Talk:Marriage

In defense of "individuals"

Please see Intersexuality for details. Some editors may wish to deny that marriage applies to the types of individuals described there, but of course if they wish to do so they must provide reliable sources. (sdsds - talk) 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>

As the article notes, every major dictionary includes an acknowledgment of same-sex marriage. We don't have any anthropological sources that postdate the modern adoption of gay marriage, but even the ones prior altered their definitions to account for same-sex (though not homosexual) practices such as that of the Nuer. That very strongly supports adopting an inclusive description of marriage for the lede.--Trystan (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, just because certain religious people feel that their self-righteous egos are being offended by anthropological history that doesn't give them the right to impose their ideals and morality onto common sense and factual evidence. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>

You won't get anywhere talking like that. This is Wikipedia, not the US.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two reasons it makes sense: 1.The standard definition, for 6,000 years, is between a man and a woman. Why change this just because in very recent history, there are same sex marriages in only a handful of jurisdictions? 31 times ballot measures have been introduced to support gay marriage. All 31 went down in defeat.

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>

You do not have consensus for the edit you just made, so I have reverted you. Indeed, consensus is the complete opposite. You can't just post your opinion on the talk page and claim that means consensus. It doesn't work that way. Do not do that again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For much of the last 6,000 years marriage was only recognized between people of the same tribe, race and faith - and only when it was approved by the elders of the families of both partners. Presumably we don't have to add those restrictions - and the virginity restriction - to the definition of marriage, do we? --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>

Yes, we do, for the reasons said above. Three other editors commented against such a change, Historyguy, sdsds, Trystan.. In fact, there was a similar discussion regarding this in the past. Go look through the archives. Consensus is against your change. Secondly, you cannot use a lack of response here as consensus. You must give people time to reply.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do. Several countries use the word to describe relationships that involve same-sex relationships, as part of their law, which would count as WP:RS, as would the Bible, which uses the word marriage to refer in some cases to polygamous marriage, e.g., Genesis 4:19. It's not our job to tell people what words *should* mean, it's our job to describe ideas, and I believe that the "individuals" phrasing encompasses the greatest number of common usages of the word. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

On balance I also agree that, in light of the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in some states and countries, we can no longer simply define marriage as between a "man and woman," because that would violate WP:NPOV by specifically ruling out a (now significant) view on this issue. Using "individuals" is a purposely ambiguous action that leaves either position possible.Khin2718 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It does occur to me as an aside, however, that we might want to think about whether "gender restrictions" are actually restrictions under all significant viewpoints, since many people might view those restrictions as just being part of the definition. Khin2718 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Though something may be "part of the definition", it is, then, the definition that imposes the restriction. In many states in the US, marriage is indeed defined specifically to be between a man and woman. But it is a restrictive definition, and even those who feel that same-sex unions do not fit the definition of marriage should agree that their state imposes "gender restrictions" on marriage, by defining it thusly in their state constitution, or some other method. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 05:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Being members of the same tribe, race and faith was also once part of the definition of marriage. This article is rightly not bound by outdated historical traditions of particular religions. --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is not to decide whether a restriction exists, but only if there's a significant segment of the world that doesn't view this as a restriction. (See WP:NPOV.) It seems quite possible that this segment does exist and is fairly large. If so, they should be included on the restrictions page, along with those like yourself who differ.
—Khin2718 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(replying to pat) I guess I must have missed when the bible became law in the US. Doesn't your bible also say slavery is ok, women are property, and people who work on Sunday are put to death? You can't pick and choose what parts you want to believe in and what parts you ignore. CTJF83 chat 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I changed "individuals" to "two individuals"? In the case of polygamy the relationship is still pairwise, since pairs of people are still married: the only difference is that one person can have many pairwise relationships. -Khin2718 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To do so would be to overlook a number of forms of group marriage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Western marriage for centuries has clearly been evolving away from coercive, hierarchical, polygamous and arranged marriage towards a voluntary relationship between two consenting adults. This needs acknowledging - but we should not ignore the fact that marriage has taken very different forms in our own history and can be found in very different forms in other societies. --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Polygamous doe snot fit in that list. The trend has been toward more open Polyamorous relationships, not away. Yes, consenting adults, but not specifically two, even though that is predominantly the case. Atom (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Individuals" sounds sterile, vague, and is not the common definition. Man and woman is the consensus mainstream definition. I think there are some people who want to include "individuals" as some recognition of these gay marriages,or perhaps some other reason. Gay marriage is only a recent fad and not accepted in many places. Andywatkins1888 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the current use of "individuals" in the lead. The word marriage is commonly used, even by those who disapprove gay marriage and group marriage, in those sentences, "individuals" is the most inclusive term to cover the various ways the concept is described. The current "individuals" text is also more accurately describes marriages including intersexed people, and in some cases transgendered folks. (Different states often come to different conclusions about whether a transgendered person is male or female.) Finally, "man" and "woman" conflates sex with gender in societies that recognize or have recognized a third gender, such as the Hijra (South_Asia). --Joe Decker (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Individuals" covers all the bases. To call same-sex marriage a "recent fad" displays ignorance of the topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't really agree with the "covering all bases" argument for the use of "individuals" in the first sentence of the definition of marriage. The word is NOT commonly used to describe either gay unions or group unions outside of the limited municipalities where such unions are recognized. The majority of definitions of marriage are specific to the union of a man and a woman. Both plural marriage and same-sex marriage are better addressed in specific subsections of the definition - ie history, marriage law and controversies - rather than the introductory paragraph.

I agree the word has not previously been commonly used. As en.Wikipedia is predominantly Christian influenced, and so the most common view has been that it is two individuals, and that they are opposite sex there is no term that has been commonly used to describe what is relatively new and recent. More "legal" same sex marriages have occurred within the last ten years, making a new term appropriate. The trend is towards larger numbers of group and polyamorous "marriages". The problem there is that since group marriage is not legally recognized, many people will fight tooth and nail to deny that they are any form of marriage until it is once again legal. (not likely in our lifetime.) So, I see the word "individuals" being a good fit, even though it is not what has conventionally been used. Atom (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Western bias

A western bias is understandable, given the general audience of the article. Nevertheless, unless the article is specifically about Western marriage, it ought to be framed inclusively i.e. to account for the full variety of marriages that have been documented.

This is an idea of what I mean. I acknowledge immediately that I am excluding common beliefs in the West. That does not make what follows wrong. I think the question is, do we add specific western (or "modern") beliefs to the following, or should we have a subsequent section that focuses specifically on the West and on modernity?

Marriage is the socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. It may do this biologically, through children, and/or socially, through forming a household. It is found in all societies, but in widely varying forms.

According to anthropologist Edmund Leach, marriage sometimes: establishes the legal father of a woman's child; establishes the legal mother of a man's child; gives the husband or his family control over the wife's sexual services, labor, and/or property; gives the wife or her family control over the husband's sexual services, labor, and/or property; establishes a joint fund of property for the benefit of children; establishes a relationship between the families of the husband and wife. In no society does marriage fulfill all of these functions; no one of these is universal.

The most common type of marriage is the union of one or more men with one or more women. Marriage is usually heterosexual and entails exclusive rights and duties of sexual performance, but there are instructive exceptions. Different societies have different norms concerning the ideal or prefered marriage. In most societies, the ideal was polygynous, where a man could have multiple wives, but even there, the majority of men had only one for economic, social, or political reasons. There were also many societies with a monogamous ideal, where a person could be married to only one person at once, and very few polyandrous, where a woman could have multiple husbands. No society is known to permit both polygyny and polyandry. Because of recent expansion of monogamous Europeans, monogamy is much more popular than it was ever before.

This is quite general but it is meant as I said to be inclusive. Much of the current contents of the article is about marriage in specific societies, or the modern Western norm. I do not think any of that should be thrown out, but I don't think the article should be on that alone. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The reproduction issue is at the heart of the same-sex marriage debate. It is not possible for them to reproduce, therefore they are by definition recreational rather than procreational. However, 80 year olds sometimes marry, and it's not possible for them to reproduce either. In any case, you've opened an interesting can of worms with this much broader definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is why the definition says "biologically or socially." I think same-sex partners would agree that in getting married they have formed a new family and often it cements their household. I think you are mixing up the function of marriage with a view of sex. Same-sex partners may indeed have sex recreationally. Or perhaps one person is doing it to help the other feel better at the end of the day. Sadly, there are some couples in which one person forces him/herself on the other, on occassion. Meedless to say, this is entirely true of most heterosexual couples too. However, this article is on mariage, and the opening is about marriage, not sex. Marriage is an institution in every known society and in many of them it is linked to sexual reproduction but I think most social scientists would agree that in most it is a major form of social reproduction. I don't see how this excludes gay marriage but maybe I misunderstood you. I am glad you think this is worth discussing, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That first sentence is awkward and problematic. Reproduces what family? Family is created without marriage; a mother with a child is a family even if there is no recognized father. Reproduces is an awkward and misleading term in this context. The existing first sentence is preferable. I see no cases that the new first sentence would cover that are not covered by the existing first sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nat, what if the sentence read "Marriage is a socially sanctioned human union that usually produces a family. It is found in all societies, but in widely varying forms." I am sympathetic to Slrubenstein's version but I think some of the issues you raise are good ones. It is Western modernity that problematizes the proposed version the most. We consider the modern family to be very fluid in how it is comprised and inclusive therefore of less common configurations -- e.g. two mated individuals only (married or not), a single parent with children, etc. Marriage itself is also seen by some as only a legal institution that could actually result in no family at all -- e.g. a contractual agreement between a non-citizen and a citizen that results in the non-citizen's legal residency (of course this may not be considered marriage in the eyes of the law). Anyway How about the proposed changes I just made? We don't need to mention children or the household because we've already linked to family which usually includes both or at least one.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two other things I should be clear about. What I wrote emphasizes norm (ideal) over practice. It also presents the sociological view of marriage, not the personal experience or perspective. In any society, there are norms and then exceptions. The normative family may ve one man with four wives; most actually families coule be monogamous. The norm could be a husband and a wife anc childrent; in practice some people may be single parents, or coules could be childless. Perhaps the article should explain this distinction. I am certainly not objecting to discussing exceptions or providing statistics to indicate the actual distribution of family types in any society - I am just saying that the norms or ideals are also important and need to be presented. Similarly, I am in no way objecting to providing an account of how individual experience or perceive marriage - I am just saying that the sociological perspective - the social functions of marriage and its place in a larger social structure - should also be included.

I began this section by objecting to the Western bias, but I also think that the article has become a melange of sociological versus personal, ideal versus in practice, accounts of marriages and perhaps there is a way to better organize the article, or to a concise way to explain these distinctions. But I think being clear about these distinctions will help avoid a misinterpretation of what I wrote, or guide us in rewriting what I wrote. How can we make clearer what my proposal is meant to discuss, so that it is clear what it is not saying? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but just to be clear when I wrote about marriage and family in the modern West I did so from recent perspectives of historians who write about these institutions -- see Pleck, Elizabeth, Celebrating the Family and Gillis, John R. A World of Their Own Making for instance. The reality, at least in the contemporary United States, is that there has been a quantitative increase of "non-traditional" configurations of all kinds, and enough so that historians consider the current era of family life qualitatively different from previous eras precisely because of the plurality of family shapes. Consider the simple fact that the divorce rate keeps getting higher and higher. I agree that focusing too much on what's hot now in American social life is biased, but I think because of this we need to add language like "usually" to "produces a family". That's all.Griswaldo (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Granted. I know that in the past decades there has been a great deal of work by historians on changes in Western family and household composition. I do not actually know this work (except for Michel Barrett's Women's Oppression Today which, despite the title, reviews a good deal of important work on the history of the family, and H. Medick and D.W. Sabean's Interest and Emotion which I loved, but read a long time ago and do not remember (I am just mentioning two books I know, I am not questioning the sources you mention). On my part, I do not mean to simplify whatever we mean by the Western or modern family, and I certainly agree we need a section representing work by historians. I don't object to the specific changes in wording you suggest, they certainly would make it even more inclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. I think the reproduction and household line is simply going to cause controversy too. I think, once again that generally speaking you're correct. A survey of ethnographic and historical evidence would surely support these ideas. For instance, with only minor exceptions, marriage without reproduction is a modern Western phenomena par excellence. However, the correlation between marriage and biological reproduction has never been unidirectional. In much of European and American history biological reproduction, at the stage of insemination and pregnancy actually reproduced the institution of marriage! This may not be true for Western aristocrats but it certainly was in the peasantry. Knock uped? OK its time to get married. One could say that traditional family configurations were ensured by the marriage after biological reproduction was well underway. Anyway I'm blabbering too much, but I just don't think the second sentence is necessary. People will link to family and that is enough I think.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not reject any of your points, but I think this is where the distinction between the individual's perspective and the social perspective is essential. Sure, from my point of view if I knock someone up and have to get married, "biological reproduction caused the marriage." But from a sociological perspective, the point is that marriage exists as an institution prior to my ever screwing around, let alone getting someone pregnant or having a chile; moreover, even before I do these things there is a social norm that expecting couples should be married. This is why social scientists say that the function of marriage is to organize biological reproduction, or is the principle isntitution through which memebers of a society reproduce themselves biologically. Do you see the distinction? This is very important to sociologists and anthropologists. It does not displace your points, it just provides a different frame for analyzing the experience. I think both perspectives should have equal importance in the article - especially since a great deal of the reliable ssources on marriage analyze it from the perspective I have offered. To be clear, these are not competing or conflicting perspectives, they are compelmentary. Where one applies, so does the other.

Second point, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of social reproduction. No anthropologist or sociologist would limit marriage and the family to biological reproduction in any society (there are many Amazonian societies where biological reproduction is not central to marriage and the family at all). The word "reproduction" can mean many things. A poster or lithograph can be a reproduction, or a vase. Mainstream social theory holds that society consists of institutions, statuses and structures (enduring relations linking institutions, statuses, or one to the other). The persistence of these elements over time depends on social action and it is this kind of social action that "reproduces" society ("society" is not the same thing as "social group." A social group is a group of people. A society is an idea that includes ideas about how people should act and interact, and these forms of action and interaction take visible shape as statuses and institutions). Even in the United States today there are strong economic resons for a couple to get married, so it is no surprise that many civic leaders think it is important to society that people get married. And this is very evident in non-Western societies where marriage fulfills any of the various functions leach specifies. For example, in many agricultural societies or pastoralist societies male lineages ar property-holding entities; these lineages are social institutions and while it is true that through marriage they reproduce biologically, through marriage they also reproduce socially, each marriage reenforces the links between lineages that bind them together into a society. The first line deliberately uses vague language (social reproduction) because this is one of the few constants - I think any other attempt to define marriage would fail in that it would not apply to marriage in several societies. Again, I must emphasize I am writing about the social function. Two people can fall in love, live together, have their own personal rituals - neither sex nor love depend on marriage. Marriage does something more - Leach is giving a list of the kinds of things marriage can do. All of the things on his list, most anthropologists and sociologists believe, also play a role in promoting social solidarity and the continuity of the society. Two people at a wedding might not be aware of this at all, or care. But sociologists and anthropologists are not, as a rule, interested in what these two people are going through, but rather the fact that in their society there are hosts of other couples - with different stories, amorous or not, about why they decided to get married - who participate in the same institution. even people who are divorced (i.e. marriage "failed" them in some way) sometimes believe in marriage so much the remarry, even repeatedly. And then you find the same institution, or one so similar we call it by the same word, in every other human society. These things call (sociologists and anthropologists claim) for a different kind of explanation than "shit, I knocked her up, better get married." Not more true or right, but just as important. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue - but I hope that this explanation will either (1) help others improve upon the language I came up with and/or (2) start a discussion of how the article can be restructured so that both of these approaches to studying marriage (sociological vs. personal) are presented in a way that does not confuse readers. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're trying to lead with a view of why marriage is, rather than what marriage is, and also that you're bringing to the opening a fair amount of sociological lingo. Aside from the question of accuracy (it seems to me that in many places and times, marriage was not the creation of a family but of bringing someone into an existing family; to call it the creation is a very nuclear view of family) there's the quetion of the appropriateness. "Marriage" is not just an issue of interest to those studying sociology; it is about as general-interest a topic as there is, and the opening of this article should address it in its basic facts and in basic language. There is room in this article for sourced sociological interpretations of the "ideals" of marriage and the purposes it serves, but right at the opening is not the place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nat about not letting any one discipline dominate the entry, but I think Slrubenstein is open to that as well. However, I would like to note that the description of the social scientific view of marriage offered just above is problematic. Sociologists do not focus on the specific "social function(s) of marriage" in the manner you describe, which seems rigidly functionalist to me. If you look at basic reference sources in Sociology (like Oxford's Dictionary of Sociology which I happen to have handy access to via my library online) you get this -- "Marriage is traditionally conceived to be a legally recognized relationship, between an adult male and female, that carries certain rights and obligations." I would also like to note that in anthropology the type of functionalist perspective you have reproduced above was de rigueur until 50 years ago perhaps. For instance see the contextual introduction to Nancy Levine's "Alternative Kinship, Marriage, and Reproduction," (2008) Annual Review of Anthropology, in which she identifies the hallmark critiques of Maurice Bloch, Jack Goody, Edmund Leach and Rodney Needham and others. Then she identifies David Schneider as authoring the critiques which were "the most devastating and most productive for future research." --

• "In his papers and in two influential books, Schneider moved the study of kinship from a focus on function, social structure, rules, and types of societies to a study of culture and meaning, essentially, what kin relationships mean to people (Carsten 2004)."

It clearly doesn't end there either. I'm sure you are aware of Duran Bell's (Current Anthropology 1997) trenchant critique of definitions of marriage, like Leach's, that revolve around establishing legitimacy. I'm not saying Bell is right and Leach was wrong, but forgive me if I don't agree with your rendition of the state of the field. Of course people critiqued Bell for doing what his predecessors were doing, trying to establish a universal definition for a variable institution. If you want to talk Western bias then you might as well give up on the term marriage altogether. You mention "a different kind of explanation than 'shit, I knocked her up, better get married.'" I didn't realize that by using more colloquial language I was going to be misunderstood. My point was that there is not a clear unidirectional relationship like marriage --> biological reproduction or marriage --> family even. Once again that these things are often, if not usually correlated is not questioned by anyone, but what social scientists (and historians!) will evaluate are the particular practices that are entangled with these correlations, because, like the example I cited and you refer to, it can be deceptive to claim that one leads to the other -- your functionalist explanation notwithstanding. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a general interest magazine. Our NPOV and V policies require us to present all significant views from reliable sources. And marriage is a social institution, it is not a poem or a personal feeling, it is a social institution. So there should be no surprise that a vast amount of scholarly literature comes from sociology. And my larger point is that this is an article on "marriage," not just my marriage or my parents' marriage, and not just marriage in the US or Europe. If we want an article on marriage in Europe, let's have that article. But an article on "marriage" as such must be inclusive of marriage as it is practices around the world. and that means that a great deal of relevant literature will come from anthropology.

I am not trying to push any agenda other than Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles should reflect what we know on a topic - and the thought that scholarly research is an insignificant part of our knowledge about things really to my ears sounds radically unencyclopedic.

I agree with you that the organization of the article is an open topic. But the introduction must be inclusive, if this is meant to be about marriage in general. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"and the thought that scholarly research is an insignificant part of our knowledge about things really to my ears sounds radically unencyclopedic." Then you may want to have those ears checked, because that's not what anyone has been saying. But you're leading off with a lot of sociobabble in an article where the basics should be readable without such. Marriage does not reproduce anything. It creates a family, or a familial relationship (a kinship), as recognized socially, legally, and/or religiously. Marriage does not reproduce the family biologically; marriage is a social construct and does not have a biology. People reproduce biologically through sex. "The most common type of marriage is the union of one or more men with one or more women" seems specifically to exclude the heterosexual relationship under the guise of inclusiveness; while there is polyandry in plenty of cultures, at least my readings suggest that in most of those, a marriage does not have more than one woman, but rather a man that has three wives has three marriages. The variable is less in the number of people involved in a marriage and more in the exclusivity of the status. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"The most common type of marriage is the union of one or more men with one or more women" cannot possibly exclude heterosexual monogamy since it includes one man and one woman. You say a man who is married to thre women has three marriages only ecause you have defined marriage as a relationship between two individuals. The point is, several societies do that, and many societies do not. I can find a verifiable source if that is what you are asking for. This is not about what I think marriage is nor is it what you think marriage is, it is about how social scientists define marriage. You seem to wnt to exclude all kinds of marriage other than the one you believe in, in your attempt at exclusivity. That doesn't wash. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the brain buffer error; I meant "homosexual", not "heterosexual". Basically, your statement about "The most common type" actually covers a range of types, even along the axes which you choose to measure it - every type but the homosexual one. It is a statement that comes across as stating the exclusion, not the inclusion. Is the union of more-than-one woman to more-than-one man so much more common than one man to one man or one woman to woman that the statement needs to be crafted to include it while excluding those others? And no, this article is not about how social scientists define marriage, this is about marriage. If you want an article just on the social scientist view of marriage, I suggest you start one on that topic. "You say a man who is married to thre women has three marriages only ecause you have defined marriage as a relationship between two individuals." No, I say that because it can because the second marriage can often be entered into without the consent or involvement of the first wife, and where divorce is available, it can also be entered into on the same terms, and because the wives will describe themselves as being married to the same man, but not to each other. Polyandry is not the same as group marriage. -Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why I put "most commen" rather than all but if you want to change it to "person" I certainly will not object. Some marraiges are singular, some are group marriages, "one or more" includes both, so it includes the case you describe. You write, "If you want an article just on the social scientist view of marriage," well golly, where did I ever suggest that this article should just be on the social scientist view of marriage? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The real issue here is that your proposed text covers every form of marriage therefore making the qualifier "most common" meaningless -- The most common type of marriage is the union of one or more men with one or more women. This sentence covers monogamy, polygyny, polyandry and group marriage. What forms of marriage are not "most common"? The most common form of marriage is monogamous. Cross cultural surveys put together in the mid 20th century may have found polygamy allowable, or even "preferred" in a greater number of distinct socio-cultural groups, but even amongst those groups the actual practice of polygamy was usually much less common than monogamy. Add to this the fact that a vast majority of the world's population currently exists within socio-cultural groups that do not allow polygamy at all. Presently, the actual number of polygamous marriages is tiny, weeny, itsy bitsy ... you get the idea. It is certainly of interest that most cultures seem to have allowed polygamy. Absolutely! But the simply fact is that presently monogamy dominates marriage across the globe. We need to be clear about all this.Griswaldo (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason I wrote "most commonly" was because there are marriages between two women - I am not speaking of a homosexual union as is now sought in the US and other countries, but as a legal form found in some societies. But your point is well taken. We could say something like, "Social scientists studying marriage norms around the world have found that marriage is generally understood to mean the union of one or more women with one or more men. In practice, the most common type of marriage is heterosexual and monogamous" or something like that. I put my proposal on this talk page because i know the wording can be improved upon. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

" I am not speaking of a homosexual union as is now sought in the US and other countries" Why not? Is the west to be excluded? And same-sex marriage is not just sought, it is something that is legally recognized and extant in a number of lands. "Social scientists studying marriage norms around the world have found that marriage is generally understood to mean the union of one or more women with one or more men." Sure... if you add the places where it's recognized to be one man and one woman, the places where it's one man and one-or-more woman, the places where it's one woman and one-or-more men, and the places where it's one-or-more men and one-or-more women. But the only visible reason to combine all of those into a single value is to separate out the various places where it's two-people-regardless-of-gender. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You already made this point. And i already replied. i said, "That is why I put "most common." Do you speak English as your first language? You might want to see how "most common" is ueed. It means most but not all. It is a way of signalling that this description does not include all marriages. Does this mean that othe marriages do not count? Well, only if you do not speak English and do not understand the words. I will explain it to you. It just means the description is incomplete - unavoidable because i do not think one can come up with one complete and inclusive descrption of marriage. My making it clear that this is incomplet, the language signals that soon we will describe forms of mariage not covered by the description. Isn't this normal? If you hear "most cities are like x" don't you then espect a sentence saying "but some cities are like y?" Well, that is just English. Nothing in what i wrote limits the article in any wa from describing other marriages.

Did I formulate this to xclude some marriages? Not delierately. Instead I was paraphrasing some anthropological definitions that describe the norm (meaning normative not average) marriage in most (actually, virtually all) societes. The reason to combine all of those is to see how one might generalize to include all normative forms of marriage. As for marriages that are not normative (and if you think that means wrong or bad, you have a naie view of society) I have already addressed this topic at length. My only goal is to make this lead more inclusive of non-Western societies. What is your goal? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you already replied. The reply was not convincing.

Consider the case where we have eight boys - four named Arthur, three named Bert, and one named Charlie. You can say that "boys named Arthur or Charlie" are the most common sort, and be statistically correct - boys named Bert are in the minority. But combining Arthur and Charlie serves no visible point except to exclude Bert, and makes Bert look a particular minority when Bert is far more common than Charlie. Similarly, you have combined an array of different types of marriage under a lump description which serves little visible point but to exclude types without gender requirements while including some types which are rarer. Where are is it that multiple-women-to-multiple-men marriage so normative that it must be included, while ignoring those places where marriage is gender-neutral?

If one wants to show both what is common and what the diversity is, one can say "The most common type of marriage entered into involves one woman married to one other man, with neither having other spouses. However, many societies recognize at least one other format of marriage, whether polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), gay marriage (marriage of either two men or two women), or group marriage (marriage of more than two people with a minimum -but not a maximum - of one of each gender)." The phrasing on the last is because I cannot point to a society that allows homosexual marriages of more than 2 people, but if someone else can, please do.

As for what your motives are, I really don't care. I do care about what gets added to the article. If there's something with a POV spin, it really doesn't matter if the spin is there because of intent, unconscious bias, ignorance, or linguistic clumsiness, it still shouldn't be in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Relatedly in our globalized world certain cultural forms simply dominate. While we should be sensitive to "Western bias" it is important not to go so far as to prop up "non-Western" cultural forms when forms associated with "Western" cultures, or more generally industrialized societies, are quantitatively dominant by far. The existence of alternative ways of organizing social life is very interesting but we need to have an accurate picture of global life, vis-a-vis various social institutions, even if that means at some times acquiescing to the "Western" or "Industrialized" hegemony.Griswaldo (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two issues: what form of marriage is found in most societies and the answer is polygynous. What form of marriage is found among most married partners and the answer is monogamous. We should provide both forms of counting. I can provide a source for the first claim. You are probably right about the second claim but we need a source. Polygynous unions are still the norm in many countries. But I have no objection to a discussion of the spread of monogamy. As you know, though, the current Western norm (the nuclear family, what anthropologists call a conjugal family) only emerged as the norm relatively recently. In any event, the fact remains that this is an article on marriage and until it is retitled "Western marriage" or "Modern marriage" or however you wish to designate it, it cannot be introduced with a western bias. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "polygynous unions are still the norm in many countries" is also problematic. Norms are based on convention and not simply on what is or is not allowable or even idealized. Also within a social group polygamy cold be normative under certain conditions but not normative under others. For instance it may be expressedly restricted to people of a certain status, or it may be socially inappropriate for people without such status to practice polygamy. As far as I know the cross-cultural studies mentioned above focus on measures of allowability of some kind of another, but they do not make these finer distinctions. Beyond these distinctions, if it is actually normative to practice polygyny within a certain social group I doubt that this is the case in many "countries" by which one usually means entire nation-states. We need to be specific here. Yes the nuclear or conjugal family is a recent invention and I think we agree on the importance of both cross cultural data and historical narratives in that regard. We just need to make sure we're clear on the differences you mention above. I'm being nit-picky but I just want to ensure sentences like the one I am picking on aren't added because I don't think they're clear. We can add both pieces of information instead. Monogamy is the most prevalent form of marriage today, across the globe, but more distinct socio-cultural groups actually allow form of polygamy.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on exactly what parts of the current lead are being alleged to be not inclusive or Western-biased. It has been intentionally drafted to be inclusive. The opening - "social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship" - is broad enough to cover every form of marriage. With the exception of a sentence explaining English terminology, the rest of the lead includes qualified statements and lists of widely varied options that represent the wide diversity of marriage practice.-Trystan (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What about marriages that are the result of the exchange of women between two lineages? The woman resides with one man, but the union is between groups, not individuals. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Which specific tradition are you referring to? All of the sociological definitions we have refer to individuals:

• "connection between male and female", "relation of one or more men to one or more women" (Westermarck)
• "union between a man and a woman" (Notes and Queries)
• "a union between a woman and one or more other persons" (Gough)
• "relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons" (Leach)
• "a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women" (Bell)

The "union of individuals" phrasing is inclusive of all of those sociological definitions, as well as with the legal and dictionary definitions that have been presented on the talk page and in previous versions of the article.--Trystan (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your own definition does not suit Gough and Leach's definitions. Be that as it may I assume youhave no objection to adding (after whatever definition we use) Leach's catalogue of functions? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It says -- "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship." It does't say "between one individual and one other individual". Individuals is plural here and the sentence is ambiguous as to whether that means two individuals or twenty, and it is also ambiguous as to what configurations these individuals are in.Griswaldo (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A lineage is not the same things as "individuals" Slrubenstein | Talk 21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither the Gough nor the Leach definition listed above says anything about lineage. They refer to a woman (who would be an individual) and persons, who, whatever else they are, are individuals. -Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Still problematic lede

We still have the problem in the lede that I complained about a year and a half ago: it's too vague. Adoption also creates kinship, after all (which again is what I said a year and a half ago). Can we come up with a lede that actually describes marriage? Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that other things can create kinship doesn't mean that marriage doesn't. The lead doesn't say this is the exclusive way to create kinship. Can you please enumerate your points or suggestions on how to improve the lead. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would reread what I said, I used the word "also"; you are inventing an objection I didn't make. It seems pointless to enumerate my points when there is but one, which I have already listed: the lede really says nothing of substance about what marriage is. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what you're suggesting we do to improve the lead. You can't just say its vague, then use and example that someone else explains to you is not vague in the manner you claim and then say ... "I don't need to explain further just fix it." Please help me understand what you think the problem is. Marriage may create kinship in a very wide variety of ways, so I don't think we can get much more specific than that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking up his previous statement of objection, it was "Saying that "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship" is too general; that would make adoption a form of marriage." That's not the case, as we're not saying that marriage is any social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. We are explaining what marriage is, not what qualifies for the term\. If I say "Orange CountyMOSB is a county district in southern California", that does not make Los Angeles County Orange County; if I say that "A cheesesteak is a sandwich of beef and cheese on a roll", that does not make a cheeseburger a cheese steak. The concept of marriage is (as the discussions here will show) pretty darned flexible, and we also needn't assume that the reader doesn't know English. If you have some alternate wording that delineates more clearly but obeys the call in WP:MOSBEGIN for a concise definition, it'd be good to see it. What one finds looking at most individual dictionary definitions is that they exclude forms of marriage that this article is designed to include (which they may include in a later definition), making them far more problematic for this article than something that fails to specifically exclude some other form of kinship creation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Marriage and anthropological theory

It seems that some of the problems with defining marriage stems from editors having different points of departure. Here are some views from different anthropological schools taken form an anthropological textbook. It particularly talks about how the western individual concept of marriage is different from the kinship based concept prevalent in many other societies:

• "Structuralist theory of kinship regards marriage in traditional societies as a form of group-based reciprocity, where the exchange concerns the ‘super-gift’, that is women. Later studies, not least those carried out by female anthropologists, have shown that this is a dubious generalisation. It is not necessarily the case that men exchange women; often, the power relations between the genders may be more equitable. A central point in Lévi-Strauss’s theory of kinship is never the less that marriage in traditional societies is group-based, and that it can be understood as a form of long-term reciprocity. Affi nality creates stable alliances. When distinct kin groups (clans, moieties or other units that compose society) systematically exchange women, all of society becomes integrated through deep and long-lived commitments. In certain cases, one waits an entire generation before ‘the gift’ is reciprocated in the shape of another woman. In societies which practise transmission of bridewealth, it may occur that men work for their parents-in-law to fulfi l their obligations virtually for the rest of their lives. Put differently, by marrying a particular woman, the man and his lineage commit themselves to working for the affi nal family for years to come. This was the case among the Kachin, the Burmese highlanders studied by Edmund Leach. Their marriage system meant that the lineages who became wife-givers (mayu) were higher-ranking than the lineages who received wives (dama), and this relationship was confirmed in that the bridewealth had to be ‘paid’ over many years. Men thus had a lower rank than their parents-in-law, expressed through their enduring debt relationship." (Hylland Eriksen: What is Anthropology pp 108-109 )
• "The concept of marriage, too, has been subjected to criticism along the same lines as Schneider’s critique of the concept of kinship. Edmund Leach, like Rodney Needham after him, claimed that it was impossible to make a list of criteria defi ning marriage which would be acceptable everywhere. As a conclusion, they claimed that marriage does not exist as a cross-culturally valid category; the bond between a man and woman who have children together varies so much in content that it cannot be designated with the same term everywhere." (Hylland Eriksen p 113)
• "The argument against arranged marriage is that marriage is supposed to be based on free choice and true love. But how freely chosen are the marriages of the majority in western societies? All research indicates that people marry within their social class and their cultural milieu, and that powerful informal norms regulate the relationship between the spouses. A difference is that arranged marriages involve entire kin groups woven together through ties of reciprocity, while ‘love’ or freely chosen marriages only involve two individuals." (Hylland Eriksen p. 162)

·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes editors have different points of departure but I'm well aware of the anthropological literature myself and I'm unsure how these quotes are going to help. Can you make suggestions for improving the article based upon the anthropological literature? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mehr

Hello,

I do not know how to edit things on Wikipedia but I just wanted to let you know that your section on "mehr" does not appear to be correct. Mehr in Islam is considered a gift that is payable to the wife beginning at the time of her marriage, unless she chooses to designate part or all of the payment as "deferred." Mehr payable beginning at marriage is called "prompt" Mehr and may be demanded by the wife at any time. If the husband refuses to pay it she may refuse to engage in marital relations with him. By contrast, "deferred" Mehr is not payable until death or divorce. This article also conflates Mehr with alimony. Islam does not recognize alimony for a wife past the period of Iddat (unless the husband and wife had a pre-existing agreement about it) although her ex-husband must provide "maintenance" (child support) to their minor children. Mehr is also NOT the wife's share in the husband's estate. It is true that unpaid Mehr becomes a debt at the death of the husband which must be paid out of his estate. However, Mehr is not an inheritance share. It must be paid to the wife out of the estate BEFORE the remainder of the estate can be distributed to the Islamic heirs. When the rest of the estate is distributed to the heirs, the wife, as one of the Islamic heirs, will be entitled to a share of the estate whether or not she has already received her deferred Mehr from the estate.

If you would like to see a very good summary on the topic of Mehr, go to: http://www.zawaj.com/payments-to-and-from-the-bride-in-islamic-law-and-tradition/

(58.65.152.230 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Inappropriate sentence

This sentence does not belong here. There are other places for value judgements. "John Witte, Professor of Law and director of the Law and Religion Program at Emory University, warns that contemporary liberal attitudes toward marriage ultimately will produce a family that is "haphazardly bound together in the common pursuit of selfish ends."[37]" Helen Webberley helenw@bigpond.net.au 27/6/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.202.174 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was inappropriate for its section and has been removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Marraige in Islam

I don't know who did write this section, but I sure that he/she is not very aware of marriege in Islam, becuase what is written uder shia Islam is just the same of what happens in Sunna Islam, so I do suggest putting them under one subtitle Islam, because now this makes confusion for non-muslims and non-religous muslims.

Thank you very much

92.98.55.191 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Salam

Hanlon & White reference needs fixed

Nowhere does the original reference appear. Only "IBID" types referring to "Hanlon & White". Can someone who knows the reference fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosslink (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two SSM sections are not needed

<<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)>

Marriage doesn't have to be religious. SSM deserves to be on this article. IJA (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

<<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)>

Pyromania--because there's substantial, sourced information enough on the topic to have an entire article fork on the relationshp between religion and SSM. The two sentences that remain are the standard way of summarizing such a content fork. Removing it orphans the article Religious arguments about same-sex marriage entirely. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Joe above. It's two different sections on two different facets of the topic. Dayewalker (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Pyromania's view. There is a difference between the history of same-sex marriage and coverage of the tension that exists in many parts of the world on religious views. More importantly, the article "marriage" has already forked signficant content on both subjects into separate articles Same-sex marriage and Religious arguments about same-sex marriage, and it is entirely inappropriate to remove the connections with those content forks. After those forks, what's left here does not in any way seem disproportionate with the amount of sourced material we have. Removing the section under religion specifically delinks the substanial content built under the content fork. Were the disputed section enormous, I'd see the point for cutting it down, but it's two sentences, which is entirely in-line with the typical sort of summary given to "see also" content forks. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I do agree with some of Pyromania's views of ways the article could be constructively expanded (perhaps Jainism, etc.), nothing I said above should be taken otherwise. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Pyro has broken the 3-revert rule and likely will soon be blocked has been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As has one of his socks, it appears. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There's a new SPI, which hopefully can be used to "sweep", since it's obviously the same guy, but he might have more socks (in addition also to his known IP, 167.206.79.227‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is already on a year-long sabbatical). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This user doesn't have any socks. They are a sock, of the prolific sockmaster Brucejenner (talk · contribs). Nothing more to really do so, since this user is banned, I'm going to redact all their edits to this page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Does this mean that a "sweep" by the checkuser is pointless at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, the CU should be endorsed, this guy has a habit of making sleeper accounts. It would be worth it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

SSM v. Interracial, Polygamous, Kin Marriage

The poster above raises the issue of same-sex marriage having its own subsection under 'Marriage and religion.' The poster isn't right about there being two sections: there are actually more, since 'Marriage restrictions' includes same-sex marriage and 'Contemporary views' is mostly about same-sex marriage. Now compare that to interracial marriage. There is only one section on interracial marriage, the one under marriage restrictions that talks about US miscegenation laws. But interracial marriage is a vast topic representing 1 in 7 marriages in the US. (And it's been an issue for a long time. Look at Othello.) Polygamy is mentioned only in a few scattered sentences despite being a larger controversy than same-sex marriage in most Muslim societies, where same-sex marriage is mostly not an issue. Close-kin marriage gets a paragraph in the US section and maybe two other sentences elsewhere, despite >10% of all marriages being between relatives, with the same-sex proportion obviously being far less.

Judging by representation in the world, it seems like SSM has too much weight. The only question is whether "controversy" is explicitly a factor in assigning weight. But considering the situation outside the West, even if all weight is assigned based on controversy alone, I still think these other restrictions deserve greater weight. To make one concrete proposal, let's either add subsections on other restrictions to 'Marriage and religion', OR remove same-sex marriage as its own subsection.

I can add these subsections if there is some agreement on this. —Othniel Kenaz 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to see the addition of great, sourced material, particuarly about historical and non-Western marriage practices. Polygamy in various forms (Muslim, early Christian, LDS) is a fascinating topic in particular, and had a broad impact on the cultures it was common in. (I'm less sure there's a lot to say about close-kin marriages, but heck, if there're reliable sources out there that discuss it, great!) --j⚛e decker^talk 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC) PS: the article is protected right now, once you have something together, I believe you should be able to ask that it be added by an admin using the "editprotected" template. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a mistake to weight things primarily by their representation in the populace, because they do not carry that weight in the discussion. In much of the world through much of history, marriage between races was not a different thing than marriage within a race, and to separate that out would be like separating out marriages in which the man is 2-10 inches taller than the woman, which would likely make up an even larger portion of the populace. SSM, on the other hand, is a different thing almost everywhere - either forbidden, or categorized separately, and where it's not categorized separately legally its often part of an active issue. It's the edge case, and edges are important when depicting things.

That is not to say that there isn't room for adding discussion of other matters where a difference is really made, and certainly in reflecting on kin marriage we could discuss the range of it being illegal, taboo, or part of a strong tradition in various societies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

NatGertler: I agree. The reason I picked on polygamy is that I do think there's a lot to say about it's practice and cultural influence that can be sourced, both in historic times and more modern ones as well, I guess. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In the United States I do think interracial marriage has been an extremely important topic and a limiting case that has evolved over time. It's hard to generalize, though. There are definitely contexts where caste or religion make more sense as separating factors. But in those cases you could start talking about inter-caste marriage or interfaith marriage as more appropriate topics.

I think on interracial marriage one reason it is very important in the United States is the legacy of slavery. It now occurs to me that one other subject that definitely ought to be mentioned is slave marriage. (Yes, another marriage. Don't puke.) Slaves made up much of the world for most of recorded history. In some cultures they could marry free people, while in other cultures they could not. We don't even have a page about slave marriage, so I won't make any new sections, but it is important. —Othniel Kenaz 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, observing the USA from Australia, it's obvious that interracial marriage is a bigger issue there than here. Being a global article, it would be wrong for this article to concentrate on the United States, but it could be valid to develop some sort of comparison section, comparing practices and attitudes around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll submit to the admins small subsections on polygamy and close-kin marriage today or tomorrow. On interracial marriage, I don't know if religion is all that relevant given that no religion I've heard of forbids it. (Although Judaism has opposed interfaith marriage and in Israel that has sometimes been similar to racism. I don't think I could make a section out of just that, though.) —Othniel Kenaz 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to reenter this obliquely because I had a link that set of a spam filter here, but if you Google "sin of interracial marriage", the top link should take you to a 1982 speech on that from the founder and then-head of the Worldwide Church of God (which has since reorganized and may no longer have that view, although spin-off churches do). So yes, there have been and continue to be religions that bar interracial marriage; where you have calls to "white purity", you are likely to have some church rising to meet the demand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Othniel Kenaz, 14 July 2010

{{editprotected}} Hello. After discussion on the talk page I believe there is consensus to add subsections under Marriage and religion after its last subsection. I have therefore made the following.

Polygamy

Further information: [[:Polygamy]]

Religious groups have differing views on the legitimacy of polygyny, or the practice of a man taking more than one wife. Most Christian groups prohibit it and condemnations can be found from very early Christian leaders. But polygamy is allowed in Islam and also Confucianism, though in most areas today it is uncommon. Religious law on polygamy has evolved over time in religions like Judaism and Hinduism.

Close-kin marriage

Further information: [[:Cousin marriage]] and [[:Affinity (canon law)]]

Religion has commonly weighed in on the matter of which relatives, if any, are allowed to marry. Relations may be by consanguinity or affinity, meaning by blood or by marriage. On the marriage of cousins, Catholic policy has evolved from initial acceptance, through a long period of general prohibition, to the modern-day requirement for a dispensation. Islam has always allowed it, while Hindu strictures vary widely.

—Othniel Kenaz 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Could the other editors involved with this article please confirm that there is agreement to add the wording above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Disabled request as there has been no response. Please reactivate when you have a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ezphilosophy, 16 July 2010

{{editprotected}} In the last paragraph under the section Modern Customs, it seems that "man" and "woman" should be plural. Also, it is bit comma-heavy. Ezphilosophy (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed. It looks like it was written by someone who does not speak English natively, or else is a bad typist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, but it's still not very good. If you can do better, please state the exact wording you would like! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No need for UU picture---move it to "Religious arguments about SSM"

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>

Fresh off your block, you picked up where you left off. You're about an inch or two away from an indefinite block. How badly do you want to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>

Addition of Heterosexual couples is unneutral. You are removing the only Homosexual wedding image, is this neutral? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>

Brucejenner (talk · contribs) You are banned, the only thing that you are doing is extend your conviction. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from your own opinion, you have provided no reasoning to remove this image. I see no reason to remove it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Malapropism needs correction

subtopic Sex and procreation ........ second paragraph On the other hand, marriage is not a prerequisite for having children.......In the United States, the highest judicial body ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that procreation within marriage could be abridged by artificial insemination.

It seems clear to me that the word "contraception" vice "insemnation" is required.

Would someone who is knowledgable of editing make the change, please.

71.235.145.26 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)mesterquest@yahoo.com

"contraception" vice "insemnation"??? What is that supposed to mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IP poster is correct in noting that Griswold was not about insemination but about contraception, and that the sentence didn't make sense as it stood. I have removed the sentence, as it did not belong with that paragraph - paragraph was about unmarried people having kids, and Griswold is about married people not having kids. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The item was originally entered on July 19, 2009 (so it just had its anniversary), and was basically correct at that time, albeit worded a little oddly.[1] That was clarified by another editor on the 20th, and I would say it was worded correctly.[2] It was then modified on August 17, 2009, by X-factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to include the incorrect comment about insemination, and I think it had remained that way in the subsequent 11 months.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now added back the version that appears to be factually correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's factually correct... but it's still not relevant to the partagraph, which is about children outside of wedlock. It should be moved or deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ZeepAl, 7 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The following statement is opinionated and should be removed. One can not state that there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and then follow that by the comment it is believed. The only statement of fact within the sentence is regarding the Theodosian Code. The statement references same-sex unions not marriage. If it is to be retained, at a minimum it should be placed under the definition of same-sex unions and not marriage.

There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[43] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[43] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[44] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex marriage in ancient Rome[45] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[46]

ZeepAl (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Every statement, including the first and second sentence, is followed by a reliable source and is from a neutral point of view. Stickee (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

== Edit Request

==

Request changes in section 9.4 Hinduism. Last line says " Hindu widows cannot remarry." This is factually wrong.

" The Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act 1856 empowers a Hindu widow to remarry. Though traditionally widow remarriages were frowned upon and are still considered taboo in many parts of India, the society is changing and the incidence of widow remarriage is on a rise."

125.22.37.66 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Pooja

<http://www.lawisgreek.com/widow-remarriage-under-hindu-laws/> <lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report81.pdf>