Talk:Shotgun wedding

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not mention consensual sex, but rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmanen (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that the change has been reversed. With apparently the following reason: "(Note that this is not to be confused with the procedure for rape, in which the rapist must be stoned to death and the woman is spared.), quoting Deutoronomy 22:23-26. It is true that rape is mentioned there as well. But rape is also the subject in Deuteronomy 22:28-29: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. The only difference between the two is a virgin who is pledged to be married versus a virgin who is _not_ pledged to be married. This has nothing to do with consensual sex obviously, and therefore I changed the text back to what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmanen (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again the change was reversed, without comment in the talk page. I was advised by Wikipedia not to edit the page again. I did reverse it however to the original text. The issue is the following, whether Deuteronomy 22:28-29 talks about rape or not. I found the following original quotations on this:

In the NIV:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

In the King James (and the AMV of 1901):

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Variations on this are shown in virtually all other translations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmanen (talk • contribs) 09:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

King James version translates the Hebrew word "taphas" in verse 28 as "lay hold on", while in the verse 25, the Hebrew text uses different verb to refer forced intercourse "chazaq", translated as "to force". Also, it must be noted that verse 28 includes a condition "and they be found". Verses 25-27 obviously speak of nonconsensual sex, but what about the girl in verse 28? Considering the whole passage (verses 22 to 29), could it be that the girl here had consented for sex? See also https://gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. 176.93.91.184 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Stub cetegory

OK, Perhaps this article is not a Crime Stub. What Stub Category best fits? History stub? Perhaps they were more common in the past. Feminism stub? no comment. Sex stub? no comment. Religion stub? Festival stub? Nothing seems to fit. Revert to stub seems best Wendell 03:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FESTIVAL stub? I do not think that label is accurate, yet it appeared in the actual article. I've accordingly changed it to culture which seems to me to fit best. —Casey J. Morris

Examples

Many countries, that is a bit vague, can anybody give some specific examples? Sander123 12:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Murphy brown?

The murphy brown reference seems a bit out of place.. if anywhere it should be in the culture references section, but my preference would be to remove it entirely. Mleinart 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It really sticks out. It might have a place in an article about illegitimacy, but it's awkward here.24.131.12.228 21:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation

There should be a disambiguation page for shotgun wedding, as there is also a band called Shotgun Wedding. JanderVK

Trivia section removed

I removed the trivia section without integration the deleted material because I don't see it as remotely relevant. A list of songs that included the phrase "shotgun wedding" and movies/shows that had shotgun wedding scenes? Come on. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. TheBLPGuy 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ensuring fertility

Although it was harder to get a divorce for women, in societies where children were important in a relationship, a woman could be divorced for infertility. A shotgun wedding's main purpose was to ensure the mother and child had a provider. perhaps that should be changed. Rds865 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title

It is only in America that the term "shotgun wedding" has any purchase, or any history, and it is not a suitable title for an entry which purports to deal with an cross-national issue. The reasons for its occurrence and the instigators of it in the different cultures (e.g. the male/female spouse; the family of the girl or of the boy; the community) are so different that the term "shotgun wedding", with its distinct connotations is not apposite, and therefore quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.188.108 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)