points to its very probable cause being a treatable case of excess or lacking genetic substance, element, or compound. If people can use a 12-step program to treat themselves – albeit with some difficulty, resistance, and challenges - of a disease called alcoholism which they may or may not have been born with, then one can easily deduce…

Homosexuals are in fact not born homosexuals; they are likely born with a treatable deficiency or imbalance of one or more hormones, neurotransmitters, or other medical chemicals (one of them possibly being testosterone). Conclusive evidence has yet to prove otherwise, as repeated attempts to duplicate a study which claimed otherwise, has failed to reproduce results in favor of a “gay gene” and other eccentric hypotheses.

For more information on these and similar issues, visit datevice.tripod.com

This has also raised the question among many special interest groups of the questionable and controversial exclusion of all other sexual orientations from the definition of marital and other government and charter-protected status. They include: bisexuality, polygamy, swinging, bestiality, prostitution, pedophilia, and incest. The question remains: once marital and other law is open to any and all minority groups, what legislation can be put in place to prevent further deviation from traditional law, which would not be in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Society's rules of conduct - right and wrong - , rooted in common sense, and the protection of generally accepted values. Generally not related in any way to religion or spirituality, Traditional Law is yet another device in conflict with various forms of established law, such as a country's governmental Bill of Rights.

Civil unions

New Zealand has just instituted civil unions, the first one near me happened this weekend. I've added this to the article.

Also now the Czech republic has just instituted civil unions. Someone must add this in the list to the article, that also in Prague civil unions are accepted.

Improvement drive

Flirting is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Spanish?

What is the deal with the Spanish or Italian or whatever it is at the beginning? I'm not too Wikipedia savvy about all this complex stuff and I'm wondering why is that foreign language stuff there?

Marrying a plant?

In the "Rare phenomena" section, it says

Some parts of India follow a custom in which the groom is required to marry with an auspicious plant called Tulsi before a second marriage to overcome inauspicious predictions about the health of the husband. However, the relationship is not consummated ....

I don't understand this. Does the groom actually marry a plant, or does he marry a woman with some kind of plant present? It says "not consumated" ... so, he doesn't have sex with the plant? Someone please clarify this. Also might want to note that the plant is evidently a type of basil. — Nowhither 15:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Maybe a pot plant?"

serial monogamy

"A system of somewhat serial monogamy has de facto emerged."

wouldnt that be serial polygamy? — Omegatron 23:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nope. It's one monogamous relationship after another, which may be effective polygamy, but serial monogamy, add link in article. Nereocystis 00:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

ethnocentric

This discussion/material needs some disclaimer to its ethnocentrism.

Most cultures make divorce or dissolution of marriage difficult. The U.S. "no fault" avalanche in the 1970s apparently warps perspective.

All of the above on "same sex" marriage is problematic because it focuses on SEX, which is NOT the primary, universal (time-wise and culturally) and unique feature of marriage - it is AFFINAL TIES. YES, homosexual marriage is "traditional" - but not where the focus is on sex. The American Indian berdache (usually a homosexual man, but not necessarily) may "marry" a man (who may already be married to a woman) and that berdache becomes a second "wife" in that he is a partner in the family unit. Berdache may simply not want to be a warrior in a tribe that requires men to fight. The movie Little Big Man is culturally accurate on that point.

Same-Sex Marriage section censorship?

Why does the preliminary sentence keep getting removed from this section, something like "Same-sex marriage is a modern concept that has not existed historically in any known society"? I realize that the Same-Sex Marriage article claims otherwise, but in my study I have found absolutely no support for the idea that same-sex unions have ever been considered a "marriage" in any society throughout recorded history, until late last century. Yet this fact keeps getting censored out. Why?

If those who wish to claim same-sex marriage as a time-honored institution can produce documentation of the claim, then that's great. Otherwise, it seems to me that the introductory note should be kept, and the counterfactual claims made in the Same-Sex Marriage article corrected. To insist otherwise -- "Prove that same-sex marriage WASN'T a norm in any other society" -- is to ask to prove a negative.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Using information from the article Same-sex marriage#History of same-sex unions, I've compromisd and atempted to explain the historical state of same-sex unions vs marriage. DDerby(talk) 16:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Marriage by love is also a new thing (id say, pretty much less than 200 years old), today people get married mostly because they are sure they are in love, this was not the case not so long ago. So if you look at it in that way, most samesex couples get married mainly because they say that they are in love much like any other today couple. So in other words, today's marriages dont really have any historical background either, the higher class used to get married for power, while the lower class used to get married for mutual convenience (the woman place in society was very limited, therefor the need of a man that would work or protect her, while the man needed to continue his linage, a son that would continue the work of the father and someone to protect his sons).

One-man/one-woman marriage argument

Upon consideration, it is clear that, historically speaking, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, without exception. Polygamy is not the existence of multiple husbands or wives within one marriage; rather, it is the existence of several marriages within one spouse. Thus, it is both true and appropriate to say that marriage has historically always been considered the union of one man with one woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage "compromise"

Derby, I appreciate your efforts to be balanced, but I think you're missing the relevant facts. Look at your recent compromise attempt:

Although same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures, marriages between same-sex partners were rare or nonexistent in most of those cultures.

"Same-sex unions" have not been recorded only in the history of "a number of cultures"; they have been recorded in virtually EVERY culture. But that is not relevant. The point is that such unions HAVE NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED MARRIAGE. This is the only relevant point. Homosexual unions are as old as mankind, but homosexual "marriage" is of twentieth-century origin. I understand that the "same-sex marriage' article suggests otherwise, but its claims are just that: unsubstantiated suppositions and redefinitions of any homosexual union as a "marriage". In the way that "marriage" is defined in THIS article, homosexual marriage is completely and utterly a recent development.

In other words, the difference between your compromise and what I originally wrote is that what I wrote is factually correct, while what you wrote is a circumlocution of the facts.

I understand that some people might be upset at the open statement that same-sex marriage is a twentieth-century invention. Some people might also be upset at the statement that the earth orbits the sun. Wikipedia should present the facts, not a politically-correct, scrubbed version of the facts. If anyone can find historical evidence of homosexual marriage (as opposed merely to homosexual unions), that point will carry. Until then, please restore the factual, unadulterated version.

Thanks for this further explanation of why you prefer your wording. I think I can understand where you're coming from better now. However, I still disagree. It's POV to specifically point out that the modern view of same-sex unions is significantly different from older views, but not point out that the same is true for heterosexual marriages. It is POV to include your wording without also pointing out that, for instance, "The institution of marriage as a partnership freely entered into by equals is very new, and has little historical precedent. Traditionally, marriage was an exchange of property (the woman) from one owner (her father) to another (her husband)." Derby's wording is no more circumlocutious than your talk of "affinial ties". --Icarus 07:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

religion

the article begins with: "Marriage is a legal, social, and religious relationship between individuals which has formed the foundation of the family for most societies." i'd suggest changing the "and religious" part to something like "and/or religious" or "and often religious". whereas marriage as a social institution is certainly and always a legal and social relationship, in contemporary societies the linkage with religion isn't that strong any more. marriage in western countries is mostly of secular nature. according to the current wording in the article (and the rules of traditional formal logic) a marriage is always a legal, social AND religious matter.

MARRIAGE MEANS HAVING SEX Until marriage does not mean sanctioned sex ....same-sex marriages will never pass. Marriage meaning a socio-economic partnership much like a corporation or buisness will work, so change the name...from "marriage" to "commitment"...simple....if in fact the same-sex couples are really interested in being a recognized couple. Quite frankly there should be levels of "coupling" all of which force a legal commitment-then it doesn't have the "sex" implication. Same-sex partnerships cannot raise children as a father and mother, two words ONLY reserved for MARRIAGE and PROCREATION. So what's the big deal? Get rid of the words "marriage", "father", "mother"...after all if I am not mistaken in gay relationships there is a "male" and "female" of sorts. The sex part? none of the nation's business and if...again....these in love couples are in love....they aren't concerned about advertising the sex...just the love......

"after all if I am not mistaken in gay relationships there is a 'male' and 'female of sorts." - You ARE mistaken. Same sex relationships take many different forms.

Drkamran's "21 F's for a Happy Marriage"

Between 2005-12-04 07:35:59 and 2005-12-04 07:43:59, User:Drkamran added a section 21 F's for a Happy Marriage to the Marriage article. I think this is interesting content, and deserves to be posted somewhere, but I don't think it's appropriate for this article. Here are my concerns, based on the Five Pillars of Wikipedia:

For now, I've put a POV-section tag on this section only. I've also put a note in User talk:Drkamran. This user appears to be new, though, so I don't know if they will see the message. I'm reluctant to delete the content outright just yet, I'd like to encourage Drkamran to find a better home for the material. Other comments? --Jdlh | Talk 16:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (updated --Jdlh | Talk 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

Update: I did a Google search for the first five F's and found the following pages that have substantially the same content, i.e. commentary on marriage from a Muslim point of view, structured around the same 21 words beginning in F.

I'm now comfortable that this content exists in plenty of other places on the web, so it is less urgent to find an home for it on Wikisource or similar. I'm also quite comfortable that this commentary is not appropriate for Wikipedia (see reasons above) and should be deleted. If appropriate, the content could be linked to from Wikipedia instead of being included bodily in Wikipedia. (It might be interesting to have a Wikipedia article about all of these variations of the 21 F's commentary, where they came from, etc.)

I'm going to wait for 24 hours, to see if Drkamran agrees with this and sees fit to remove the section, or to see if other comments arise. At the end of that time, unless something changes my mind, I intend to delete this section. (--Jdlh | Talk 21:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

The Links section seems to have got to the length where everybody and his dog adds their own. I am pruning the list per my understanding of WP:EL:

vanispamcruftvertisement

Apparently a blog or forum style of thing; not an obvious authority

No blogs please!

  • Don't Marry - A dissenting opinion on the social convention of marriage in Western society.

Lots of strong personal opinion, no evident authority

Looks like an interesting but very minor organisation

from "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider". Can we say "spam", children?

belongs in divorce if anywhere

I think that "Jewsih matrimony and personals" speaks for itself, but in any case if it belongs anywhere it's in Jewish view of marriage

spam for Islamic marriage service

This might be a good one, but might not; it's not obvious spam but it is not really about marriage per se.

Second instance of spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider"

404

Third instance of spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider"

I was hopeful about this, but it turns out to be a blog

Or rather, more spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider"

A Christian ministry of no obvious authority. If it's genuinely significant, link to an article on it in WIkipedia.

And another spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider"

Delightful essay, well researched by the looks of it, might well have a place in the article on Abraham Lincoln but not about the practice and institution of marriage per se.

Apparently authoritative, but I would suggest it belongs in Jewish view of marriage

Not an obvious authority, looks like a POV anti-religious-establishment site with a strongly US perspective.

I am happy to acknowledge I might be wrong on some of these. But not all of them, I think, especially the multiple spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider". - Just zis  Guy, you know? [[User_talk:Just zis Guy, you know?|T]/[[Special:Contributions/Just zis Guy, you know?|C] AfD? 12:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-Objective Male take on marriage

Marriage is kind of natural, just not all in the man's best interest, more for a family kind of thing, which is kind of necessary. 141.202.248.11 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a very un-Christian like take.

The Other 50%: Empirical Keys to Good Marital Communication

Being new to Wikipedia, I apologize if this is inappropriate, but the Wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate suggesting a resource that is your own rather than putting it in yourself. I did an extensive research paper in college entitled "The Other 50%: Empirical Keys to Good Marital Communication" [4] that may be useful as a source for this article. I would appreciate someone more objective taking a look and seeing if it would add any value. Thank you.

Elton John???

The article text originally said that Elton John was married in Australia. Since Elton John is quite publically out as a gay man, just tied the knot in a civil union in the UK with his longtime parther, and there's nothing in his bio here about an earlier marraige to a woman, I'm guessing this is wrong. I removed it. --Jfruh 01:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

marriage as a man and a woman together

Those links are irrelevant. Please, stop adding them. --tasc 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Marriage Restrictions - Math Error?

In the "Marriage restrictions" section, it says:

One example is South Korea. Even today, it is generally considered taboo for a man to marry a woman if they both have the same last name. A large percentage of the total South Korean population have the surname "Kim" (an estimated 20%; rendering 20% of the Korean population ineligible for marriage).

The fact that 20% of the population has the same name, does not mean that 20% of the population is ineligible for marriage. All the Kims could marry other people not named Kim, still leaving the other 60% of the population able to marry who ever they want. Or am I missing something? CoachMcGuirk 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem may be more closely related to language. What the author probably meant was that these individuals have a "mating pool" decreased by 20% because of this restriction. Unless someone can think of a better way to word this, we can just remove that last comment. Andrewjuren 08:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

{{limitedgeographicscope}}

Can anyone be more specific with this notice: {{limitedgeographicscope}}, or am I missing the limited scope? It appears to me that the article reflects a large number of cultures and societies. Andrewjuren 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Marriage Restrictions - close relations, incest?

Recently the BBC had a day of Wagner's Ring Cycle. Someone asked the question whether any of the relationships in the Ring were actually illegal or inadvisable. (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio3/F3944341?thread=2750740 Item 4).

One response was Item 24, which said:


"In most modern societies this is not legally possible. Having children is technically possible.

There are biological reasons why it's not a particularly good idea as it leads to a filtering out of some beneficial genes, and the so-called inbreeding can lead to problems in later generations. For similar reasons parent-children relations are not generally permitted.

There can also be social problems with relations between siblings, or parents and their children, and someone will no doubt tell of grand parent- grand children relationships.

In most societies the closest family relationships which are permitted are between cousins. I'm not sure if Uncle - nephew/niece or Aunt - nephew/niece relations are permitted.

There have been cases where some form of relationship between people legally related but not biologically related have been allowed in some societies. For example, could I marry my Aunt, who is not biologically related to me? I don't know the answer. My daughter could probably not marry most of my uncles because of the biological connections, but I'm really not sure.

Also, there might be social factors which would make such marriages beneficial, even if no physical relation came into the equation. What happens (hypothetically) if my daughter chooses to look after her uncle, who is ill, and then for reasons of inheritance they decided to try to marry? Would that be possible? [99% of this is hypothetical ...!!!]"

Are there any legal experts out there who know whether there are any vertical relationships which are allowed - e.g Uncle - niece etc., and whether any restrictions only apply to people with an obvious genetic connection, as suggested in this response? David Martland 07:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Marriage

This page needs a history of marriage section and nothing I read seemed like it. Where/When/Why did marriage originate? How has it evolved? Who participated in early marriages? It just seems like this page doesn't answer those questions and that's what I came here looking for.


I agree. I came here looking for the origin of marriage, in what I would think would be some form of ceremony or 'official' bonding union declared linking two people together. I am hoping, and expecting, that there is a date provided, well before Christ or even any religous marriage was originated.

I'm afraid the info about the origin of marriage would be a stunt and a half, considering that the oldest records we've got treat marriage as an established part of society -- I will add a comment to that effect. Goldfritha 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And someone went and qualified it with the claim that it is known in nearly every society. Anyone got any references to back that up? The person making the change got the comment truncated. Goldfritha 00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I also came looking for the origin of marriage. I think it's fine that you mention that the "oldest records" treat marriage as already-established, but can you please provide the sources of these "records" and date them? You speak very ambiguously of our earliest notions of marriage and I think it's important that we more concretely define where see this idea first presented in written record at least.Mathninja 06:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted paragraph

have removed the following paragraph to the talk page as it is misleading. (3, 4, 5, 6)

Most opinion polls in the United States indicate a majority oppose same-sex marriage [3][4]. Some polls report that a majority support civil unions[5], but other polls state majority favoring no legal recognition of homosexual couples[6].

[3] and [4] are two individual opinion polls and do not indicate what "most" opinion polls find. in [3], the "majority" is 51% to 39%, in [4] it is 50% to 37%. [6] says 27% approve same sex marriage, 29% approve civil unions and 40% favor no legal recognition - i.e. approval of legal recognition trumps disapproval 27+29=56% to 40%. Doldrums 11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Feminist and masculist concerns as two different sections

Feminism and masculism are the same. Shouldn't it be once section? JayW 19:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the masculinist section be in divorce? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with marriage, despite its opening sentence. --Kmsiever 02:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Qualifying the statement that marriage occurs in every society

Marriage occurs in nearly every society, but there are exceptions. As per my additions to the article under the section "Unique practices": One society that traditionally did without marriage entirely was that of the Na of Yunnan province in southern China. According to anthropologist Cia Hua, sexual liaisons among the Na took place in the form of "visits" initiated by either men or women, each of whom might have two or three partners each at any given time (and as many as two hundred throughout a lifetime). The nonexistence of fathers in the Na family unit was consistent with their practice of matrilineality and matrilocality, in which siblings and their offspring lived with their maternal relatives. In recent years, the Chinese state has encouraged the Na to acculturate to the monogamous marriage norms of greater China. Such programs have included land grants to monogamous Na families, conscription (in the 1970s, couples were rounded up in villages ten or twenty at a time and issued marriage licenses), legislation declaring frequent sexual partners married and outlawing "visits", and the withholding of food rations from children who could not identify their fathers. Many of these measures were relaxed in favor of educational approaches after Deng Xiaoping came into power in 1981. (This is from Geertz, Clifford. "The Visit," The New York Review of Books, October 18, 2001, pp. 27-30.)--Birdmessenger 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's the ethnography that Geertz is reviewing in the article.--Birdmessenger 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture of 'Example of an American marriage license' ?

Why is the picture of an 'Example of an American marriage license' a gay marriage license? While the article mentions the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples in San Francisco (now null and void), this is hardly a typical example. It should be replaced.

I agree it should be deleted, particularly because it does not represent a legal marriage license--it was declared, like all California licenses of its kind, null and void. So I'm going to delete it, because I can't replace it, and deleting it beats replacing it when it in fact is NOT what it is says--a binding contract. So it should be taken off immediately, lest people confuse it for that. - Kmaguir1 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Definitions" section

I deleted the reference to the US state of Hawaii from the definitions section. It used to read:

same-sex marriage - legal, by 2005, in some countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada (and the US states of Massachusetts and Hawaii[citation needed])

It now reads

legal, by 2005, in some countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada (as well as the US state of Massachusetts)

I changed it because it seems that it is not indeed legal in Hawaii. I'm using the following article as my reference: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME (see first paragraph of the article).

Feel free to change this back if you have a better reference.

Close Relationships template

I added a new close relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove the template because of the large legal template, I'm okay with that. (Kelly 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marriage/Archive_1&oldid=1099077109"