![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Someone put a link at the bottom to The Surrendered Wife. http://surrenderedwife.com/
I have removed it because the site seems to be selling books and is using Wikipedia's traffic to boost traffic to its own site.
I also think that site is hideous, teaching women to surrender themselves to their husbands and trust them completely financially and sexually. I suppose if the man wants to be a pedophile, just go along with what he says.
Knowledge-is-power 09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It's written with bad grammer, it's got very few good references. Sounds like half of it is just speculation or opinion. IS there someone who has a degree in marriage philosophy that can rewrite this article initially correctly. So we will have something substantial. businessman332211 14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel that perhaps the best way to define marriage in the first sentance is to leave it as broad and vague as possible. While the most often cited definition of marriage relates to two people, wouldn't it perhaps be better to define it broadly as the joining of two different people, things, or ideas?
You need to leave out the number "Two". Polygamous cultures had have marriage more often than not, despite modern African customs.
The article currently reads : In the Middle Ages the Church only allowed divorce for consanguinity and adultery but during the reformation, Luther and others made marriage a civil institution instead of a sacramental one. This made way for the right of women to divorce their husbands for his faults such as impotence.[14]
I believe this is incorrect. In the book "Le tribunwl de l'impussatnce" (1979), by Pierre Darmon, you can find extensive documentation of the Catholic Church's willingness to dissolve marriages for sterility and impotence. This proceeds rather naturally from the Church's contention that marriage and sex are intended for procreation, and that marriages which cannot produce offspring are thus an affront to God. Darmon's book was originally translated to English as "Trial by Impotence" (1985) and reissued as "Damning the Innocent" (1986), under which title it is available from Amazon. The book is sensationalist but extremely well researched and well worth reading.
--Charlie, 2007-09-28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.249 ( talk) 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This may seem like nitpicking, fair warning, but it struck me as quite curious indeed that the reference for the first and in some sense the most important sentence in this entire article was an obscure online dictionary which I had never heard of. Now this is not to disparage that online dictionary; I may not be well read enough online if you will. But aren't there several far more authoritative dictionaries than that one?
Could someone explain why that source is the preferred one for the lead sentence in this article, as opposed to alternate but far more accepted and authoritative sources? (Note I am not arguing content per se; I checked and indeed that ref supports this article's content, specifically the first sentence). Thanks. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Please, enough rehashing of the same old same old. I have no intention on reinventing the wheel, let alone the square one that this is. I simply wanted to know about the reference issue. All your replies (and this Talk) have answered my question to my complete satisfaction. In hindsight, I could have answered my own question. Regardless, thanks all. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset)And not only that, but please note, Rbj, that lexicographically, same-sex marriage is marriage. Whether it's legal or not has no bearing on that. Polygamy is an illegal type of marriage in many areas, but if you asked someone to define polygamy, they would say "Being married to more then one person at the same time." Ask them to define same-sex marriage, and they'd say "Being married to a person who's the same sex as you." Even if they then turn around and say "I don't think people should be allowed to do that", there's no cognitive dissonance in the idea, the concept, even in those who oppose allowing it in practice. Combined with the fact that it does happen legally and in practice, we must include it, it's part of the concept of marriage. (And by the way, I've never had a bit of affiliation with the LGBT project. And please be civil and don't call people "full of crap.") Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
but you're offering nothing other than your opinion, your POV to refute it. why should this article reflect, in the principle lead statement in the definition of the topic the POV of an exceedingly small and out of mainstream minority? prove that it is not. r b-j 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Rbj, I gave 41% from a reliable source. You gave 2.5% from your original research. Riferimento presented evidence that what you call "primary definitions" are based on nothing more than chronological order. You ignored this evidence. You asserted "the utter rejection of SSM as marriage in every U.S. state that has had in in referendum". I present Arizona Proposition 107 (2006). Those are the facts. More importantly, how many times do I have to ask you to stop cursing at me? I've made it clear that it's not okay. You need to stop. This talk page should be a place where everyone can speak without being targetted with namecalling. — coelacan talk — 05:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've repeated several times, arguing about an abstract concept of Marriage is going to get us nowhere. Some people define Marriage as an institution which is reserved for one man and one woman. Others see Marriage as a celebratory commitment of love which any two unrelated adults may enter. Still others view Marriage as the means by which a man becomes responsible for the care of multiple women who bear his children, but that view isn't as hotly debated as whether the first or the second view is correct.
Those who hold the first of these views tend to be exclusive in their view of Marriage. This causes chagrin with the SSM supporters. Bickering won't create a consensus; the beliefs held on both sides are too strong. We aren't going to agree on an abstract concept of "Marriage".
Grammar, to the rescue: Again, I think the best way to avoid this problem is to first define a singular marriage, by saying, "a marriage is... (whatever)". We may then discuss marriages, in the plural, referring to statistics or different types. We may add a point about how certain Christian groups vehemently oppose SSM in the states, that they define marriage a very certain, specific way. We can point out that SSM is illegal in certain areas. It's fine to report the facts. But it's not factual to attempt to define the abstract concept of Marriage as any one thing. Obviously different groups see it differently. We should document that. Joie de Vivre 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Marriage is a topic that cannot be left alone. In trying to derive or coin a definition for marriage, one has to look on the reasons for it. One of the strongest reason is procreation. This cannot occur with species of different kinds. They must be the same and of opposite sex. Without this all living things would eventually be extinct. There other reasons as well but I find this as one of the strongest. Gitan2 20:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that we don't need to marry to procreate, so that makes no sense, as it is not a reason to get married. Kairos ( talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good choice on replacing "geographic areas" with "jurisdictions" that is a much better sentence now. Is there some way we can replace "legal concept" with something more concrete? "Legal concept" implies an idea whereas this is more of a legal fact. Zue Jay ( talk) 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that provide "just the facts"? Sdsds 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)In 2001, the Netherlands expanded its legal concept of marriage to include same-sex marriage, and since then five other jurisdictions have similarly expanded their concepts of marriage.
By the "similarly," it implies what has been expanded. Zue Jay ( talk) 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)In 2001, the Netherlands expanded its legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples; since then several other jurisdictions have similarly expanded the definition of marriage.
That eliminates this description/definition/legal thing; as well as being too verbose in an introduction. (My patience is generally five sentences) Zue Jay ( talk) 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Other forms of marriage also exist including polygamy, in which a person takes more than one spouse; and same-sex marriage, in which both individuals are of the same gender.
Please save me from the dashes! - I tried a solution which didn't stick, but I would say quietly that there's no excuse for those dashes in the first sentence. They're horrible. We must try to do something about it.
I take the points mentioned above about the 'close relationship' box - I'm obviously in a minority of one not liking it! thanks all..... Petesmiles 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
“The act of marriage often creates obligations between the individuals involved, and in many societies, their extended families.” I am a bit unsure as to what type of citation the requester is looking for. Most western type weddings involve wedding vows which create obligation between the individuals involved. An example of some traditional wedding vows could be added to the article, but a citation does not seem to me to be necessary. It is my suggestion that if the requester does not clarify why this sentence needs a citation the request for citation should be removed-- Riferimento 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi riff - and thanks very much for your comment on my talk page - I'm not sure if I added that citation needed bit or not, but I would guess that marriage creating obligations between extended families is the bit that I would wonder about - I certainly don't doubt it, but would be curious to find out more (what obligations? property? income? legal responsibilities etc.?) - I don't think we need to go into that detail there, just maybe point people in the direction of a reference. I genuinely don't really know what it may refer to.
On the other hand, it's not that big a deal, and those tags don't half ugly up the page.... cheers Petesmiles 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
We seem to now have a fairly regular group of editors, and are getting on pretty well - how would we all feel about removing that neutrality tag? - I think we're making pretty good progress... Petesmiles 06:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll go ahead and take it down - am i right in thinking that sdsds doesn't personally want it there, but feels that others do - i'd fully endorse seraphim's response to that argument..... Petesmiles 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
":: I agree (newby), think it is right to remove the tag (neutrality). In the first paragraph, (a general reader sees (then), neutrality is established, (as a general reader, 'imho')) Newbyguesses 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented several changes to the formatting -- and one change to the order of sections -- near the top of the article. The most radical was the reformatting of the transcluded "close relationships" template. Please comment on that here. The next-most-radical was flowing text around the table of contents, using Template:TOCleft. Finally, a content change moved the "Definitions throughout history" section lower. In part this was to alleviate formatting collisions with the Template:unreferenced in that section. But just as importantly, I felt the "Recognition" section deserved to come immediately following the lead. This is because (I assert) it is by the recognition of the relationship as marriage that we know it to be a marriage. I understand that is a biased POV not shared by all. So: how badly does the change in order of those two sections distort the article's overall bias? Sdsds 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that the unsourced tag needs to go. Less disruptive citation needed can be placed where desired. I think the POV tag at the top of the article mitigates the need for another so close. I'm not sure the woodcut adds enough to the article to justify competing with the navboxes. And this gives me the opportunity to point out again that the History section is woefully inadequate for an institution that goes back thousands of years. CovenantD 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
.... i'm not sure about it at the mo... i certainly don't like having the second section start with all those boxed disclaimers - it may just be my way of thinking, but i find that many templates wholly undermines the text that follows. Further cogitation required..... Petesmiles 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed two of those templates, because they seemed redundant given the re-write one. On a side note, do these templates really help? Sometimes I think their use needlessly polarises the debate. Just a thought... Petesmiles 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your points - I suppose I just feel that quite often these tags are placed without any explanations here on the talk page, and without any contributions to the article by the editor placing them. I wonder sometimes if they're not just more disruptive than explanatory. Surely almost every paragraph everywhere could do with attention from an expert for example? Obviously some tags are great - but I'm not sure overall... anyways - sorry for any annoyance at their disappearance - I'll try and address their issues and get rid of them that way! Petesmiles 11:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I requested full protection for the article. This lead has been changed more than 500 times in about one month. I've made some of those changes, but I'm not the only one, and overall, it has gotten ridiculous. Let's figure out what we're going to write, place it, and get on with something else... like the rest of the article, perhaps! Joie de Vivre 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't agree that protection is a good idea - there's not much conflict, and instability isn't a reason to shut the doors on an article - if I knew how, I'd ask for it to be unprotected.... Petesmiles 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I figured it out - no offense intended at all, Joie, I just don't think that anything's happening that warrants protection... Petesmiles 11:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The next time edit warring actually does begin, protection is probably a good idea. Although sometimes just a WP:AN3RR report does the trick, and that's better when it's just one person being disruptive. — coel acan — 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we might be able to clarify why this tag is at the opening...
does it refer to primarily the lead, or to the article in general? I notice sdsds placed the tag there - is that your feeling (Sdsds) as an editor, or a reflection of the conversation here (or both!)?
My feeling is that, particularly in the lead, we have covered many bases, and I'm not sure what opinions have been left out. Perhaps a specific example of an absent opinion would help....
I don't really like all the 'ly's in the first sentence, but haven't figured out a reword yet, thanks all! - Petesmiles 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks! - done. - Petesmiles 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does the history section start with the sentence, "Marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society." How is that related to the history of marriage? Sdsds 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just been granted a clue! Please, would you all help me assess the value of:
Palmer, Craig T. (2006).
"More Kin: An Effect of the Tradition of Marriage". Structure and Dynamics: eJournal of Anthropological and Related Sciences. 1 (2). {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) It seems chock-full of relevant (scholarly) material.
Sdsds
23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Marriages are perpetual agreements with legal consequences, terminated only by the death of one party or by formal dissolution processes such as divorce and annulment.
This doesn't seem always to be true-the Wiccan handfasting, and its predecessors, often were "trial" marriages which lasted for a year and a day, and were not considered to be permanent arrangements. Toward the other end of the spectrum, there are other societies and traditions which consider marriage to last even beyond death and not to be dissolved under any circumstances. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel the "History" section of this article, in its current state, should be moved lower? I feel the article would read better if the "Recognition" and "Rights and obligations" sections were presented immediately after the lead. Sdsds 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all where can i found some statistics about the number of bi-national marriages in the United States, United Kingdom , France and germany . Have you some Links to tables or anything ?
With friendly greetings Wasili . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.171.123.109 ( talk) 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
A dictionary definition at best, with little potential for improvement that I can see. Does anyone mind if I redirect this here and perhaps add a wikt link at the bottom? Richard001 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to find when did the US allow minister to perform unions. At some point all unions where to be performed by a justice of the peace and at a later date, minister were deputized and allowed to perform marriages. I appreciate any lead on this.
Thanks
Luc Benech
Here are a number of passages relating to marriage from the Old Testament that show that women had little say in marriages. A couple passages show that men were able to have multiple wives. These attitudes are probably held by other nations of those times.
Exodus: 021:004 A master, who gives a Hebrew servant a wife will keep the wife and children after the servant's six years of indenture are over. 021:010 Allows a man to take another wife without diminishing the marital duties of the first. Deuteronomy: 021:010 A conquering soldier can, amongst captured prisoners, take a woman that he was attracted to as a wife. If he was unpleased with the woman, he must release (and not sell) her because she has already been humiliated. 021:015 Tells how to handle inheritances when a man has two wives. 022:021 If a man discovers that his wife was not a virgin when they were married, she is to be stoned to death. 022:028 If a man rapes an unengaged virgin, he must marry her with no chance of divorce. 025:005 If a husband dies before bearing a child with his wife, the husband's brother must have sex with her so that she can have a child. Judges: 021:010 When the tribes of Israel slaughtered the Benjaminite tribe, they realized that they almost killed off one of their tribes. To provide wives for the survivors, the tribes killed every man, woman, and child from the town of Jabesh Gilead, but spared the virgins and gave them to the Benjaminites to be their wives. Some of the Benjaminites still did not have wives, so the tribes kidnapped women coming out of dance and provided them as wives.
Reynoldsrich 06:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Richard Reynolds, Aug 18, 2007
G'day. Anybody else think the history of marriage should maybe be given its own article? Obviously not based on the section in the current article, but a completely new article covering marriage from its prehistory in the Palaeolithic era right through until now. If so, I'd be happy to help. I have a really good book called "Marriage, a History" by Stephanie Coontz which I will be able to lay down the basis of the article from. So, yes or no? I personally think it has a rich and interesting history that shouldn't be limited to a subsection. Cheers, Rothery 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
Why is there almost no reference to child-rearing in the article? 140.247.28.111 00:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Copying from the article. This paragraph was recently added, and I thought it should be clearly visible here. There are several points to raise, such as spelling, grammar and such. Perhaps more importantly, there are some issues of wording. For example, "acceptance of the cohabitation of heterosexual couples". While I agree that the homosexual couples are less accepted in many countries and localities, adding the word 'heterosexual' seems odd. The phrase "necessary requirement", and referring to divorce as "a stigma" also seem odd.
In the west, attitudes to marriage have relaxed over the last century with, for example, the gradual acceptance of the cohabitation of heterosexual couples, and it is no longer considered a necessary requirement for people to be married in order to live together and form lasting relationships. Attitudes to divorce, the ending of a marriage, have also evolved, and the practice is no longer considered a stigma. From 2001, in certain countries, civil marriage now includes same-sex marriage. [1] Nevertheless, traditional attitudes to marriage still remain among Social conservatives in the developed world.
-- Ec5618 15:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the Netherlands civil marriage is a separate concept and separate ceremony. Religious marriage is illegal if not preceded by civil marriage.-- Patrick 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've now edited the lead section to address the concern that use of "jurisdictions" reads (to some) as mainly reflecting a U.S.-centric view of the subject. (That said, I'm now curious about what I read at Common-law marriage#Australia. In Australia, are "solemnized marriages" perceived as the only fully valid marriages, and "de-facto marriages" seen as somehow having lesser validity? I think even if that were so, we would want this article to cover all types of marriage!) ( sdsds - talk) 04:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we could reach concensus on a way to improve this sentence. Maybe this sentence could be, "A civil marriage is a legal marriage entered into without seeking religious recognition." (It would be fine to follow this with a parenthetic comment about other terms for this, or the list could be deferred to a subsequent section. What we need to do here is explain the topic to the reader who reached the article by following the Civil marriage redirect.) ( sdsds - talk) 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there some rationale for having the "Triumph of Imagination" quote in the lead of this article? ( sdsds - talk) 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont see the problem with it. I think its a definition in which people would have to think exactly what it is also the comment after that about the contract in the literal sense is true if you compare it to other contracts. I cited the professor and he repeats is many times in classes and in various classes. It isnt with the definition up top so it wouldnt confuse people. It is another way to look at it. If it isnt in the lead maybe you can help to put it under an other section to deal with philosophies about marriage or something along those lines. Other than that I dont think there is anything wrong with it being there. ( heemz87 - talk) 1:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing is the actual quote is shaky many people in history have said it and if you just made a general search you would find many sources. They idea I had was instead of pinning it down to someone specifically just say it as he stated it in class but something that might have come from somewhere else that was my idea behind it ( heemz87 - talk) 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I did some copy editing on the page. The article's looking pretty good. I went ahead and removed the Copyedit tag, since the grammar and spelling are fine and the general tone seems pretty consistent. Good work so far! Indeterminate ( talk) 07:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I had trouble following this article; with that said, seeing a Europe section, I wonder if the rest of the world is left off, or jumbled together? I suspect the latter, if so, the Europe section should go, or the remainder of the article should have the pertinent information put into sections for other parts of the world. 69.221.152.25 ( talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
what makes marriage work?
Is this list published anywhere?
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Someone put a link at the bottom to The Surrendered Wife. http://surrenderedwife.com/
I have removed it because the site seems to be selling books and is using Wikipedia's traffic to boost traffic to its own site.
I also think that site is hideous, teaching women to surrender themselves to their husbands and trust them completely financially and sexually. I suppose if the man wants to be a pedophile, just go along with what he says.
Knowledge-is-power 09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess. It's written with bad grammer, it's got very few good references. Sounds like half of it is just speculation or opinion. IS there someone who has a degree in marriage philosophy that can rewrite this article initially correctly. So we will have something substantial. businessman332211 14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel that perhaps the best way to define marriage in the first sentance is to leave it as broad and vague as possible. While the most often cited definition of marriage relates to two people, wouldn't it perhaps be better to define it broadly as the joining of two different people, things, or ideas?
You need to leave out the number "Two". Polygamous cultures had have marriage more often than not, despite modern African customs.
The article currently reads : In the Middle Ages the Church only allowed divorce for consanguinity and adultery but during the reformation, Luther and others made marriage a civil institution instead of a sacramental one. This made way for the right of women to divorce their husbands for his faults such as impotence.[14]
I believe this is incorrect. In the book "Le tribunwl de l'impussatnce" (1979), by Pierre Darmon, you can find extensive documentation of the Catholic Church's willingness to dissolve marriages for sterility and impotence. This proceeds rather naturally from the Church's contention that marriage and sex are intended for procreation, and that marriages which cannot produce offspring are thus an affront to God. Darmon's book was originally translated to English as "Trial by Impotence" (1985) and reissued as "Damning the Innocent" (1986), under which title it is available from Amazon. The book is sensationalist but extremely well researched and well worth reading.
--Charlie, 2007-09-28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.249 ( talk) 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This may seem like nitpicking, fair warning, but it struck me as quite curious indeed that the reference for the first and in some sense the most important sentence in this entire article was an obscure online dictionary which I had never heard of. Now this is not to disparage that online dictionary; I may not be well read enough online if you will. But aren't there several far more authoritative dictionaries than that one?
Could someone explain why that source is the preferred one for the lead sentence in this article, as opposed to alternate but far more accepted and authoritative sources? (Note I am not arguing content per se; I checked and indeed that ref supports this article's content, specifically the first sentence). Thanks. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Please, enough rehashing of the same old same old. I have no intention on reinventing the wheel, let alone the square one that this is. I simply wanted to know about the reference issue. All your replies (and this Talk) have answered my question to my complete satisfaction. In hindsight, I could have answered my own question. Regardless, thanks all. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset)And not only that, but please note, Rbj, that lexicographically, same-sex marriage is marriage. Whether it's legal or not has no bearing on that. Polygamy is an illegal type of marriage in many areas, but if you asked someone to define polygamy, they would say "Being married to more then one person at the same time." Ask them to define same-sex marriage, and they'd say "Being married to a person who's the same sex as you." Even if they then turn around and say "I don't think people should be allowed to do that", there's no cognitive dissonance in the idea, the concept, even in those who oppose allowing it in practice. Combined with the fact that it does happen legally and in practice, we must include it, it's part of the concept of marriage. (And by the way, I've never had a bit of affiliation with the LGBT project. And please be civil and don't call people "full of crap.") Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
but you're offering nothing other than your opinion, your POV to refute it. why should this article reflect, in the principle lead statement in the definition of the topic the POV of an exceedingly small and out of mainstream minority? prove that it is not. r b-j 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Rbj, I gave 41% from a reliable source. You gave 2.5% from your original research. Riferimento presented evidence that what you call "primary definitions" are based on nothing more than chronological order. You ignored this evidence. You asserted "the utter rejection of SSM as marriage in every U.S. state that has had in in referendum". I present Arizona Proposition 107 (2006). Those are the facts. More importantly, how many times do I have to ask you to stop cursing at me? I've made it clear that it's not okay. You need to stop. This talk page should be a place where everyone can speak without being targetted with namecalling. — coelacan talk — 05:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've repeated several times, arguing about an abstract concept of Marriage is going to get us nowhere. Some people define Marriage as an institution which is reserved for one man and one woman. Others see Marriage as a celebratory commitment of love which any two unrelated adults may enter. Still others view Marriage as the means by which a man becomes responsible for the care of multiple women who bear his children, but that view isn't as hotly debated as whether the first or the second view is correct.
Those who hold the first of these views tend to be exclusive in their view of Marriage. This causes chagrin with the SSM supporters. Bickering won't create a consensus; the beliefs held on both sides are too strong. We aren't going to agree on an abstract concept of "Marriage".
Grammar, to the rescue: Again, I think the best way to avoid this problem is to first define a singular marriage, by saying, "a marriage is... (whatever)". We may then discuss marriages, in the plural, referring to statistics or different types. We may add a point about how certain Christian groups vehemently oppose SSM in the states, that they define marriage a very certain, specific way. We can point out that SSM is illegal in certain areas. It's fine to report the facts. But it's not factual to attempt to define the abstract concept of Marriage as any one thing. Obviously different groups see it differently. We should document that. Joie de Vivre 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Marriage is a topic that cannot be left alone. In trying to derive or coin a definition for marriage, one has to look on the reasons for it. One of the strongest reason is procreation. This cannot occur with species of different kinds. They must be the same and of opposite sex. Without this all living things would eventually be extinct. There other reasons as well but I find this as one of the strongest. Gitan2 20:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that we don't need to marry to procreate, so that makes no sense, as it is not a reason to get married. Kairos ( talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good choice on replacing "geographic areas" with "jurisdictions" that is a much better sentence now. Is there some way we can replace "legal concept" with something more concrete? "Legal concept" implies an idea whereas this is more of a legal fact. Zue Jay ( talk) 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that provide "just the facts"? Sdsds 18:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)In 2001, the Netherlands expanded its legal concept of marriage to include same-sex marriage, and since then five other jurisdictions have similarly expanded their concepts of marriage.
By the "similarly," it implies what has been expanded. Zue Jay ( talk) 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)In 2001, the Netherlands expanded its legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples; since then several other jurisdictions have similarly expanded the definition of marriage.
That eliminates this description/definition/legal thing; as well as being too verbose in an introduction. (My patience is generally five sentences) Zue Jay ( talk) 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Other forms of marriage also exist including polygamy, in which a person takes more than one spouse; and same-sex marriage, in which both individuals are of the same gender.
Please save me from the dashes! - I tried a solution which didn't stick, but I would say quietly that there's no excuse for those dashes in the first sentence. They're horrible. We must try to do something about it.
I take the points mentioned above about the 'close relationship' box - I'm obviously in a minority of one not liking it! thanks all..... Petesmiles 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
“The act of marriage often creates obligations between the individuals involved, and in many societies, their extended families.” I am a bit unsure as to what type of citation the requester is looking for. Most western type weddings involve wedding vows which create obligation between the individuals involved. An example of some traditional wedding vows could be added to the article, but a citation does not seem to me to be necessary. It is my suggestion that if the requester does not clarify why this sentence needs a citation the request for citation should be removed-- Riferimento 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi riff - and thanks very much for your comment on my talk page - I'm not sure if I added that citation needed bit or not, but I would guess that marriage creating obligations between extended families is the bit that I would wonder about - I certainly don't doubt it, but would be curious to find out more (what obligations? property? income? legal responsibilities etc.?) - I don't think we need to go into that detail there, just maybe point people in the direction of a reference. I genuinely don't really know what it may refer to.
On the other hand, it's not that big a deal, and those tags don't half ugly up the page.... cheers Petesmiles 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
We seem to now have a fairly regular group of editors, and are getting on pretty well - how would we all feel about removing that neutrality tag? - I think we're making pretty good progress... Petesmiles 06:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll go ahead and take it down - am i right in thinking that sdsds doesn't personally want it there, but feels that others do - i'd fully endorse seraphim's response to that argument..... Petesmiles 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
":: I agree (newby), think it is right to remove the tag (neutrality). In the first paragraph, (a general reader sees (then), neutrality is established, (as a general reader, 'imho')) Newbyguesses 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented several changes to the formatting -- and one change to the order of sections -- near the top of the article. The most radical was the reformatting of the transcluded "close relationships" template. Please comment on that here. The next-most-radical was flowing text around the table of contents, using Template:TOCleft. Finally, a content change moved the "Definitions throughout history" section lower. In part this was to alleviate formatting collisions with the Template:unreferenced in that section. But just as importantly, I felt the "Recognition" section deserved to come immediately following the lead. This is because (I assert) it is by the recognition of the relationship as marriage that we know it to be a marriage. I understand that is a biased POV not shared by all. So: how badly does the change in order of those two sections distort the article's overall bias? Sdsds 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that the unsourced tag needs to go. Less disruptive citation needed can be placed where desired. I think the POV tag at the top of the article mitigates the need for another so close. I'm not sure the woodcut adds enough to the article to justify competing with the navboxes. And this gives me the opportunity to point out again that the History section is woefully inadequate for an institution that goes back thousands of years. CovenantD 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
.... i'm not sure about it at the mo... i certainly don't like having the second section start with all those boxed disclaimers - it may just be my way of thinking, but i find that many templates wholly undermines the text that follows. Further cogitation required..... Petesmiles 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed two of those templates, because they seemed redundant given the re-write one. On a side note, do these templates really help? Sometimes I think their use needlessly polarises the debate. Just a thought... Petesmiles 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your points - I suppose I just feel that quite often these tags are placed without any explanations here on the talk page, and without any contributions to the article by the editor placing them. I wonder sometimes if they're not just more disruptive than explanatory. Surely almost every paragraph everywhere could do with attention from an expert for example? Obviously some tags are great - but I'm not sure overall... anyways - sorry for any annoyance at their disappearance - I'll try and address their issues and get rid of them that way! Petesmiles 11:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I requested full protection for the article. This lead has been changed more than 500 times in about one month. I've made some of those changes, but I'm not the only one, and overall, it has gotten ridiculous. Let's figure out what we're going to write, place it, and get on with something else... like the rest of the article, perhaps! Joie de Vivre 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't agree that protection is a good idea - there's not much conflict, and instability isn't a reason to shut the doors on an article - if I knew how, I'd ask for it to be unprotected.... Petesmiles 11:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I figured it out - no offense intended at all, Joie, I just don't think that anything's happening that warrants protection... Petesmiles 11:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The next time edit warring actually does begin, protection is probably a good idea. Although sometimes just a WP:AN3RR report does the trick, and that's better when it's just one person being disruptive. — coel acan — 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we might be able to clarify why this tag is at the opening...
does it refer to primarily the lead, or to the article in general? I notice sdsds placed the tag there - is that your feeling (Sdsds) as an editor, or a reflection of the conversation here (or both!)?
My feeling is that, particularly in the lead, we have covered many bases, and I'm not sure what opinions have been left out. Perhaps a specific example of an absent opinion would help....
I don't really like all the 'ly's in the first sentence, but haven't figured out a reword yet, thanks all! - Petesmiles 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks! - done. - Petesmiles 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does the history section start with the sentence, "Marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society." How is that related to the history of marriage? Sdsds 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just been granted a clue! Please, would you all help me assess the value of:
Palmer, Craig T. (2006).
"More Kin: An Effect of the Tradition of Marriage". Structure and Dynamics: eJournal of Anthropological and Related Sciences. 1 (2). {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) It seems chock-full of relevant (scholarly) material.
Sdsds
23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Marriages are perpetual agreements with legal consequences, terminated only by the death of one party or by formal dissolution processes such as divorce and annulment.
This doesn't seem always to be true-the Wiccan handfasting, and its predecessors, often were "trial" marriages which lasted for a year and a day, and were not considered to be permanent arrangements. Toward the other end of the spectrum, there are other societies and traditions which consider marriage to last even beyond death and not to be dissolved under any circumstances. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel the "History" section of this article, in its current state, should be moved lower? I feel the article would read better if the "Recognition" and "Rights and obligations" sections were presented immediately after the lead. Sdsds 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all where can i found some statistics about the number of bi-national marriages in the United States, United Kingdom , France and germany . Have you some Links to tables or anything ?
With friendly greetings Wasili . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.171.123.109 ( talk) 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
A dictionary definition at best, with little potential for improvement that I can see. Does anyone mind if I redirect this here and perhaps add a wikt link at the bottom? Richard001 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to find when did the US allow minister to perform unions. At some point all unions where to be performed by a justice of the peace and at a later date, minister were deputized and allowed to perform marriages. I appreciate any lead on this.
Thanks
Luc Benech
Here are a number of passages relating to marriage from the Old Testament that show that women had little say in marriages. A couple passages show that men were able to have multiple wives. These attitudes are probably held by other nations of those times.
Exodus: 021:004 A master, who gives a Hebrew servant a wife will keep the wife and children after the servant's six years of indenture are over. 021:010 Allows a man to take another wife without diminishing the marital duties of the first. Deuteronomy: 021:010 A conquering soldier can, amongst captured prisoners, take a woman that he was attracted to as a wife. If he was unpleased with the woman, he must release (and not sell) her because she has already been humiliated. 021:015 Tells how to handle inheritances when a man has two wives. 022:021 If a man discovers that his wife was not a virgin when they were married, she is to be stoned to death. 022:028 If a man rapes an unengaged virgin, he must marry her with no chance of divorce. 025:005 If a husband dies before bearing a child with his wife, the husband's brother must have sex with her so that she can have a child. Judges: 021:010 When the tribes of Israel slaughtered the Benjaminite tribe, they realized that they almost killed off one of their tribes. To provide wives for the survivors, the tribes killed every man, woman, and child from the town of Jabesh Gilead, but spared the virgins and gave them to the Benjaminites to be their wives. Some of the Benjaminites still did not have wives, so the tribes kidnapped women coming out of dance and provided them as wives.
Reynoldsrich 06:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Richard Reynolds, Aug 18, 2007
G'day. Anybody else think the history of marriage should maybe be given its own article? Obviously not based on the section in the current article, but a completely new article covering marriage from its prehistory in the Palaeolithic era right through until now. If so, I'd be happy to help. I have a really good book called "Marriage, a History" by Stephanie Coontz which I will be able to lay down the basis of the article from. So, yes or no? I personally think it has a rich and interesting history that shouldn't be limited to a subsection. Cheers, Rothery 08:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
Why is there almost no reference to child-rearing in the article? 140.247.28.111 00:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Copying from the article. This paragraph was recently added, and I thought it should be clearly visible here. There are several points to raise, such as spelling, grammar and such. Perhaps more importantly, there are some issues of wording. For example, "acceptance of the cohabitation of heterosexual couples". While I agree that the homosexual couples are less accepted in many countries and localities, adding the word 'heterosexual' seems odd. The phrase "necessary requirement", and referring to divorce as "a stigma" also seem odd.
In the west, attitudes to marriage have relaxed over the last century with, for example, the gradual acceptance of the cohabitation of heterosexual couples, and it is no longer considered a necessary requirement for people to be married in order to live together and form lasting relationships. Attitudes to divorce, the ending of a marriage, have also evolved, and the practice is no longer considered a stigma. From 2001, in certain countries, civil marriage now includes same-sex marriage. [1] Nevertheless, traditional attitudes to marriage still remain among Social conservatives in the developed world.
-- Ec5618 15:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the Netherlands civil marriage is a separate concept and separate ceremony. Religious marriage is illegal if not preceded by civil marriage.-- Patrick 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've now edited the lead section to address the concern that use of "jurisdictions" reads (to some) as mainly reflecting a U.S.-centric view of the subject. (That said, I'm now curious about what I read at Common-law marriage#Australia. In Australia, are "solemnized marriages" perceived as the only fully valid marriages, and "de-facto marriages" seen as somehow having lesser validity? I think even if that were so, we would want this article to cover all types of marriage!) ( sdsds - talk) 04:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we could reach concensus on a way to improve this sentence. Maybe this sentence could be, "A civil marriage is a legal marriage entered into without seeking religious recognition." (It would be fine to follow this with a parenthetic comment about other terms for this, or the list could be deferred to a subsequent section. What we need to do here is explain the topic to the reader who reached the article by following the Civil marriage redirect.) ( sdsds - talk) 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there some rationale for having the "Triumph of Imagination" quote in the lead of this article? ( sdsds - talk) 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont see the problem with it. I think its a definition in which people would have to think exactly what it is also the comment after that about the contract in the literal sense is true if you compare it to other contracts. I cited the professor and he repeats is many times in classes and in various classes. It isnt with the definition up top so it wouldnt confuse people. It is another way to look at it. If it isnt in the lead maybe you can help to put it under an other section to deal with philosophies about marriage or something along those lines. Other than that I dont think there is anything wrong with it being there. ( heemz87 - talk) 1:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing is the actual quote is shaky many people in history have said it and if you just made a general search you would find many sources. They idea I had was instead of pinning it down to someone specifically just say it as he stated it in class but something that might have come from somewhere else that was my idea behind it ( heemz87 - talk) 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I did some copy editing on the page. The article's looking pretty good. I went ahead and removed the Copyedit tag, since the grammar and spelling are fine and the general tone seems pretty consistent. Good work so far! Indeterminate ( talk) 07:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I had trouble following this article; with that said, seeing a Europe section, I wonder if the rest of the world is left off, or jumbled together? I suspect the latter, if so, the Europe section should go, or the remainder of the article should have the pertinent information put into sections for other parts of the world. 69.221.152.25 ( talk) 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
what makes marriage work?
Is this list published anywhere?