Talk:Marriage

spouse does not mean you were married

Apologies if this discussion is in the archives but I believe that spouse has been merged with marriage. I would like to de-merge it as at least in the UK spouse does not have to mean marriage. I would like a Disambiguation page which links to marriage / husband / wife and Work spouse. This has been bought about by someone pointing out the Ipswich murderer's spouse was not his wife but a search on wikipedia for spouse found only marriage. sorry returned to add Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Common-law marriage is a much better link that also needs to be added to a disamb. page.Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But in many jurisdictions, common law marriage participants have the same legal rights/obligations as "formally married" people. Your link to work spouse brings up a good point. Marriage is such a broad and all-encompassing concept and has different meaning and significance to different people and I believe that is the root of much of the controversy about it. Marriage (as a general concept across society) contains elements of religion, legal rights and privilege, social support and recognition, intimacy and commitment. InsufficientData (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While i think the disambiguation page is a good idea in many ways it has a big disadvantage in terms of wikilinking for articles. There aren't that many articles that currently wikilink spouse (see [1]) so I'm inclined to think that it's the best way to go and then just trawl through the articles and make the best determination possible for each link. I disagree with the reasoning for turning it back into a redirect last summer, since it was a disambig page not simply a dictionary definition. But given that the page has changed a few times, more input is probably wise before being bold. -- SiobhanHansa 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, I will wait awhile and see how the discussion goes. I agree with what SiobhanHansa says , my main difficulty being put in spouse in the wiki search and it goes to marriage missing out the other possibilities. As I come across them I will as you say try to link direct. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Marriage penalty

I've added the following to clear up any perception that dual-income couples are the only losers in tax systems, as might be construed from the existing text.

"Conversely, when progressive tax is levied on the individual with no consideration for the partnership, dual-income couples fare much better than single-income couples with similar household incomes. The effect can be increased when the welfare system treats the same income as a shared income thereby denying welfare access to the non-earning spouse. Such systems apply in Australia and Canada, for example."

I also edited the previous paragraph to clarify that the individuals in a dual-income couple are worse off when incomes are added prior to taxation. They are not, in fact, collectively worse off compared to couples with one earner earning the same gross income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.189.121 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reworking the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section

How do other editors feel about the idea of reworking the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section by expanding it to include other "Contemporary beliefs about marriage"? This wouldn't involve removing any of the existing material, but would provide a place near the end of the article to mention some of the "opposing" views on the topic (i.e. the views of so-called Traditional marriage movement advocates.) Would the expansion of the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section in that way be controversial? (sdsds - talk) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As this proposal was unopposed I made a first attempt at it. Commenting here (or simply making edits in the new section) would both be great ways to improve this article further! (sdsds - talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

yes i do agree with every one that seems to have commented back, this is something i feel very strongly about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoomtingOx (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Civil unions by definition are civil not religious

The article under Same-Sex Marriages states "Some religious denominations ceremonially perform civil unions, and recognize them as essentially equivalent to marriage.[citation needed]" By definition Civil Unions are performed as a legal agreement, not a religious agreement.
Cit: civil union. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved May 29, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil+union
I think that it should read "Some religious denominations ceremonially perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or commitment ceremonies, and recognize them as equivalent to marriage." It might be accurate to add something to the effect, "Civil unions, although legal in nature, may also be celebrated in some religious denominations." Civil union is specifically a term to distinguish unions recognized by the state from religious unions. I don't know how to document this - my church recognizes same-sex marriage - and will call it marriage, but I can't find a citation.
Still a newbie. Vectoriousd (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

removing section "Hypergyny and isogamy"

Jimmy Wales said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

The section "Hypergyny and isogamy" is a perfect example of this. It is pseudo information full of 'citation needed' tags. Not only is this section unverifiable, it also represents a (feminist) point of view. I will follow the advice of Jimmy Wales and aggressively remove this section daily until sources are provided and points of view are removed. Fschmidt2 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons for deleting the first time sounded a little odd. Admittedly, the current sources are poor, but could you be a little more specific about the POV you see here? And what exactly is "pseudo information"? There was very little that was "feminist" about the text and hypergyny is definitely an anthropological concept. The first five entries off a quick JSTOR search reveal that the term is used in various studies or commentaries about kinship and marriage:

Royal Incest and Inclusive Fitness. Pierre L. Van Den Berghe, Gene M. Mesher. American Ethnologist, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1980), pp. 300-317

Hunters and Farmers: Then and Now. Katherine A. Spielmann, James F. Eder. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23, (1994), pp. 303-323

Review: [untitled]. Linda Hitchcox. Reviewed work(s): Population Dynamics of a Philippine Rain Forest People: The San Ildefonso Agta by John D. Early; Thomas N. Headland. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 649-650

The Sociobiological Model and the Medieval Evidence. Susan Mosher Stuard. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1984), pp. 410-413

Human Behavioral Ecology. Lee Cronk. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20, (1991), pp. 25-53.

--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(I am not sure how to reply to a discussion in Wikipedia, so I will append my comment.) I will dissect the section in question below.

"In social science, hypergyny refers to the phenomenon in which women tend to marry men who are of slightly higher social status."

Common sense tells one that this isn't possible because men and women are on average of the same social status. Women may desire to marry men of higher status, but in general, this desire cannot be met.

I am not a sociologist but I know that this academic field is plagued with feminists. I don't care what anyone's point of view is, but when they make up words like "hypergyny" (which is only used by academic sociologists), the word should at least make common sense and be backed by evidence. "Hypergyny" fails on both counts.

"In the U.S., women’s hypergynous tendencies allow higher status men to be functionally polygynous."

Why only in the US? Not only in the US, and not only among humans, but generally, high status males reproduce more.

"In some cultures, women are expected to marry a spouse who is more economically, socially, or politically powerful. Known as hypergyny, this practice is common in India."

This makes it sound odd for women to desire higher status men, while the truth is that this is essentially universal, just as it is universal that men prefer physically attractive women.

"Though an expected social norm in America, hypergyny is slowly being replaced by isogamy, marriage between equals, and the marrying 'down' of woman. Many anthropologists ascribe this to increased gender equality between women and men."

This is pure nonsense. As I pointed out, it is simply impossible for women on average to marry up. No evidence is provided for the above statement because it is impossible for it to be true. The above is simply a lie designed to make it sound like feminism in America has promoted equality, when nothing could be further from the truth.

My point of view, which probably does not belong in Wikipedia, is that feminism has caused American women to become sluts, having lots of sex with high status men outside of marriage and ignoring men of their own status. I can also reference academic papers backing up this point of view. If the section on "hypergyny and isogamy" is to remain, then I should be free to add a section expressing my point of view.

Fschmidt2 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's the thing: You cannot edit Wikipedia based on "what you know." All content has to be drawn from reliable sources, which a scholarly journal certainly is. Whether it's an academic term or not is irrelevant to whether it belongs in the article.

Just as an aside, arguing against peer-reviewed published works on the use of the hypergyny concept on the basis that "you know differently" is not going to work here. I do agree with you though that some better sources are necessary for the statements in the second paragraph.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The only source sited in the whole section is a book review published on the web, not an academic paper with peer review. This is hardly a reliable source.

If the term "hypergyny" is going to be used, it should be made clear that it is an term of academic sociologists, and not a term in general use. And there should be at least one reference to a truly reliable source containing the term.

I just noticed that the second paragraph of this section is a copy of a blog entry.

Fschmidt2 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to replace this text, there are numerous reliable sources that use the term hypergyny. One of the sources I gave above would probably work. We do agree, however, on the need for sources and the second paragraph, which fails WP:V--though I'm pretty sure the blog took from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I'm not really clear on why it matters whether JoeJohn Q. Public uses the term or not; it's not like we do this with articles relevant to physics, geology or biology. (PS: Since you hinted that you're new to talk pages, I took the liberty of indenting your responses with a couple of colons; adding a colon to each subsequent response nests the exchange and makes it easier to follow.) --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In articles that cover controversial topics (like this one), if the article has poor source citations (like this one ;-) it is important not to eliminate any of the existing source citations without extremely good reason. I would encourage Fschmidt2 to read the cited source in the section being removed, and find at least one citable bit of information in it. Then present that information in the article and cite the source, eliminating all the unsourced material from the section. It isn't particularly the job of Fschmidt2 to do this, but it gets what Fschmidt2 apparently wants: less unsourced material in the article.

It certainly isn't Fschmidt2's job to add source citations to this material in the article: that job falls squarely on the shoulders of anyone who wants the material to remain! (sdsds - talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right--I wasn't trying to suggest that was his job, though I guess it could have seemed that way. I was pointing out that hypergyny exists in numerous WP:RS and that anyone who thinks it belongs in the article could justifiably add some of that material back in (properly cited). What I left unsaid was that I probably won't be doing that because I'm busy and don't really care to read up on hypergyny.

Regarding the source you mention, closer inspection reveals that it's a student report or something of the sort on a book. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think it's appropriate to use it here at all. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, those are good points! If the cited work does not qualify as a reliable source, then it is reasonable to remove it. At that point, the entire section is unreferenced and thus it is equally reasonable to eliminate it entirely! (I note as an aside that the book mentioned by the source does, according to Amazon's online book-searching software, contain 6 pages with references to hypergyny. But even so: that wasn't the work being cited! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to Fleet Marriage article

I have restored the wikilink to the Fleet Marriage article. What was the motivation for removing this? It seems directly relevant to the topic of recognition of marraiges by the church or state. Is there some dispute that Fleet Marriages existed? (sdsds - talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and consensus

I wonder if there's some misunderstanding: are all active editors aware of how incredibly controversial society (and wikipedians) find the topics covered by this article? Please re-read the banner at the top of this talk page, and reproduced here:

Please take a moment to glance through the archives of this talk page if you're in any doubt! This can't be about lots of editors insisting on the right to be WP:BOLD. Please can we work toward concensus on changes before being reckless? (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible how obstructionist contributors to this article are. The article needs a lot of work to clean it up, and is flagged as such, and note that every time someone makes any attempt in that direction, it is frustrated. I have tried several times to crack through the barrier, without much to show for the effort. I understand that the article covers an area which is sensitive to many people, but if contributors remain objective there should not be the stand-off that has developed. I note my attempt to clean-up the section on Recognition, as an example of worthwhile clean-up which has been reverted several time. Good luck to those who are still there.Ewawer (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ewawer, please stop making edits to this article that violate WP:NPOV, which is an official English Wikipedia policy. (sdsds - talk) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

definition

I would suggest that the definition in the first sentence should state that marriage is normally between two people. Also, in the fourth sentence, instead of saying "It is often created by a contract or through civil processes" it should say that it is often "considered to be" a contract or created through civil processes. What do you think? Bwrs (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't clear the term "normally" could be used within the constraints of WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS. I attempted (for months) to introduce a phrase like "most frequently between one man and one woman," but I don't have statistics to support that frequency claim, and even so other editors might assert that mentioning that "detail" in the lead is inherently POV. (sdsds - talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Normal" is a major POV issue, because its opposite, "abnormal," has clearly negative connotations when used in reference to a person's way of life. Terms like "most often" and "most frequently" are, of course, quantitative matters and would need to reflect worldwide statistics. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

6 countries in the world currently allow same sex marriage. The other 200 or so don`t. Andycjp (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Information on marriage restrictions is already present in the main body of the article. Feel free to elaborate on it if you'd like. But the legal rarity of homosexual and/or polygamous marriages is not essential to the definition of marriage. There are other common aspects of marriage that are not so fundamental that they belong in the very first line. For example, most marriages occur between living, consenting, human adults (no, I'm not being facetious or grasping at straws by mentioning "living" and "human"--there are cultures in which people have been wedded to animals, inanimate objects, the deceased, or even the functioning body parts of living individuals; I can source this if you'd like). Plenty of marriages vary from plenty of norms and majorities. If the heterosexual norm is important enough to mention in the very first sentence of the article, then why aren't any others so important? Sure, marriage restrictions should be discussed. But to imply that the norm or the majority equals the definition, in the very first line, is to violate WP:POV, and likely to offend the minority from the outset. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the definition is to include misconceptions of marriage such as homosexual unions and contracts with multiple people, why not then include the misconceptions of marriage caused by people "marrying" goats and chairs? It is hypocrisy for this definition to lie about same-sex couples being included in the definition, but then not include the other common misconceptions. Suggested new definition: "Marriage is a union between two objects." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The introduction, "Marriage is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as 'the formal union of a man and a woman'," is not only a WP:POV but also a blatant WP:NAD violation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Note that it also conflicts with WP:CSB, a project rather than a policy but still highly worth reading in this instance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the edit summary from the first time I reverted your Concise Oxford Dictionary bit: The Concise Oxford Dictionary may give a definition of marriage, but it does not DEFINE marriage, laws and doctrine do. If you mean to use it as a source, give edition and page. --WikidSmaht (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it can be said that the definition of marriage as a "union of a man and a woman" is a POV. It is the normal definition (or at least part of it) of marriage. A definition of marriage as a "union of two people" is not wrong, or a POV, either. Nor is a definition of marriage as "a union of a man or a woman and a person of a same or opposite sex" isn't a POV either, though it may be an incorrect defintion, depending on ones POV.203.184.55.172 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So, no definition is a POV (in other words, I take it, no definition is right according to one's POV), although a definition can be wrong according to one's POV? *Scratches head.* Roger that... Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition is means to describing a "word" from it's origin to be specific to the word itself and not to describe "symantic" changes to a word by means of popular belief. Therefore the actual origin of a word and it's unabridged original meaning shall remain the definition of that word. This is not a POV issue. The definition of a word therefore should not be changed by "POV". Altered uses and "symantic" changes including references to the usage of such altered words by means of example of the original word with a variance of original definition might be mentioned but not accutely needed to show the definition of the word. What should be placed in the definition is the word and it's "original definition" and the fact of variable uses. There may be contraversy over placing links or even mention of the variable uses and relevancy to the definition of the word within this context as the origin of the word is defined and defined to allow no altering of the words meaning. Therefore there can be no alternative definition of such word. I would suggest that whom ever does edit the definition to be correct should reference the actuall origin and source that definition. My opinion on this discussion is that "Homosexuals" and "Polygamists" should define their own specific word(s) without use of the predefined and exclusive word "Marriage" as by definition "Marriage" does not apply to them. NOTE: IF YOU DISAGREE, PLEASE DO NOT EDIT or CHANGE MY WORDS - Make your point and allow others to read both of our arguments. 208.127.178.3 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)<--ENOCHIAN_BORG

I have since established a log in account so as to be identifiable. ENOCHIAN BORG (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no one is going to edit what you said on a talk page, that is frowned upon here. You might want to acquaint yourself with conventions, guidelines, and policies on the Wikipedia. Second, what you said is absolute bullshit. Your definition of definition is... queer, to say the least. Wikipedia defines a definition as “a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase” - “original meaning” is not part of the definition of definition, and never was. If definitions were immutable, dictionaries would never update any of their entries to include modern usages, but they do. Moreover, many words in English are completely divorced from their origins at this point, but no one debates the validity of their present usages. Language changes and adapts to real-world circumstances. GET OVER IT. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning, no king or ruler nor his/her beaurocracy had any hand in the process of establishing a recognized communal living arrangement. It was defined and controlled by the shaman, priest, imam, or whatever other theological entity existed in a particular area. Governmental registering and/or control is relatively recent in history, and I personally take exception to the idea that this type of usurption makes that control of the definition to even seem legitimate.216.175.79.174 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)REV. RAYMOND DAVIES June 28, 2008

A lot of things that were once controlled by religious officials are now civil matters, secular society finds value in this. Take as much exception as you want, Rev, it doesn’t change the facts. The fact that cultural developments are relatively recent doesn’t make them invalid. Culture is always changing. Out of curiousity, are you suggesting that a marriage not religiously blessed is not a real marriage? Also, note that a number of religious bodies have changed their definitions of marriage as well. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just think it's funny that after all these years, the issues covered in the essay WP:NOTLEX are still being rehashed for this article. MPS (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "personal" from the definition (sorry for not reaching consensus first). This is because often marriage is a public matter as well as a personal matter. In many cultures, including mine, one marries into the family, and is therefore also a family union. I guess I did not seek consensus first because it is so painstakingly obvious to me that the "personal" restriction is not a universally shared restriction. I would suggest that it is not even a commonly shared restriction. Sauve.sean (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC).

It is worthwhile to note the etymology of the word when discussing the definition.

MATRIMONIO (masculine noun, i.e. ‘ IL matrimonio’ in the singular; ‘I matrimoni’ in the plural). It derives from classical Latin ‘matrimonium’(neuter noun) just meaning ‘marriage’ and related to the noun ‘mater’ (mother) as ‘matrimonium’ was used as a legal term opposing to concubinage and indicates that children born of this marriage (matrimonium) were legitimate.

It is thus self-evident that the word marriage can not be used to describe male homosexuals, since they can not have children. Also, it can not refer to homosexual females since they can not have children within the marriage.

I now consider the consensus to be drawn to the side of a traditional definition. Those in favor of homosexuals being included in the definition will not only have to change societal views, but also come up with some other word entirely. There is no real dispute in the definition other than a created one. The neutrality of the traditional definition is not really in question here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You may consider consensus drawn in any way you want, however, it is obviously not so. Your edits have been reverted, please make your case on the talk page before trying to impose consensus on a controversial article. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

there certaintly is not consetn for the definition that was reverted back to. Err on the side of tradition rather than people's imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consensus exists. Try and change consensus before making controversial edits, please. You are ignoring the "This is "controversial." Do not change this without first reaching consensus on the talk page." message on the main page to make your changes, please stop edit warring and make your case here. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not consensus. You are just saying that there is consensus, hoping that people will believe you. There is not consensus. Your "definition" does not even match the Oxford definition. I changed the definition because there is not consensus on it and it should not stand as it is. Whoever added the definition and then the edit warning did so by ignoring the arguments against the definition at the time the warning was placed.

• Comment to counter so to speak the Oxford dictionary defintion of Marriage, below, the Merriam-Webster definition:

Main Entry:

mar·riage

Pronunciation:

\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Date:

14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected  ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Can't use the dictionary form here, two respected dictionaries use difference definitions. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring up again the issue of the "personal" restriction in the definition. Marriage is not always personal. I can guess that the word "personal" was injected by activists trying to help protect their right to privacy. I would agree with them that were they wishing to make their own personal marriage personal, they could do so. But it must be pointed out that not everyone wishes fro their union to be a deeply personal one. Indeed, this is a highly American idea of individualism, and even many Americans would disagree. Sauve.sean (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with the removal of personal. It's not always a personal, nor is it a norm, nor is it odd. Often times, it's not personal, but rather a Societal thing (ie Marriage in the UK with the Monarchy, Marriage in tribal areas to build tribal relations, etc). That maybe should go. And about the not matching the definition, see the Merriam-Webster Definition I placed below. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording is awkward but my reading of the use of the word "personal" was to distinguish marriage from a business relationship - not as some kind of attempt to promote a view of marriage as a totally private arrangement. -- SiobhanHansa 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some times marriage is a business relationship though, and I doubt that was the author's intent. Not a biggy, just thought I'll leave that up for discussion.Sauve.sean (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right on the original author's intent - I don't know. I was just pointing out how it read to me. The distinction I read was more like the trying to overcome the difficulty when you introduce someone as your "partner" (i.e. what sort of partner are they to you? Business? Lover? What does it mean?) Even though marriages have often been made for business reasons that doesn't make it the same thing as a marriage actually being a business realionship. In cases where it is used for business it's rarely a business deal between the two people getting married - normally it's the parents consolidating their business relationship by introducing a personal relationship between relations into the deal. You can consolidate a business relationship in this way, but it's not a business relationship, it's adding in the extra component of a pseudo blood tie. So I think the distinction is valid if anyone were actually to be confused (which I think is a different matter and not one I'm convinced of). -- SiobhanHansa 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Although on occasion marriages are made for impersonal reasons, those examples are the rare exception and not the societal norm. I agree with leaving the word "personal" in the lead as SH stated above, to separate marriage from a business relationship. Dayewalker (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with what you define as "rare" and "societal norm". Which society? Where is it rare? Certainly not rare in Central Africa, The Middle East, Indonesia, Asia, where marriages to form a business/political/power relation are quite common, and quite within the societal norms. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Hmm. Good point, I was thinking more Ameri-centric on this one, I suppose. My question in relation to your answer, once a union of marriage is performed, wouldn't it then become a personal union? Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What is (OD)? Is it the reason you didn’t indent your reply? Anyway, define a “personal” union. Marriage in such situations is not necessarily private nor meaninful to the married parties, which is how I would probably define it. I am of the mind that we should either remove the word “personal” or replace it with the old description: “socially, religiously, or legally recognized”.--WikidSmaht (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the archives and found this old lead paragraph. Any thoughts on a reversion?

A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between people. Most marriages involve one woman and one man, although people of the same sex may marry, and some marriages involve more than two people. The social, religious, or legal purposes of the relationship can vary widely, and may include: companionship or love; legitimizing sexual relations and procreation; the formation of a family unit; social and economic stability; education and development of offspring; and transfer of property. The feminine term for a married person is wife, the masculine is husband, and a generic term for either is spouse.

A marriage may be celebrated with a wedding ceremony, which may be performed by a religious officiator or through a similar government-sanctioned secular process. Despite the ceremony being led by somone else, most religious traditions maintain that the marriage itself is mediated between the two individuals themselves using vows, with the gathered witnessing, affirming, and legitimizing the marriage. Marriages are perpetual agreements with legal consequences, terminated only by the death of one party or by formal dissolution processes such as divorce and annulment.

From 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, as well as in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex, and they are currently recognized in 24 countries and 6 U.S. states. The legality of such unions vary by region. Like marriages, civil unions are performed and recognized by some religious denominations.

Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry is rare. Some marriages include more than two people, with multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage. This unique type of polygamy is rare.

So I just wanted to thank everyone for continuing to seek WP:NPOV and all that other wiki-stuff that guides our edits and reverts and edits and reverts. I think we are taking 100,000 steps forward and 50,000 steps back, which equals slow and steady progress.

(((Credit goes to MPS)))Sauve.sean (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. That old intro contains too many details which are not necessary for the intro, being covered adequately in their own sections. Also, I removed the comment about “Most marriages” a while back because the sources cited did not support the statement, and even though common sense does, reliable sources are required on the Wikipedia. However, I have long thought that “personal” no longer belonged after someone declared that unions are “of” things/people, rather than “between” them. Since marriages are not always personal, we should either remove the word “personal” or replace it with the old description: “socially, religiously, or legally recognized”.--WikidSmaht (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I personally like the change that was just made. Very NPOV, and takes all aspects into consideration. It really breaks down into just that:a social, legal, and religious event. That's about it. Thanks for the bold edit :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This new intro is kind of ok, but:

• it uses a slash between religious and spiritual. That style does not conform to WP:MOS.
• it uses "or", whereas "and" might be more appropriate.

Other than those quibbles, it looks pretty good. (sdsds - talk) 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Left the "or" because it could be any one, but not necessarily more than one. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If a definition is to be used in the opening paragraph, it should reflect the fact that in most parts of the world, marriage is defined legally, culturally, and religiously as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. This is fact, and is not controversial. Any disagreements to this are obviously violations of NPOV. Sauve.sean (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the "this is controversial" flag on the definition does not mean that the definition as it stands (at any time) has concensus or is not itself subject to controversy. I seen a couple of users imply such a thing, and it is patently false. May I suggest that the wording of the flag be changed. Simply put, controversy does not equate to consensus. Especially when article "trolls" have established a false consensus by reverting all contributions that they wish to ignore.Sauve.sean (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show that no attempt to engage me in discussion about the article have been made despite several edit reverts, a block, and two weeks time. This article has thus been submitted for community review because of a concubine of biased "contributors" engaging in edit revert vandalism.Sauve.sean (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

By consent

The current revision of the article includes the phrase, "Prior to 1545 all Christian marriages in Europe were by consent." This reads like an attempt to deny the reality of forced marriages. At a minimum this needs to be "clarified" or "tidied up". (sdsds - talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. "All" is one of those too-convenient words ("officially" is another) that I'd sometimes like to see voluntarily banned from the human vocabulary. Anyway, I've added a fact tag to that statement. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV-dispute tag

I am uncertain what dispute this tag atop the article refers to. If there is no specific dispute that is being actively negotiated, I'd like to remove the tag. My feeling is that someone stuck it there because marriage is a controversial issue, but the tag is a temporary measure, meant to address specific problems. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Depending on your understanding of "ongoing", there probably is "an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not." This is reflected by the occasional (usually anon IP) modification to the definition. Clearly some editors feel "one man, one woman" is integral to the definition of "marriage" and that anything else is POV-pushing by members of a LGBT-leaning "cabal" that controls Wikipedia. Other editors feel this so-called traditional marriage movement view is itself a clear POV-pushing affront to a common-sense definition of marriage.

Some of the editors who, over the course of years, have pushed the "traditional" view into this article have themselves been "pushed" out of Wikipedia (i.e. banned). That wouldn't however stop those editors from regularly returning to modify the article from anon IP addresses, if they chose to do so.

Personally I don't need the tag there at the top of the article (even tho' twas I who placed it there). So long as the editors who want to build concensus are all aware of the controversy, and discuss potentially controversial changes aforehand, we should be just find without the tag, neh? We really want to think, though, about how we want readers to perceive the article when they approach it for the first time. Do we feel the article usually meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy criterion? (sdsds - talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, IMO, the fact that some anon editors like to make drive by insertions of "traditional marriage" doesn't mean there is a POV bias (that is not to say that the article does not have a POV--it actually reflects a very Western and even US-centric perspective on marriage, especially in the debates over "traditional marriage" that it attracts). Those editors were banned, as I recall, because they refused to respect consensus that developed with regard to how the lead should deal with definitions of marriage. The fact that some IP-editors still find it difficult to respect this consensus (or are not aware of it) does not in and of itself indicate an NPOV problem. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" cannot replace objective truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.214.224 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. No amount of arguing and edit-warring on the Wikipedia will change the objective truth that marriage has existed for ages in more than one form, and currently exists in several forms other than the one you prefer. --WikidSmaht (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus", nor any wish to alter the definition of marriage, cannot replace the objective truth that marriage is between a man and a woman. 75.168.206.122 (talk)

You appear to be a bit deluded as to the meanings of “objective” and “truth”. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition is not about what marriage was in other languages, since those are not marriages, but supra-present pseduo-equivalents of marriage, not marriage itself as it currently stands. The past is not what is, but what was. The definition uses the word "is" not "was." Lets keep this in keeping with the reality of the thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? “Marriage” is not defined only by the English word. That would be ludicrous! Nor is it defined solely by the Christian concept of it - few things are, even from the limited number of things that Christianity invented - of which marriage is not one.. And A) history is an important part of an encyclopedia plus B) I said “marriage has existed for ages [...] and currently exists” in multiple forms. So the distinction is accurate in both historical and contemporary contexts. Remember to sign talk page comments. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I've semi-protected the article for a few hours in response to tonight's attempts by a dynamic anon to force a change by brute force. Not kosher. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither is the article. It is treif, Wikibureaucrat. 75.168.214.67 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have a strong opinion. It is not, however, the only one. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and should favor any one view. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a bureaucratic dystopia, where objective truth is subject to revocation upon "consensus".75.168.211.99 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be a bit confused about the meanings of “objective” and “truth”. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No confusion here about objective truth. 75.168.221.28 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see #4. It would really be appreciated for you to take these major changes and removal of sourced content here instead of using an edit summary to explain why it's not needed. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 05:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a consensus does not imply that there is no POV dispute. Also, if certain points of view are excluded from participation in a discussion, then no consensus exists. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this anon, to a degree. The former bit especially. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrections to the edits by the "same-sex marriage POV pushers" on Wikipedia are defined as "excessive vandalism". The only "consensus" here is the control of information by a limited socio-political demographic of internet users. 75.168.202.166 (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Consensus exists here. If you'd like to change it, start talking and stop trying to change this page through sheer tenacious edit warring. You've already been blocked once tonight and gotten the article semi-protected. Why don't you try and talk it over? Dayewalker (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Our side already tried talking. There is no resolution with the "same-sex marriage POV pushers". Eventually, the traditionalists and editors that believe in objective truth get blocked, then banned. 75.168.208.75 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to talk it over on the discussion page and just keep trying to edit war your opinion onto the page without even trying to politely discuss things, your disruptive edits will be reverted and you will be blocked. If you discuss it here civilly and try and make your point with reliable sources, consensus could be changed. The first step is to act civilly, which last night's edit war-a-palooza certainly was not. Dayewalker (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You got *that* right. This *is* war. 75.168.220.204 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Chair Jumping?///Church originaly against marriage?

My teachers used to tell me that people used to marry by jumping over chairs in front of a crowd. Anyone have anything on that?

I've read & heard on TV that the church didn't sanction marriage until they found out they could make a fortune of of it. Possibly has something to do with Luke 2o: 34-37 where Jesus says that no one who marries is worthy of heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

History Section

Let me begin by repeating a comment I think was made earlier that it is quite strange that anyone would place a NPOV tag on an article that contains so much unsourced material. I mean, I think the world can survive without a Wikipedia entry on marriage until someone who knows enough on the subject signs up to write the article. Worse yet, when sources are actually cited to support a statement, the evidence does not adequately reflect the statement. Case in point: "A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.[9]" Do you know what one of these supposed marriages is? It is between the demented sadist Nero and a boy he had castrated in an effort to turn the boy into a woman. To use this instance without mentioning the brutality involved in the relationship is academic dishonesty, particularly when the same section mentions the relative rights of Greek and Roman brides. If the rights of these brides are historically relevant, the extreme nature of this original same-sex marriage is also historically relevant. Interestedsister (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've altered this section so that it more accurately reflects the supporting references provided. Martial's 12.42 specifically documents the perception that same-sex marriage was an aberration: "The bearded Callistratus has been taken in marriage . . . in the same way as a virgin is usually taken in marriage by her husband." If the Romans are going to be cited as forebears of the concept of same-sex marriage in Europe, it is relevant that their wide acceptance of same-sex relationships never evolved into the concept of same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Interestedsister (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy vs Bigamy

I see bigamy as a subset of polygamy, and thus don't support the apparently undiscussed change of this section's name. (sdsds - talk) 05:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Annulment

Where deos it comment in the Bible on Divorce or Annulment, and why is there no reference on the main page?

I cannot accept any man made or cultural understandings on such matters without scripture for back up. I am also not clear on the subject of marriage (in spiritual terms), as Adam and Eve were married without a clergyman or witnesses other than God. Does this mean that two people can be married as long as they pronounce it in front of God and each other, does God hold people to this kind of spiritual agreement/contract, or would this be fornication?

Some people could see the initial marriage ritual as the first sexual relations that an individual has with another(of course in mutual love and between man and woman), this physical/spiritual bond lasting until death. The rest of the journey being love, respect and duty to each other and children. Not a peice of paper that which ever State you live in recognises, ordained by a clergyman that might not of been appointed by God but by man in a Church that is physical only,(according to scripture two or more people discussing the matters of God will have Him present and that makes a Church).

Is this witness enough?

The reason why I am asking this is because there is an increasing amount of people who are getting married for legal reasons rather than genuine ones, there are also legal complications which are unecessarily complicated, especially to do with Divorce or Annulment. The Laws seem to be unfair and can be taken advantage of by selfish and cruel hearted people.

Pre-nups should be the other way round as to ensure a person is not getting married to you for your wealth. To make someone sign a pre-nup as it stands only proves that you don't trust them.

Can we bypass the Law of the land and still respect Gods Law? 195.171.94.254 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annulment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.94.254 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to ask such a question - you should find a forum that accepts the religious point of view you are asking from. This page is to discuss improvements to the article in keeping with (among other things) Wikipedia's neutral point of view, which does not take the perspective that there is necessarily any such thing as "Gods Law". -- SiobhanHansa 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

I have been reading through the discussions on same sex marriage on this page and I don't really understand the confusion on the matter. Of course if you are planning or involved in such a marriage you will be naturally opposed to the idea that same sex marriages are wrong.

But if you are open minded and read scripture (in this case the Bible) according to the author and NOT your own predetermined misconceptions it clearly states on numerous occasions that same sex relationships are wrong. Therefore same sex marriages are void in the eyes of God whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise.

Of course there are civil partnerships and States that approve of such marriages, but this does not mean that God changes his viewpoint. If you are looking for Gods approval there are standards that have to be met, one of the basic standards is that the relationship has to be between a man and a woman (having a sex change does not count).

People may try to change the Law of God as if Gods laws are outdated, even men of the cloth are changing laws as if it is they're law to change. These Clergymen have probably been assigned by men and NOT by God, therefore the famous words "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do" apply here.

From reading the Bible I get a strong sense that every physical reality is a symbolic meaning of a spiritual reality, in the case of marriage this is symbolic of the relationship between mankind and God. It's sacredness is based on love, respect and duty for one and other under Gods plan. This may initially look like people of the same sex can do this too, but there are other complications. For example God expects our relationships to be "fruitful" (or at least have the possibility) like the works of the left and right hand.

The left hand and the right hand both are different but yet work as one, this is a relationship. One hand is dominant, stronger, better at doing things but the relationship is based on equal respect to both hands, for the weaker hand holds down the fort and allows the stronger hand to work more efficiently.

Just like how mankind is supposed to be submissive to God, woman is supposed to be submissive to man, but not for obedience alone, love respect and duty comes into it on both sides, so even if one is dominant the other is equal and complimentry. If mankind is not submissive to God it has the same result as woman not being submissive to man, they will live apart. In the case of the "fallen angel" he attempted to become the dominant hand and was struck out of heaven. This is what happens when you assert yourself against God.

Same sex relationships are largely "fruitless" therefore cannot be holy because God is not "fruitless" and nothing God makes is "fruitless", same sex sexual relations come under "fornication".

According to the Bible, whether "married" or not this is sexual immorality, a perverse behaviour, hence sinful, thus leading to spiritual death.

God gives us a choice between ever lasting life and death. It is us who chooses between our desires and Gods desires. If the two don't match one dies, you guess which one.

I understand that many people may be offended by this and I can assure you that this is not my intention. It's just a cold hard fact that you can't be both holy and homosexual according to the principles in the Bible, Qaran (sorry if misspelled) and the Torah.

A popular belief is just that, popular; it is not necessarily correct. Times come and go but God remains the same.

Please remember not to judge, it is not your job. Just make sure that you are doing the right thing, regardless of the differences, don't harm others. God bless you all. 195.171.94.254 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Truth. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, God remains the same and non-existing being. ;-) --131.159.0.7 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

195.171.94.254 wrote: "I have been reading through the discussions on same sex marriage on this page and I don't really understand the confusion on the matter." I stopped reading immediately after that, and scanned the remainder of the message for question marks. Finding none, I concluded that 195.171.94.254 does not want to understand the confusion. 195.171.94.254, it is probably better for you to refrain from editing the article until you do "understand the confusion." Once you have understood it, you may be able to contribute to the article in a way consistent with the Neutral point of view policy, which is one of Wikipedia's Five pillars. (sdsds - talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Complete and utter crap. This article has nothing to do with anything but your wish to redefine marriage. Note to new editors: try and create a new article titled "Traditional Marriage" - to provide balance against the "Same Sex Marriage" article - and let's see how long you last on WikiDystopia. 75.168.220.204 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Annulment return comment.

I can accept that this may not be a secular approach but this is a "discussion" page on a "religious" topic.

If this is just on the improvement of the page you could take my point on having references to the common religious scriptures like you do with other topics. What is the point of having a non-bias discussion page if you can't say what is on your mind (of course without being purposly offensive).

By the way I am not religeous. Just factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.94.254 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not religious, but great with "God bless you all" above. --131.159.0.7 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Annulment PS.

PS. All you need to do in order to be "neutral" is to phrase things such as "according to BLANK" and "from the BLANK point of view" so as people know where you are coming from. If people get offended by fact then what are they doing on this website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.94.254 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Links

Can we have links to the religeous books pertaining marriage, divorce and annulments on the main page?

It would be interesting to find out what the books says. 195.171.94.254 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which of the many books pertaining to marriage do you mean? And why specifically religious perspectives? -- SiobhanHansa 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See the comments above when consider the reason for suggestion. One is a diatribe on why same-sex marriage is evil, and then another "This is wrong" and then this comment. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is a indian muslim marriage scene being shown??????????

that is not how muslims marriages ..... why are you showing a "hindu" marriage instead of a musslim one??????

You call it an "indian muslim marriage" in the section header but then you a "'hindu'" marriage in your message. Are you saying the couple in the photo are Hindu not Muslim? Or that you think there needs to be a photo showing Muslim marriage in a country that is predominantly Muslim rather than predominantly Hindu? Or something else? -- SiobhanHansa 11:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 edits

In regards to the edits of Sauve.sean, consensus is still established until a new one comes into being, which won't happen without talk page discussion. Saying the vote on Prop 8 in California establishes a national consensus is WP:OR, and goes against prior discussion and consensus.

Sauve.sean has shown a tendency in the past to make his changes without prior discussion, so I've reverted them as per the note on the article page that shows consensus has been established and not to change the lede without discussion. I feel per wikipedia policies, this is something that should be discussed before undoing a previous consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Davewalker, please refer to WP:NPA. You have attacked me personally yet again.Sauve.sean (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out edits to a controversial topic without bothering to discuss it on the talk page as you did here [2] is not a personal attack. Following that edit, I reverted you and opened up this discussion here on the talk page in good faith to get the opinions of other editors on your suggested changes. As you can see in this section, other editors also oppose your changes as original research. Dayewalker (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You say "previous consensus" as if the definition as it stands has ever had consensus. It hasn't, plain as day.Sauve.sean (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Prop 8 may show how a slim majority of voting Californians feel about about something.

IT certainly isn't evidence of anything.

Kairos (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is evidence of a lot of things. It is not evidence that the nature of marriage as a concept is definitively limited to the form that Californian marriages now take, however. Suave.sean, I fail to see how old discussions in which many editors( the majority, I believe) disagreed with you qualify as consensus for making a controversial change now. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody dispute that the most prevalent form of marriage is between members of the opposite gender? Nobody has disputed that! That was my edit. How is there not consensus for that?

It is painfully obvious that the definition as it stands has NO consensus, other than between a few narrow-minded so-called wikipedia "contributors."

Dave, I apologize as I did not notice this section in the talk page until you mentioned it. Thank you for *eventually* choosing to inform rather than attack. Sauve.sean (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to scrap this entire article and replace with disambiguation page

This article is beyond poorly written, and well into some new state of uselessness of the type that gives Wikipedia a bad name. It doesn't define marriage to any useful degree, nor does it explain how marriage differs from non-marriage. There is clearly no consensus on what marriage is, so this article should be scrapped and replaced by a disambiguation page, where people can explain different types of marriage which are more clearly defined.

A disambiguation page would work well, and would allow us to split marriage into different articles focussing on different definitions of marriage, without conflicting with those other definitions. For example (and I welcome suggestions):

• Marriage between prospective parents for the purpose of raising their own biological offspring. I suggest "Marriage (nuclear family)" as the title for this article.
• Marriage between living humans for legal, fostering/adopting/step-parenting, non-procreative sexual or friendship purposes. I suggest "Marriage (civil union)" as the title.
• Marriage between objects for conceptual purposes (such as a human, goat, ghost, the Berlin Wall, use of marriage to denote grouping of objects or ideas etc). I suggest "Marriage (of concepts)" as

the title.

As the article currently stands, Wikipedia would be better off without it, than with it in its current state.

Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I missed your point on why a former FA is a crap article, but ok. How can this get article get improved, it has a place in WP for good reason. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

When was it FA'd (I just scanned the history through 2001 but couldn't see where it was promoted or demoted)? Perhaps reverting to the version that was featured would be an improvement. -- SiobhanHansa 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think it was recent, so guessing we would lose a lot of information doing that. Maybe we should submit it for a review to see what in the article needs factual and structural improvement - besides many of the statements needing research and citation. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think those divisions accurately reflect the real seperate facets of marriage, and I am not sure that they are independent enough to be divided up in that way. I disagree with the proposal for this reason. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal because there's tremendous overlap between the first two proposed categories. We also don't need to introduce such a stark distinction between biological and adopted children. Think about it, if Cindy and John McCain had only one child, Bridget, your proposal would put them in the second category. Also, there would be substantial editing warring about the article titles, which would involve multiple page moves. Page moves are a pain to undo (and require administrator assistance to fix if done incorrectly). Ariadne55 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Andrew. The term "marriage" has many different meanings in the modern world, yet the opening paragraph tries to address each one in the same sentence. In my view, it should address each type of "marriage" separately and equally. (See my below post).--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew is certainly right on one count. The article is poorly written. In fact, the first section alone, "Selection of a Partner," is so full of grammatical errors, awkward sentences, wandering ideas, and unsourced statements that it's impossible to read further and take anything seriously. At the very best, this is "rough draft" material. To repeat Andrews statement, it is the kind of substandard writing that gives Wikipedia a bad name, and should be scrapped and rewritten. It certainly does not deserve to be semi-protected.Dualdraco (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is a battlefield in the culture wars. Editors who were traditionalists or believed in objective truth were suspended and banned. The article is the apparent property of cultural Marxists, identity multiculturalists, post modernists, and other WikiThugs who have ideologically sympathetic WikiBureacrats at their beckon call. Note well the attempt to include Noah Webster's definition of marriage in with the History section. If the editor persists in trying to get his entry included, he will be accused of not bowing to the god of consensus - and will eventually be suspended then banned. 75.168.220.204 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the history section

{{editsemiprotected}}

Could someone please remove the paragraph:

Economists Dr. Marina Adshade and Prof. Brooks Kaiser argue that marriage originated as a method to ensure that a father had a legal responsibility to provide for his children.

from this document. This is my research, and it does not in any way argue the point that is suggested here. In fact the paper does not discuss any legal issues but is a discussion of the evolutionary origins of marriage from a biological perspective.

I don't mind it being cited but I mind it being so inaccurately misrepresented.

Thank you.

(signed Adshade)

Done - I'm no academic specialist in this material, but a cursory reading of the reference obviously confirms the above disclaimer. (Let this be a lesson about quoting and interpreting primary sources against policy...) —EqualRights (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to distinguish between ceremonial marriage and legal marriage

The concepts of ceremonial marriage and the modern legal definition of marriage are seperate, yet the opening paragraph of the article refers to them both simultaneously, making it seem as though they are directly correlated. I personally think that the opening paragraph should be reworded so that it addresses each concept separately and equally as opposed to intertwining them. I may create a draft of a proposed new version of the opening paragraph in my userspace.--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

what?

Women in the Middle Ages not married till they were twenty-four? By law? That's hardly believeable. Somebody's pulling your chain, wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Marriage in The United States Of America

{{editsemiprotected}} I recommend adding the definition of marriage from the first edition of AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE / NOAH WEBSTER 1828 to the History Section; noting that Noah Webster was a Founding Father of the United States of America.

AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE / Noah Webster 1828

Marriage, n. [Fr. mariage, from marier, to marry, from mari a husband; L. mas, maris; Sp. maridage.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promotion domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

         Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled.   Heb. xiii.

2. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

         The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son.   Matt. xxii.

3. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev. xiii IacobusPatrius (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even so, that's a pretty narrow definition that asserts marriage only happens in America or to Christians. Dayewalker (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done: Not clear where or how to add this to the article, and no consensus for the change, anyway.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can't add it - doesn't agree with the prevailing cultural Marxist and postmodernist groupthink on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.220.204 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the problem is that it uses a dictionary that is about 200 years old as a source. Two hundred years ago there was no indoor plumbing, Napoleon was ravaging Europe, and slaves were still kept in the deep south. If you want information of this type to be included you're going to have to find a better source than that. L'Aquatique[talk] 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Plumbing is an invention, marriage is the core unit of society for thousands of years. Your analogy fails. 75.168.214.145 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Analogy or not, the point still stands. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially a two-hundred year-old one. Dayewalker (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor (I hope) merely a Concordance and bible-study aid. The article certainly must acknowledge that religious values have affected the development of the social institution of marriage, but at the same time it is a social institution, and it is perceived through/affected by many differing (and dissonant) religious values. Even if it were proper to cast this article as a bible-study aid on the topic, there would still be heated exchanges over content.

Edit notice debate

The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)