Talk:Shotgun wedding

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

There are 11 words for seize in the hebrew language all have different meanings here are some of the different breakdowns you can find, just so people know your perpetuating a false idea

So tephas the hebrew word for sieze has been traslated as rape, the word taphas can also be traslated as to take, as in,"to take as wife", to ay hold, to seize upon, to grab hold, to have taken, to have caught/catch

The word chazaq which is used i verse 25 and verse 27 when dealing with actual rape means to force.

The next part in the verse says they were discovered, kinda alluding to it was consent, rember were working in english through English lexicon translations not the original hebrew, sometimes a translation has infered something that wasnt there in the first place

In verse 25-27 they talk about the woman screaming alerting someone to the fact its rape, but she doesnt scream in verse 28 does that not tell you yet this situation is different to the last, when a woman screams, and they are found the man dies, but they are found and no screaming is involved

26 but onto the damsel who shout do nothing.

27 for he found her in a feild, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was non to save her.

In the law of moses premarital sex was not condemned, but they had to marry. Dueteronomy is talking about those who are found having premarital sex.

However there are some pre existing historical peices of knowledge about this passage even if it was about rape, first one the woman also had a right to refuse, but the final decision was down to a father, it depended on lots of things, thats why there would also have been a forced cost in either consensual or no concensual situations, because now she has been violated the usual behaviour of a culture is to reject her and let her exist as a spinster so he would have to either marry her or pay her way.

The thing is yiur presenting the source that suits your agenda, i just looked through multiple sources to find my information, and there are veried opinions, this meaning rape has never been a concensus thats why each different bible actually addresses this in different terminology

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; Deuteronomy 22:28 KJVA https://bible.com/bible/546/deu.22.28.KJVA “If a man comes upon a girl who is a virgin but who is not engaged, and he grabs her and has sexual relations with her, and they are caught in the act, D'varim (Deu) 22:28 CJB https://bible.com/bible/1275/deu.22.28.CJB “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, Deuteronomy 22:28 NASB https://bible.com/bible/100/deu.22.28.NASB

Notice the they are caught in the act, they be found

If an ish find a na'arah that is a betulah, which is not orasah (betrothed), and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Devarim 22:28 OJB https://bible.com/bible/130/deu.22.28.OJB

See this orthodox jewish version, he lays hold

http://biblicaltruth.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/h8610_Taphas.gif If you look at the above link it takes you to a picture, with the multiple meanings, and non of them mean rape.

So another breakdown of taphas on a different source to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

(Qal)

to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch

to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully So lets look where the word has been used Hebrew תָּפַשׂ⁠ (taphas), which occurs 65 times in 60 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV

Genesis 4:21 to handle a harp, you dont rape harps Genesis 39:12 whe potiphers wife trys to get joseph to sleep with her, she takes hold of his garment Numbers 5:13 used in accordance to a woman cheating with a man behind her husbands back "neither she be taken" is how the word is used Deuteronomy 20: 19 seizing a city to take for your own Dueteronomy 21:19 his father and mother lay hold of him Josiah 8:23 and the king of Ai they took them alive, there taking possession.

Have you noticed you have to read in and around the sentence to infer meaning

Verse 23 of deuteronomy a man is sleeping with a married woman, 25 he rapes a married woman, 26 do nothing to the woman, 27 she was found in the country she screamed noone could rescue her 28 he meets a woman, they lie together, they are discovered, there was no screaming 29 he needs to pay and marry. What this echos is exodus, when a man sleeps with a woman not pledged to be married and he pays the bride price.

The whole section isnt about rape it is about different acts that occur, marraige violations, rape, adultery, it reads not at all as your presenting

There is a huge difference between the two word meanings and it is clear to us that NOBODY was ever commanded to marry a rapist, i believe you may be falsely supporting the rape concept, however i undertand, because below i provided some quotes where some versions have taken the translation of rape.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, Deuteronomy 22:28 NIV https://bible.com/bible/111/deu.22.28.NIV

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, Deuteronomy 22:28 CSB https://bible.com/bible/1713/deu.22.28.CSBeuteronomy 22:28-29 does not mention consensual sex, but rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmanen (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deuteronomy 22 does not mention pregnancy anywhere. It is therefore not relevant to the subject of shotgun weddings, which exist to cover up unintended pregnancies. Instead, what is described here in Deuteronomy is a marry-your-rapist law, which exists to "restore the honour" of a woman (most often a virgin) who has had sex (against her will) out of wedlock; pregnancy is not necessarily a factor. Since it is not relevant to this article about shotgun weddings, I'm going to remove any reference to Deuteronomy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lots of unreferenced claims

Hi Folks, Family planning is an active area of scholarly research and I'm surprised by the number of referenced claims. A cursory search gives dozens of papers describing changing trends in different cultures. Perhaps we can cites some of those?--Frozenport (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Late 2000s?

I assume this means 2005-2009, or even 2007-2009. If it was, e.g, the late 1800s or late 1900s, it would mean in the second half (and probably the last third) of the century. No likelihood of confusion for a while, but I wonder if there's a better way to convey the period intended? Koro Neil (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]