Talk:Affinity (canon law)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Affinity (canon law) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Affinity no longer begets affinity
The example given, "Hence a father and a son could not marry a mother and a daughter." might add additional complexities to the issue. In this situation there is implied either prior bond, or, perhaps less likely to be inferred, incest. I believe a better example would be "A man and his nephew could not marry a woman and her niece, respectively." I could be mistaken, so I will leave my comments here to be judged. DAMurphy (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following, which seems to relates to civil law more than church law:
- Until the passage of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907, British marriage law forbade the marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister, and a marriage of this kind performed in the colonies of the British Empire, where it might be allowed, was not held as valid in Great Britain. In the session of the British Parliament in 1906, a strong effort was made to enact a law to recognize as valid, in Great Britain, such a marriage, if the colonial law recognized its validity where contracted.
- In Virginia this marriage is null, but it is generally recognized in the other States of the Union.
Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches
I am not a writer or an editor, so I am not sure how to approach the correction of the page, nor am I a genealogist or a theologian, so I'm not really schooled in the subject matter, so I could be wrong about this.
In the article under the heading of Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches, it says "However, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, marriages of affinity that produce children who are closer genetic relatives than legal are also not permitted (unless the genetic relationship does allow marriage between those children). For example, two siblings may not marry two other siblings because legally their children will be cousins, but genetically they'll be half siblings. On the other hand, two siblings may marry two cousins." Although I am not sure what the laws are in the EOC regarding marriage of first cousins, I believe the example given is in error. Half siblings are children who share one parent, either the father or the mother. I believe that their children would in fact be cousins in two lines. However, according to the Wikipedia page on siblings, two of the siblings in the scenario were identical twins, this would in fact make their children genetically equivalent to half siblings, as well as cousins. As for the second example, of two siblings marrying two cousins, their children would be first cousins in one line, and second cousins in the other line. Again, I have never formally studied genealogy, and have no references, so don't take this as an affront, but I think I am correct.
We need to reach a consensus here before deleting entire sections with source citations. I question the use of a Consanguinity table in an article on Affinity, also one that predates the 1215 changes. At best it's misleading. I didn't see anything better at WP:Commons however but we might be able to create something. There were a few problems with source citation. Copying source citations and applying them to other statements (not even mentioned in that cited page or pages) is covered in WP:V. I removed the one that failed verification. The singluar web link: Code of Canon Law needs upgrading as per WP:LR. Also, see WP:CIRCULAR regarding use of a Wikipedia article as a source citation. It's not allowed.
The section on Mosaic law belongs ahead of the Roman law section, and both should be ahead of the Christian Law. It shouldn't be necessary to point out Mosaic laws predated Christian canons by well over a millennium and Roman laws both predated and paralleled the development of the Church canons. In earlier visits here this month I added source citations and saw some things I thought should be changed, a couple of which you changed. I did see some additional sources that we can use to better transition from one section to the next and that perhaps Mosaic and Roman law sections at least could be subsections to a History section. But I don't see why we can't work together on this cooperatively; discuss changes and provide good sources for the article. Bearpatch (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Canon law (Catholic Church) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)