Talk:Marriage/Archive 2

German Wikipedia

The German Wikipedia has this picture:

with a caption I cannot decipher, on de:Ehe. Could someone provide a translation please? TIA. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As Reymond and Melusina together were lead... and by the Bishop were blessed in their bed (Woodcut from the Schönen Melusine, 15th century)". Paul Beppler 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My quick edit to this page

While on vandalism patrol I noticed that the phrase "marriage is defined as a close relationship among or between individuals" had been altered to say "marriage is defined as a close relationship between a man and a woman". I chose not to revert the page as vandalism, which it may or may not be, but instead replaced the original sentence. My reasoning for this is based on the fact that legally speaking, in many countries in the world, including the U.S. marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman. I expect this is a contentious issue among some people (it certainly has been here in Massachusetts), and am not suprised to see that it has been discussed on this page. My intention is not to enter the debate, but restore the page to the currently consensus version. Dina 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just realized this page is being repeatedly vandlized by the same IP. Will keep an eye on it and revert this edit as many times as it takes using Vandalproof. Dina 17:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Dina..for example in Belgium, in the Netherlands or in Spain marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman.GLGerman 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)GLGerman[reply]

Is it not the case that is the vast majority of marriages on this planet are between one man and one woman? You seem to go out of your way to make marriage as gender neutral as possible while omitting this one obvious fact (you do use the word "many" quite a bit but it is unconvincing). I would not refer to someone's edits on this subject as vandalism.

I also take offense at the use of CE as opposed to AD.

In general, I did not find this article to be as informative on marriage as it could have been. HarwoodRH 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could be more specific about what you would have expected to find in the article but didn't it might help us to improve it.

We're an encyclopedia, so it makes sense that we talk about the general case, not simply the majority. I think the article is very clear that one man - one woman unions are the dominant form without falling into the trap of writing about marriage as though that's a part of its inherent nature.

On the CE front I'm not a fan myself, though I don't understand how its use can offend. Though I'd probably vote for a standard use of AD and BC if the matter ever came up, I don't think such a policy would actually significantly improve the encyclopedia. Since English is a diverse language and our many users have perfectly legitimate standard usages that clash with other users' perfectly legitimate standard usages, in general we tolerate a number of different forms, asking only that editors respect each other, use common sense and try to be consistent within an article. You can read more about the details in our manual of style. If you have a constructive comment about something covered in the manual of style you should make it on the appropriate sub-article's talk page. This isn't the place to discuss the guideline. --Siobhan Hansa 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup suggestions/plans

Hopefully I'll have time to do some of this, but if someone could beat me to it, great. This article's getting longer than it ought. The section on "Marriage and economics" could be made a seperate article and greatly condensed. Also, the wedding section has some info in it that should be moved into the main article, and other information that could be greatly condensed or removed in favor of coverage in the main article (ex: facts specific to individual countries).

Also, there are sections in "Definition" that pertain to current events, like in the last paragraph, that could be stricken entirely and moved to the same-sex marriage and polygamy articles. Not sure whether they actually 'should', though, so I'll leave it be for now. MrZaius^talk 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section of "Marriage and Religion" is an important component of this article as marriage has its roots in religious practice and belief. Marriage is a solemn covenant, contract, and vow often taken in the presence of witness with God Himself often considered to be a witness. Marriage and related topics are discussed in many separate articles in Wikipedia. This main article on marriage is helped by keeping this section on Marriage and Religion here and keeping it strong and informative. Itohacs

External links

I removed links that were blatantly commercial. The ones that are left are still pretty dodgy. The only one I think adds real value is the Rugters marriage project.

igla.org - International gay and lesbian association. Presumably here as some sort of "balance" against the catholic encyclopedia link. But it's to the organization, not even to their stance on marriage. And it's not really a counterpoint to the catholic Encyclopedia content.
Social Determinants of Attitudes Towards Women's Premarital Sexuality Among Female Turkish University Students - This just seems bizzarly specific. It's kind of related, but how many readers are actually going to find it useful linked from here. If something like this isn't relevent enough to be a reference it's unclear to me why it would be a good external link.
Catholic Encyclopedia "History of Marriage" - I don't know what the provenance of this site is, or if it's well respected within the Catholic community. But I was surprised by it. The article itself seemed out of keeping with the strong tradition of scholarship for which the Catholic Church is known. And the site appeared to be very commercial (covered in google ads - and pushing it's own sales). Is this connected with the Catholic Church or one of their universities? Is it well respected in academic circles?

Anyway, I'd like to remove all but the Rugters marriage project. Does anyone want to defend any of them? (Or suggest Rugters goes too) --Siobhan Hansa 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a section by an anonymous user

The following appeared on the main page: It wasn't vandalism, but it was misplaced, so I move it here.

== History ==

What is the history of marrage?

Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stats

are there any stats on the avg age of when people from certain countries get married? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.13.120 (talk)

The UN produced this pdf in 2000. Things may have changed significantly since (even the stats they're using are over a worryingly long timeframe) They may have something newer somewhere on their website. --Siobhan Hansa 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage

Is there a particular reason this article states that marriage is between a man and a woman, when several countries around the world have, on grounds of anti-discrimination, opened marriage to couples of any gender? -- Ec5618 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my curiousity is where do you mean?? somebody went through painstaking effort to remove any inference of heterosexuality in marriage in the common mind since so many faiths, cultures, laws, and people assume such when they refer to marriage. r b-j 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO There are three kinds of NPOV ways to cite sources on defining marriage: (1) Legal marriage (marriage law in a particular legal region like a state or a country), (2) Religious Marriage (marriage as defined by a particular religious organization .... or other ideological organization?) and (3) "Marriage" in the English language (as defined by popular usage among English speakers). For the first kind, the NPOV definition of marrriage depends on the laws in a given country. For the second, we define it by official doctrinal or ideological statements of a particular group. For the third, you go to popular usage of the word/concept in NPOV sources liek a dictionary. IMHO, "marriage" for this article needs to be defined in the intro 'graf. MPS 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

r b-j, when I make the comment, it was valid[1]. Shortly after, CovenantD addressed the issue.

MPS, in no case can we state that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, as you did just now. While the majority of countries restict marriage to intergender couples, that does not mean that countries that define marriage as a bond between individuals are wrong. Our definition should be so wide as to include all marriages. -- Ec5618 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i fully disagree. in the laws of the nations/states of 90+% of the worlds population, in the practice of marriage in 90+% of the world religions of 90+% of those who are counted as members, marriage is understood as being between a man and a woman. the article should reflect that fact (not that marriage is between a man and a woman, that is debated, but that it is considered to be between a man and woman in such a significant portion of society the world over) and it should state it in the intro. it should also qualify it since there certainly are marriages recognized (but not universally recognized) between same-sex couples. the way that this has been carefully sculpted out of the article reflects the POV of those who believe (rightly or wrongly, i am not judging that) that marriage should not be a function of the genders of spouses instead of reflecting the reality that marriage is viewed by the vast majority of the world population (as well as the dictionary definitions of the term) as between a man and a woman. this POV sculpting of the article should be fixed. r b-j 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The current definition is correct in all cases: "A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants." Whether most believe it to be essential that one of those (and just one of those) individuals be male is no justification for defining marriage so that the minority is by definition wrong. Like it or not, in South Africa and the Netherlands and such, marriage doesn't need to be intergender. Ergo, marriage doesn't need to be intergender. -- Ec5618 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:WPINAD: "an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic" i have corrected the definition to the primary (lead) definition in the M-W dictionary and included a reference. while it may not be the reality you seek, the fact is that conservatively 90% of the world's population, as reflected in the laws of the jurisdictions people live in and reflected in the canons of religious tradition that claim adherents numbering at a majority of the world's population, a socially sanctioned, intergender relationship that generally includes a sexual component is what the vast majority of people understand marriage to be. certainly this article should reflect the existence of same-sex marriage and it does, but the POV pushing is blatent to carefully sculpt out any mention of the normative concept of marriage when that is precisely the principle definition in the dictionary. OED says essentially the same.

to make a reference to same-sex marriage in the article and not mention the existence of intergender marriage when that is the primary definition is balant POV editing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the same-sex marriage movement. if you want to change the world (to accept same-sex marriage worldwide), be my guest, but you cannot use Wikipedia to do it.r b-j 07:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition that we are presently using does not conflict with the Merriam Webster definition that you cited, nor SOED (I do not have access to an OED). If you feel that a reference to these definitions is important add the citation, but I would prefer that the present definition be retained; “[a] marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants.”

Language is fluid and changing and I personally feel that the definition presently being used on this page is both more precise and accurate than the cited Merriam Webster definition you were using.

Can anyone find out when last the OED definition for marriage was updated? Also, when last Merriam Webster updated their definition of marriage?--GMS508 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the print version of the OED (1971) has for its primary (lead) definition: "The condition of being a husband and wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock." listen, this article should make it clear that there are same-sex marriages out there, that there are governmental jurisdictions and also religious traditions that recognize same-sex marriages (it probably should also qualify that fact with the other fact that these jurisdictions and traditions are relatively few in number). it should link to same-sex marriages as well as discuss it, but it should not have what is commonly thought of as marriage by 95% of the world's population carefully sculpted out of the article so that it appears politically-correct to the gay-rights movement. when society changes to the degree that people do not normally associate marraige to a sanctioned intergender life and sexual relationship but commonly associate it to something that does not specify any gender difference or identity, when the standard dictionaries of the English language yank out "man and woman" or "husband and wife" out of the principal definitions, that's when the Wikipedia article gets to reflect that fact. otherwise it's using Wikipedia to push or at least nudge social change and that is not what WP is for. r b-j 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1971 OED is a fine resource, but I would like to know how it is presently defined by the OED. I am sure that some lexicographer out there can provide a more relevant citation. Also, I would like to point out English words are defined by usage and that there is no recognized governing board of the English language.

Do you wish to see a citation for same sex marriages in print?

It is my opinion that the citation you are using is not enough to support your recent changes. Personal beliefs and preferences are relevant for defining law, but usage is the be all and end all for defining a word.--GMS508 20:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(new indent) All I am saying is that this article needs to reflect existing definitions of marriage in WP:NPOV ways rather than draft "our own definition." WP:NOR demands that we correctly reflect current legal, cultural, and linguistic definitions. Only if these change should we change "wikipedia's definition" ... because wikipedia doesn't have an opinion except those attributed to recognized sources. MPS 20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just same-sex marriages being excluded by that phrasing: polygamy and, rarely, polyandry have existed and still, I believe, exist in some cultures. We mustn't be biased solely to Western cultures. That said, there HAVE been notable legal battles about this in America and so on, and it is imprortant historically: Why not make a controversies and/or historical section? It would be eminently appropriate there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article gets to discuss polygamy, polyandry, same-sex, religious, civil marriage, all of these things. but it doesn't get to "adjust" the primary definition of marriage from what 95% of people understand it to be to the personal likings of those who are unhappy that laws nearly all of the world's governments and the practice of nearly all of the world's established religious faith recognize only heterosexual marriage (as well as monogamous, etc.) it's not that everyone does it that way, 95% or 99% is not 100% and that left over 1 to 5% should be discussed, but just because there are a relatively small number of same-sex marriages in the world does not mean that the definition of the word should be changed from what it is to what this 1 to 5% would like it to be. here is what Britanicca says in its lead: "... a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any)." it doesn't say "always", but it is understating the fact when it says "usually". the vast majority of all marriages are intergender. the vast majority of all governments (by population) recognize only intergender marriage. the vast majority of institutionalized religious traditions recognize only intergender marriage. if that is to change in the future because of whatever social forces make this reality to change to a "better" reality, that's fine but Wikipedia is not here to help fight that fight. WP only reflects the sides of that fight (every side with significant number of adherants), but not to advocate for any one side.

If 95% of people understand marriage to be restricted to intergender couples, they misunderstand marriage. Some countries allow same sex marriages. Marriage, in other words, is not always a union between a man and a woman. This simple fact falsifies any definition of marriage as being "a state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". -- Ec5618 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from WP:NPOV (which, by the way, is official policy): "if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced." even if 95% misunderstand marriage, if 95% (mis)understand marriage to be precisely what definitive standards of meaning of English words such as the OED or Webster's say marriage to be in their principal definition, that "misunderstanding" is what goes into Wikipedia. and in this case, because this issue is rife for POV editing, the dictionary definition is what goes into the lead of the article. anything else is editing out of one side's POV. we don't let the Christian conservatives come in here and define the article to be what their POV of it is either. both get mentioned, but for the pro-gay or LGBT or "inclusionist" or whatever side to define marriage to be something different than the dictionary definition or the common "mis"understanding of it, is POV editing. and it is blatant. r b-j 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a difference between what people approve of, and what people understand. In addition, would you state your source that “95% of people understand it to be...”. Are these your opinions, or do you have a reference we could check?

i haven't put that in the article. what i did put in was the dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster) and i cited here the OED. for both the primary definition specifically mentions "husband and wife". r b-j 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your assertion that 95% of the people disapprove, or that 95% could not comprehend that a marriage could between two individuals of the same sex?--GMS508 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am asserting that at least 95 persons out of 100 in the world understand the definition of "marriage" to be that of some kind of societal-sanctioned union between a man and a woman. but i am relying on sourced, widely recognized, dictionary definitions for the article. r b-j 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) This article is about the institution of marriage. We don't define words in our articles, we define the subject we are talking about. We don't define the subject of our physics articles to meet the understanding of the general public, we explain the subject as it is understood by experts in the field, and encompass all significant points of view. Using the broad definition of marriage is not promoting a new, unpublished idea of what marriage is. The idea that marriage can encompass a broader set of relationships than one-man - one-woman is verifiable despite Mirriam-Webster's definition. There is no original research. It is easy to broadly describe marriage so that it reflects the general case. Recent attempts to the change the article lead and disambiguation statement ([2]) show how much weaseling is necessary to try and sustain a narrow definition and still inform readers of relevant exceptions. We should stick to an elegant and broad lead. --Siobhan Hansa 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"elegant" is a matter of opinion. "broad" is not allowed here unless the topic actually is broad. but, for as much debate as you might get in the progressive countries that legalized same-sex marriage, that is still not the norm the world over. "marriage" the world over is thought of as a heterosexual thing by the vast majority of people in nearly every nation in the world. it is not the place for Wikipedia to effect social change by changing definitions of common concepts. this "broad definition" is just a term hiding POV editing by those desiring/supporting same-sex marriage. again, it's fine to point to the fact that not all marriages recognized by all governments are heterosexual, but to remove any inference of that and to change the lead definition from that (which is still the principal definition in both Webster and OED, and, i just looked up, the Houghton Mifflin dictionary) to what you might like marriage to mean is POV editing. it's blatent. r b-j 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, have you noticed my latest edit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup, and it wasn't sufficient. before the article had every inference of intergender marraige removed except for the little pic in the sidebar (yet had at least a couple of explicit references to same-sex marriage). then you add that one little "incidental" tidbit that for 99.97% of recorded human history "marriage" meant solely a relationship between hasband and wife (perhaps more than one), but the weight of that is unduly small. the principal definition of marriage in nearly every dictionary of the English language (i haven't seen them all, but Webster, OED, and Houghton Mifflin are pretty widespread) defines marraige as heterosexual. to surgically cut that out is blatant POV editing and contrary to Wikipedia policy. again, the article needs to treat same-sex marriage, but the year isn't 2050 or 2100. in this era, marriage primarily means heterosexual and to use Wikipedia to "educate" people that that it doesn't mean that is POV. r b-j 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the relative dominance of inter-gender marriage makes it worth noting in the lead. But that doesn't mean we should be defining marriage in a way that does not encompass parts of the subject covered by the article. When a dictionary definition does not cover aspects that are subject to current academic enquiry, recent changes in practice in several countries, or global and historical perspectives, it is a poor source to use.

This has become an edit war to the extent we now have 3RR violations. I suggest we put a request for comment together and see what a broader Wikipedia community has to say. --Siobhan Hansa 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are explicitly saying polygamy is not part of marriage in your preferred version: "This definition does not include polygamy, which is practiced in many parts of the world." That means you do *not* get to handwave it away as a parenthetical comment about "sometimes more than one". Do you actually know anything about the history of marriage outside of Christian cultures? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Yeah, we get vandalism like that a lot, I fear. Just revert any you see. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. -- Ec5618 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you guys are reverting without adding edit notes using your popups editors... is there any way you could alter that method to include reasons why you are doing what you are doing? It really helps collaboration when we can talk things out. Peace, MPS 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The last effort was fairly good, but it had several problems:

History of same-sex unions: If this article is afccurate - and I can't guarantee all of it is, because only parts are referenced - then we may be forcing a modern western world bias on things if we're not careful.
I'm particularly concerned with the exclusion of polygamy: it was a common practice, it's found in the Old-Tesstament Hebrews, Arabic societies, Mormonism, and many others. That's an awful lot of history to arbitrarily ignore.
The 2003 date is inaccurate according to Same-sex marriage, even for just the western world.

(Had missed further changes. Ignore this part) Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]