Jump to content

Talk:Marriage/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2014

This article is hopelessly inadequate on the subject of child marriage. There is a well-documented problem with child marriages in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan (nominally Islamic countries because of the prophet's marriage to Aicha at 6 years of age). Here are some quotes and/or references:

1: "According to a December 2011 Human Rights Watch report, approximately 14 percent of girls in Yemen, the Arab world's poorest nation, were married before age 15, and 52 percent were wed before they turned 18." http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/19/rights-group-lawfailingtoprotectchildbrides.html 2: "The revised 2002 Turkish Civil Code raised the statutory minimum age to 17 years for women (article 124), putting it on par with that of men. The current minimum age (17) is not in keeping with international norms, however, which hold that 18 should be the minimum age for marriage. It must be pointed out that even though the minimum age for marriage is now the same for women and men, in practice, early marriages continue to occur, and predominantly affect girls." http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/eeca/shared/documents/publications/Turkey%20English.pdf 3: In Islamist run Northern Sudan, 10 year old girls can legally be sold to a husband by their fathers, as this 2010 "New Republic" magazine article shows: http://www.tnr.com/article/world/78104/child-bride-in-sudan 4: "The law would [...] lower the marriage age to nine for girls and fifteen for boys, and even allow girls younger than nine to be married with a parent’s approval." http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/11/iraq-don-t-legalize-marriage-9-year-olds

Read more: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10/02/sharia-law-has-led-to-the-legislation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html#ixzz2xHEimQSt

Sharia is based on "The Koran", and the "Sunnah" (the words and deeds of Mohammed), and according to Sahih al-Bukhari, who is regarded by Muslims as the most reliable early biographer of their prophet, the founder of Islam married one of his wives, 'Aisha, when she was 6, and consummated that marriage when she was 9, as volume 7, book 62, number 64 of this University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement translation of Al-Bukhari reveals:

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/062-sbt.php

These 4 BBC News, "New York Times", UN, and "Wall Street Journal" articles mention Islamists in Yemen, Niger, and Saudi Arabia who say that Mohammed's child bride is the reason why they are in favour of child marriage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7711554.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/middleeast/29marriage.html

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75932

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903635604576472011907391364.html

Whilst I accept that there is a huge problem in S. Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, there is also a problem in many Islamic countries.

I would urge you to take some of the above quotes seriously as they are from sources that are both experienced and robust in justifying their position.

Henry Page Henzpa (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This article is about marriage in general, there is a separate article on child marriage, where some of the sort of information you are requesting be added here might be beneficial. Each Wikipedia article is not meant to be exhaustive on every aspect it touches upon, that is why there is a very clear link to the main article of child marriage within the subsection listed on this article. Cannolis (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Real Origins of Marriage

Marriage began many thousands of years before written records and before the beginnings of government and laws. The first form of social organization was by kinship. (And I have a citation on this: 'Richard Lee describes kinship as the “central organizing principle of pre-state societies. Kinship provides the structure of everyday life and enables the society to reproduce itself socially from generation to generation” (1979; The Dobe !Kung; Cambridge University Press). Marriage was the way to avoid inbreeding by establishing an affinal relationship, bringing in a person from outside the kin/consanguineous family. (And note that animals are genetically programmed to avoid or reduce inbreeding). The evidence in ethology and paleoanthropology is that the origins of kin systems are found among hominoids so that marriage quite possibly antedates Modern Homo sapiens. (I spent a few years researching the transition from mammals to Homo sapiens to understand the social and biological foundations of marriage). The paleoanthropologists were the ones who made comments about these origins but none that I encountered who were strongly focused on the issue of marriage. But it is misleading to imply that marriage began as recorded by secondary sources. (note--I'm not signing in because can't remember my original password but I am Margaret9mary) 205.167.120.201 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Gay marriage in Europe

Since gay marriage is now legal in the UK (and an increasing number of other places), I think the history section should be amended to reflect this. For example, at the end of History of Marriage – Europe it says "In contemporary English common law, a marriage is a voluntary contract by a man and a woman" whereas the 2013 law means this is no longer the case 86.149.165.179 (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Same-Sex marriage in Republican Rome

The article states: "Republican Rome accorded same-sex marriages legal status." It cites: Eskridge, William N. (1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7): 1445–46. doi:10.2307/1073379." In doing so, it misrepresents the source. What the text of the source actually states is this:

""More-over, the Romans may have accorded some same-sex unions the legal or cultural status of marriages. To take one early example, Cicero, the great Roman lawyer and orator, persuaded Curio the Elder to honor the debts that Curio's son had incurred on behalf of Antonius, to whom the son was, in Cicero's words, "united in a stable and permanent marriage, just as if he had given him a matron's stola." Cicero's legalistic advice suggests that same-sex relationships were not only socially accepted among at least some segments of Roman society, but that they also potentially carried with them legal obligations and consequences, and hence were marriages as I am using the term.""

As we can see, the above quote in no way supports the statement, "Republican Rome accorded same-sex marriages legal status." The above quote from the Virginia Law Review is riddled with weasel words ("may have accorded," "suggests," "at least some," "potentially"), and thus the article needs to be changed, because as it is, it implies that same-sex marriages having legal status in Rome is a fact, whereas the cited source only *suggests* that it *may* have been, based on a single piece of rather spurious evidence.198.13.132.6 (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Rome did everything judicial in civil court. Two contending "unpaid" lawyers, bunch of judges, big crowd, not supported by any "law" whatsoever, but appealing to the judges in whatever manner to win a case. Far different than any judicial system we can imagine. Not really comparable unless an actual law, passed by the Roman Senate, can be found. Student7 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems clear that Cicero is attempting to draw a moral parallel, and speaks somewhat metaphorically (not literally) to make his point. The lack of a legal marriage is presumably why he must "persuade" the listener to honor the debt because they are "as if" married. I think scholarship requires more than this one metaphor as proof of legal marriage in a society as well-established and long-lived as Rome. Surely there would be historical accounts, and legal treatments (e.g., inheritance of property), of actual same-sex marriages. John2510 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Woeful article that needs work

This article has a great many weaknesses, I'm guessing because marriage is such a politically charged topic which spills over into the editing process.

Where is the history?

We are told marriage is a cultural universal. OK. Provide examples of evidence in chronological order that illustrate this point. Even if marriage has been practiced for 100,000 years, I am sure the evidence is not distributed equally across the planet, and that citing the evidence and providing links would be of value in and of itself.

Such as "In 10,000 BC there are ivory bracelets depicting two figures which scholars interpret as marriage" or some such.

Also the etymology should not be restricted to English, but to marriage across all languages. 72.191.211.45 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me take the easiest one first. Etymology is different for each language version of Wikipedia. This article covers English. I presume it is different in the Japanese (and other) versions.
A problem arises with pre-history. We have to follow archaeologists findings which are necessarily vague. Our ancestors did not "write" per se until the last few thousand years. What we have is a "pairing off" where the mighty hunter (?) protects his family, the new mother being unable to easily provide for herself and take care of a baby. Is this marriage? Beats me! Richard Dawkins has pointed out the low sexual dimorphism in humans to show that polygamy wasn't that common. But is low polygamy, or even high polygamy, a demonstration of "marriage" in the sense that we use it? I don't know. But "pairing off" etc. has been going on for millions of years, whatever name the anthropologists give it. We have to follow WP:RS and they are reluctant to call it formal "marriage" which assigned formal responsibilities to each party, post agricultural revolution.
All societies? Pretty much. Margaret Mead documented an island society which the Baby Boomers seized on as an example of "unspoiled" humanity, justifying their sexual revolution. But while relatively free from criticism in Wikipedia, the study seems, in retrospect, an attempt to justify what Mead wanted to see. Most stable societies pair off. Some small isolated societies do odd things.
Having said that, humans were not conscious of where babies came from (there was still "natural selection" but that was "instinctive") prior to the domestication of animals! This may come as a shock to some people, but think about it. There's no way they could have known. Anyway, was there a certain amount of sexual promiscuity outside of "pairing off." Well, yes, probably. So the factor we identify most often with marriage is one that they identified least. These povs are represented fictionally in Quest for Fire (film) and Clan of the Cave Bear. Student7 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014

marriage is not a cultural sexual bong. In fact, It is religious and apart of the bible. It should not be classified as a mere sexual requirement with it dated and identified in the Bible. 75.136.35.109 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Better definition of child marriage requested

A child marriage is a marriage where one or both spouses are under the age of 18.

In the UK, people of the ages of 16 and 17 may marry with their parents' consent, and no one here would consider that to be child marriage.

Sheogorath 62.231.136.1 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that definition is problematic. It comes from seemingly good sources, but obviously doesn't apply in several places that are otherwise considered quite civilised. Maybe we need to say something like "According to UNICEF...., however, in....." HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to edit the section to say that, but there are no edit links showing anywhere in the page, leading me to believe it's locked. That's why I requested the edit.
Sheogorath 62.231.136.1 (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
While it may be hard for us to think of a pair of 17 year olds marrying as child marriage, doing a search it seems to be the common definition. The Council on Foreign Relations says that international convention prohibits it and defines it based on that age. The International Center for Research on Women, Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development, PBS, India's Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 and the similar act of 2006 (although for men, they make it even older), The National Center for Biotechnical Information, oh, I'm going to stop copying these links, basically all I can find except for one specific to Yemen includes the age in the definition and 18 is the age. It's not to us to redefine it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with those that want to use secondary sources based on UN (not US or UK) definitions. Can find a lot of cites that support 18 for women. example: http://www.thenewsminute.com/news_sections/768. This wants both parties to be 18: http://unfpa.org/files/live/sites/unfpa/files/youngtowed/WhatIsChildMarriageFactSheet2_1.pdf. Hard to find much clearly on men since they tend to marry older anyway and the focus is on women's health for childbearing. Student7 (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Marriage before recorded history

The following phrase was in the article:

"While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history..."

This phrase was without a citation, and tagged with "citation needed," for a long time. Therefore I removed from the article. This is an interesting question, the question of the existence of marriage in prehistoric times. But some kind of evidence from archaeology or anthropology would be needed to support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigatr85 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing text in rights section

The section regarding rights has a noun missing in items 7 and 8. Before "over", what is the noun? "Right", "claim", or some other word might suffice.

169.231.35.176 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Average Marriage Age Range" - requires clarification/definition

The final statement under History of Marriage - Europe states

As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. The author ought to offer definitions for "marriage age range" (averages are usually a single mixed number - not a "range") or rewite as follows (with the suitable per cent figure:

"As of 2000, in Europe, 90% of men were married at age 25–44; 90% of women were married at age 22–39."

Jsusky (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

High school sweetheart

I wonder if this could be a viable article subject. There must be stats around marrying one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about a separate article. Stats on meeting future mate in same school might be germane. I don't perceive that someone dating someone else in a high school would be important in itself to an encyclopedia, since nearly everyone in the Developed World & Europe has done so. Although, the "not nearly" could be of interest, if documented. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014

"Those who remarry do so on average 3 times." - I can't find this statistic online. Citation needed? Ukulellie (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sing! 14:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Having raised the question, this seems like a strange statistic, maybe even WP:BIASed. For those who don't' marry, a substantial number, the number of marriages are zero! We throwing out those people in this statistic.
For those who marry once, the number of marriages is one. Exactly. So we throw both of those statistics out! This makes no sense. It is like saying, "People who grow taller than six feet average six feet three inches." Fine, but what use is that? I want to know what every adult (or human, including infants) averages. Arbitrarily discarding large parcels of adherents or non-adherents to achieve what end? I suggest replacing the phrase. It is not npov as stated.
Also realized that statement is ambiguous. Does "three" include first marriage? It doesn't say that, but says, people who remarry, do so (remarry?) on average three times. A total of four times including their first? I don't think that was meant. Clarity is needed, at the very least.
The average of times people marry, including zero and one, may be meaningful. Student7 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Common-Law marriage

There are two sections on common-law marriage. The first mostly discusses cohabitation. The second discusses common-law marriage. Probably better to rename the first to "cohabitation," as this also corresponds with the {{Family Law}} template. I have done this. The section also needs to be cleaned up somewhat, as some of the content appears garbled (out of sequence, out of context), probably from past edits. I didn't do this clean-up yet, as I don't know the tenor of this article (that is, whether it's considered controversial.) If this clean up seems uncontroversial, I'll revisit it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Marriage Rates

Can this article provide, or at least refer to, information on marriage rates? This might identify numbers or percentages of marriages by country, or world-wide and discuss trents where the rate may be increasing or decreasing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeaumont (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ISBN problem

On my talk page I was informed of an ISBN problem. I did not read the O'Malley source, I copy/pasted it, but a direct verification of the claim can be had at [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another source: [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Earliest recorded event?

The history section speaks vaguely of practices in the ancient world, but there are no dates given, not even ballpark figures. Surely there must be some "earliest recorded marriage" in the records somewhere. In the archives, someone posted that "the first recorded marriage took place in Mesopotamia in 3250 B.C." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marriage/Archive_3#Origins_of_marriage.3F If true, it should be incorporated into the article as this is the kind of encyclopedic fact that folks like me come here to find. (If not 3250 BCE Mesopotamia, then when and where?) Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The history section needs to be completely redone. It is full of biblical passages when in fact marriage long predates any of the world's major religions. The section is not of any help whatsoever. sn 30 April 2015— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.234.156 (talk • contribs)
Well, if you mean ancient anthropological institution, you are right: marriage wasn't invented by Judaism. If you mean marriage ceremony officiated by a priest (in order to be considered valid), that is a Roman Catholic invention which has spread all over the world. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Interracial a New Trend?

The claim that legally recognising interracial marriages is new seems flawed to me - aside from America, South Africa and Nazi Germany Wikipedia doesn't claim such relations were not supported. That being the case there ought to be a change to this sentence:

In developed parts of the world, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights within marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interracial, interfaith, and same-gender couples.

118.208.52.242 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur on interracial. Seems more appropriate for national articles. Student7 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Another Error?

While it's claimed that the Israelites didn't have any laws imposing marital fidelity on men what of David and Bathsheba? Judgement fell not on the adulterous woman but on the adulterous man and his household. Seems a pretty narrow interpretation to argue adultery is a one gender legal issue. 118.208.52.242 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems more biblical and inspiration/spiritual than legal. Yes, the OT nails David for adultery. But the message seems spiritual in nature. He suffered no legal process. Student7 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

spelling part 2

(2013) which prevented the Federal Government form recognizing same-sex marriage 

                                             from

i am a wiki idiot. dont know how to correct something. good luck and replace please. 

 thank you


good day to all

Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

misleading without sources.

" In the 21st century, there continue to be controversies regarding the legal status of married women, legal acceptance of or leniency towards violence within marriage (especially sexual violence)"

id like to see the source that proves that there is legal acceptance or leniency towards violence within marriage in the 21st century... 99% of the time, the male is arrested in domestic disputes even if it was just raised voices. i think you would be hard pressed to back up this OPINION piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8401:8275:6528:61F1:B2EC:75C (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In the vast majority of countries of the world there is leniency towards violence in marriage. In many countries of the world it continues to be legal for a man use "moderate" violence to punish/discipline his wife(example: Court in UAE says beating wife, child OK if no marks are left)
Only a small minority of Western countries truly deal with domestic violence, and even in these countries it is not taken as serious as violence in public places. To quote the former High Commissioner for Human Rights: "The reality for most victims, including victims of honor killings, is that state institutions fail them and that most perpetrators of domestic violence can rely on a culture of impunity for the acts they commit – acts which would often be considered as crimes, and be punished as such, if they were committed against strangers".[3] 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:524C:EE80 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tree Marriage

The definition of marriage also includes tree marriage. This may require revision to the introductory paragraph and inclusion of the item. Some preliminary sources include Frazer, 1911 http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/gb00901.htm. For the encyclopedia britannica article, http://global.britannica.com/topic/tree-marriage; for the recent legal controversy in India http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1541309/Film-star-faces-lawsuit-after-marrying-a-tree.html http://www.metla.fi/iufro/iufro95abs/d6pap59.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqLRnUETKKg http://www.newlovetimes.com/weird-marriage-rituals-india/ Mrdthree (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read our guidelines about fringe subjects and undue weight. Diego (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Biblical guidelines

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert adhere to Biblical guidelines and to make the statement "While most Christian denominations adhere to Biblical guidelines and do not perform same-sex marriages". What "Biblical guidelines" are is (on almost all matters!) a matter of debate. I certainly understand that the editor feels that Biblical guidelines are clear, but it's not a statement we should be making in Wikipedia's voice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your reversion was correct, but we need to be accurate and current regarding how the majority of Christian denominations (in their denominational creed or vision) view the essentials of marriage as outlined in the Bible and also in church history. This is a multifaceted theological thing. The Catholics and perhaps other high-church traditions view marriage to be a sacrament. Protestant denominations clearly recognize the theological comparison of human marriage to the relationship God has with the church. Most protestant denominations do not practice same-sex marriage and it's in their written and currently active creed. Somehow this should be clear and reasonably prominent in that section of the article. 76.118.23.40 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think we need to go too much more into depth in this article, as this is the central marriage article and does not need to carry every detail of the subtopic of religious views of marriage, sub-subtopic Christian views, sub-sub-subtopic Christian views on same-sex marriage. There should be room to reflect on these in articles specifically on religious views of marriage, on same-sex marriage, etc. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Marriage by priest is a Catholic custom which has spread to other denominations, Luther considered that marriage is a matter of state (civil) law, not of religious (canon) law. In traditional Protestantism, marriage does not concern the church, since it is an worldly matter. The Protestant church is concerned with salvation, religious and spiritual issues, not with who does one marry. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015

The introduction to this article states that marriage is an "upper class and upper middle class phenomenon". I would venture that a more appropriate way to word this would simply be "upper class phenomenon" as many nations only really consider upper, middle, and lower income classes to be significant. Chrismamo1 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: - I have removed the statement entirely, as it was not supported by any reliable sources whatsoever.
However, I have not added your proposal, as that is not supported by any reliable sources either, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015

In the opening paragraph, please change "between they and their children" to "between them and their children". SongScout (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing the typo. -sche (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Marriage historical

A nice addition to the page may be to add sections to cover the kind of expectations placed upon people in various cultures in regards to being marriage, getting married, and whether or not they should get married. This section would look at marriage in a more historical context and how ideological views evolved in a given place over time. the current history section seems lacking in this regard. Though, probably because there is so much to the topic of marriage to begin with. to help give an idea as to what i am talking about, here is some suggested formatting:

America 

 16xx-17xx
 17xx-18xx
 19xx-20xx

Europe 

 16xx-17xx
 17xx-18xx
 19xx-20xx

Russia 

 16xx-17xx
 17xx-18xx
 19xx-20xx

China 

 16xx-17xx
 17xx-18xx
 19xx-20xx

ect

Of course the actual formatting for the dates would vary depending upon location, reflecting significant events and skipping dates where relatively no change took place. I think this could add a lot of breadth to the understanding of marriage in different cultures as well as different time periods. Massive project is massive. If i am being redundant, please excuse me. =3 Wulframm (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Companionate Marriage

I don't think this section is entirely wrong, but it relies on a single source, and Eva Illouz's interpretation of the development of love seems quite hardline. This is a section that would definitely benefit from multiple viewpoints and a bit more about how it works in non-western cultures. Smurrayinchester 09:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition

The lede reads: "Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them"

We should be careful with 'socially' and 'ritually', because in many jurisdictions there is a need of legal registration of the union for it to be legally a marriage. While in some places customary marriage and common law marriage are recognized, in most they are not (or at least not as "marriages") even if the partners and the community accept and "recognize" them as "couples" (ie. cohabitation). Also with religious marriage (which could be called a "ritually recognized union"), in many jurisdictions it has no legal value if not accompanied by civil marriage - therefore even if the couple, the church, the extended family etc, may "recognize" the union, the state does not. 2A02:2F01:503F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:C85E (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

The image showing the legality of polygamy has an incorrect explanation. The countries colored black are states where polygamy is illegal, yet the opposite is stated below in the key below the image. 71.252.179.101 (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Reversed the entries --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly Inadequate Source

The first sentence in the Europe subsection under History of Marriage reads:

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.

The source provided supporting this statement is:

cite book |title=Marriage, sex, and civic culture in late medieval London |last=McSheffrey|first=Shannon |year=2006 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |isbn=978-0-8122-3938-6 |page=21 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dJX_Nr2fdzAC&printsec=frontcover

Statements on the linked page conflict with the above sentence in several ways:

  • The research is about the late fifteenth century, not the first through fourth centuries
  • The description specifically points out that marriage was a religious institution
  • The book is specifically about London, not even about an entire country much less all of Europe

Even if such a statement exists somewhere within the text of the book, it is not part of the focus of the book and it's research, just an asserted generality. Optimistmb (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016

The important reason for Marriage would possibly be LOVE and there is no mention of love marriage in the first 50-70 lines. The term emotional is included but it can be a vague catagory. To edit, the word "love" in the list of the reasons in the first line of the second paragraph.

Thanks

100.8.204.11 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

I feel like the use of the word unique here is incorrect or misleading

"Their unique view of marriage is that family relationships can endure beyond the grave"

With little effort I have found lots of sources from other religious sites showing that this belief is not unique to Mormonism. I've cited an Evangelical source and an Islamic source.

[1][2]

--Voolsleeve (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Voolsleeve (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Will the members of a family all be together in Paradise?". Islam Question and Answer. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
  2. ^ Graham, Billy. "Will we be reunited with our loved ones who've gone to heaven before us?". Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
I've removed the word unique from that sentence. It wasn't supported by the source provided.--Trystan (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Error in same sex marriage

The section "Same-sex marriage recognition" says that the United Kingdom allows same-sex couples to marry. This isn't true. England, Scotland and Wales do but Northern Ireland doesn't. This should be edited to reflect that there are more countries and also to remove UK from the list. 19:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.219.61 (talk)

Forced Marriages In Islam

Hi,

Section 8.1.4 says: "For a Muslim wedding to take place, the bridegroom and the guardian of the bride (wali) must both agree on the marriage. Should the guardian disagree on the marriage, it may not legally take place. If the wali of the girl her father or paternal grandfather, he has the right to force her into marriage even against her proclaimed will, if it is her first marriage. A guardian who is allowed to force the bride into marriage is called wali mujbir."

This is completely wrong. As evidence to this claim, please refer to the given hadiths in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)." (Sahih Bukhari)

Source: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/062-sbt.php (Scroll down to Hadith No. 67)

Book 008, Number 3303: Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as having said: A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought. They asked the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him): How her (virgin's) consent can be solicited? He (the Holy Prophet) said: That she keeps silence. (Sahih Muslim)

Source:http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/008-smt.php (Scroll down to Chapter 9)

Book 008, Number 3305: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) about a virgin whose marriage is solemnised by her guardian, whether it was necessary or not to consult her. Allah's Messerger (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, she must be consulted. 'A'isha reported: I told him that she feels shy, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Her silence implies her consent. (Sahih Muslim)

Source:http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/008-smt.php (Scroll down to Chapter 9)

Book 008, Number 3306: Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: A woman without a husband has wore right to her person than her guardian, and a virgin's consent must be asked from her, and her silence implies her consent. (Sahih Muslim)

Source:http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/008-smt.php (Scroll down to Chapter 9)

Book 008, Number 3307: Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A woman who has been previously married (Thayyib) has more right to her person than her guardian. And a virgin should also be consulted, and her silence implies her consent. (Sahih Muslim)

Source:http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/008-smt.php (Scroll down to Chapter 9)

Book 008, Number 3308: Sufyan reported on the basis of the same chain of transmitters (and the words are): A woman who has been previously married (Thayyib) has more right to her person than her guardian; and a virgin's father must ask her consent from her, her consent being her silence, At times he said: Her silence is her affirmation.

Source:http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/008-smt.php (Scroll down to Chapter 9)

Kindly review and edit section 8.1.4. --188.48.227.132 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hatnotes

MOOT
Antamajnoon was indefinitely blocked this morning for sockpuppetry. Rebbing 03:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The see also guideline says that the hatnote may be used if it is related: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:See_also see here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antamajnoon (talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no "see also" guideline—template documentation is a recommendation, not a guideline—but the hatnote guideline clearly forbids the proposed link. See Wikipedia:Hatnote § Trivial information, dictionary definitions, and slang. Even if it were permissible, it's certainly not required, and the consensus appears to be against it. Rebbing 03:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polygamy map

So here it looks like the map in Section 7.3.4 is reversed. I may not have reliable sources, but it seems kind of wrong for Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Kenya to have polygamy illegal while Canada, the U.S and the U.K legalise it. I'm just going to make this change, but if anyone finds a source for the information as it is, please change my edits. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: Just read the section and confirmed that my edit is indeed correct. MediaKill13 (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Cultural Universals in Lede

This was deleted from the lede by user:Historyguy1965 [4]. There was a discussion relating to its inclusion [5]. however there was no discussion upon its removal. There are few cultural universals and they are most certainly defining. Re: Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage,[1] and forbid incestuous marriages.[2] Mrdthree (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Insert to second paragraph; when the list of culturally universal restrictions is two items long, specifics should be listed rather than generalized terms. So adjust 2nd para as follows--Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. While few normative rules or restrictions are universal, almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage,[1] and forbid incestuous marriages.[2] Mrdthree (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
note both items, by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, address incest taboo. Mrdthree (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Adultery" Encyclopedia Brittanica
  2. ^ a b "Incest is sexual intercourse between individuals related in certain prohibited degrees of kinship. In every society there are rules prohibiting incestuous unions, both as to sexual intercourse and recognized marriage." -A Committee of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1951 Notes and Queries on Anthropology. 6rh edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd. p. 113-114

Need to shorten Lede

unnecessary detail on history of marriage. Last paragraph of lede should be incorporated into body. Perhaps summarized into single sentence.Mrdthree (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

as far as I can tell it addresses changes in the status of women in Marriage in the last couple centuries in developed countries. So a single sentence could be In recent history, the rights and status of married women in developed countries have changed significantly, moving towards parity with their partners.--Mrdthree (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Specific proposal: relocate paragraph to the first paragraph of the section Contemporary legal and human rights criticisms of marriage under the subsection Power and Gender Roles. The second sentence will remain in the lede as the last sentence of the current second to last paragraph: In Europe, the United States, and other places in the developed world, beginning in the late 19th century and lasting through the 21st century, marriage has undergone gradual legal changes, aimed at improving the rights of women. . Rationale for move is that the paragraph discusses new content and repeats rather than summarizes content in the body.--Mrdthree (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I am tracking down discussion on these items. In the mean time removing an undiscussed/unsourced edit. [6]. Mrdthree (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Religious views on polygyny

Kindly ensure the use of credited sources, not a random website.

The debate on weather or not the Christian and Jewish faith has actually allowed polygyny is one to be had among religious circles. The truth is that the practice is undeniably mentioned, however, scriptural acceptance of the practice is not found. I have edited the statement to reflect a more accurate and true representation.

There was no source for the epidemiology of polygyny. Stating that polygyny is rare in some circles can not be verified or validated, especially not with the sources provided. Kindly read the about us page of the Dinah Project website provided as a source. The credibility of the source is in question when addressing this topic.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androuwaheeb (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Article sequence

The vast majority of Wikipedia articles start with etymology and definition of the subject. Next comes the hystory if there is a history to it. Why not in this article? History is #11, and religion, which is sort of inseperable from the Hisoty, is here separated Crock81 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Always sexual?

Are we now to assert as a Wikipedia fact that all marriages include sexual acttivity? This is what we have since yesterday in the lede: "The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, including sexual, are acknowledged." To me, that's misleading. Reverting again to "usually sexual" for discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to read for meaning.
If the sentence says "...principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual", it means that "usually" defines relationships as the NORM, and the norm being on the bell curve of behaviours, the 95% of all observed behaviours. The science that observes behaviours is Medicine, because it medicates/theraputes abnormal behaviours.
The Medicine definition of Normal range is: Characteristic of 95 percent of values from a normal population. The remaining normal results fall outside the normal range, as do any truly abnormal results. The normal range for a particular test result, condition, symptom, or behavior may differ, based on the patient's age, size, sex, ethnicity, or culture.
The other 5% behavioural extremes are ABNORMAL.
Example - the normal Haemoglobin count for a 17-years old female is 135-175. A result of 133 would be abnormal. A result of 118 would be trully abnormal.
Relationships are defined as "the way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other." It isn't NORMAL, i.e. "usual" for two or more people to engage in sexual behaviour 95% of the time when together. This sort of behaviour is acknowledged to be ABNORMAL, called Sexual Addicition or Hypersexual Behavior Disorder (see DSM-4). However, normal relationships include some sexual behaviour, if only because it is biologically necessary for reproduction of the species.
Yes, I know Hypersexual Behavior Disorder is not in DSM-5, but this is widely regarded as a political decision. Moreover, if a person is consumed with sexual activity 95% of their waking hours, this is UNDENIABLY an abnormal behaviour by anyone's 'book'. For example masturbating for 22.8 hours per day would eventually lead to death. Since suicide is an abnormal behaviour, even by masturbation, "usual sexual" activity is NOT TRUE.
So, is Wikipedia saying that Hypersexual Behavior Disorder is what marriage is "usually" about? No, because normal people do not define a normal marriage as one in which relationship is defined by 95% of the time being spent having sexual activities.
On the other hand, 95% of marriages DO NORMALLY "include sexual" activity of some sort, even if once. A marriage that has no sexual activity component is considered ABNORMAL and dysfunctional.
ergo, "...interpersonal relationships, including sexual, are acknowledged." is the correct phrasing. Crock81 (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You'd better have a look at some other statistics, too, such as how many marriages are entered into by people in the 70s, 80s, even 90s. Are we in there checking to see if they (and everybody else) are "normal", i.e. having sex? Is that any of our (Wikipedia's!) business? Your opinionated, unsubstantiated, unsouced labelling of the behavior of thousands and thousands of people - by even shouting "ABNORMAL" - is shocking to me. I think you should stop it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: If the sentence read "The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, including sexual, are acknowledged." - that would be OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have the language just backward. Saying "usually sexual" would require some statistics. Saying "including sexual" means that the range of relationship covered by marriage include ones defined as sexual relationships. If we said "a range of relationships that include sex", that would be different. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've taught English for over 40 years, with not a single complaint ever. "but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, including sexual, are acknowledged" - because of "principally" that can easily be taken as meaning that marriages without sex are practically unheard of. Wikipedia can't make fuzzy allegations like that.
I'm not saying your interpretation is 100% wrong.
If you have a better suggestion, please give us that whole part of sentence! Did you mean "but it is principally an institution in which a range of interpersonal relationships, including sexual relationships, are acknowledged"? That would be fine. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is to leave it as is. I do not see by what method "principally" can be seen as applying to "sexual". In the sentence as presented, it clearly applies to "an institution". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2016

Second paragraph begins: "Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes." Suggest adding "reproductive" to this list.

65.37.85.49 (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 21:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

Delete "or legal contract" from the first sentence.

In law, a contract is an agreement supported by consideration. Contracts are governed by a large body of law. Marriage is governed by different laws entirely. While at least in modern times, marriage requires the agreement of competent adults, what the parties bind themselves to is a matter of statute (in most places) or custom. Parties to a contract can define the boundaries of their pact and dissolve it at will. Not so married persons.

FJNorthrop (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Asking for the father's blessing (and other traditions)

I didn't read the whole article, but I did use the find feature to look for information regarding the tradition of asking the father of the bride-to-be for his blessing.  I didn't see anything here about that.  (If it is here and I simply missed it, apologies.)

In any event, I was curious how that tradition began, and if it's just in certain countries or cultures or if it is a global thing.

You can improve this article by adding information about this.

allixpeeke (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

MARRIAGE IS NOT AN INSTITUTION

a marriage is not an institution.its not a business or government department — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.76.197 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

Document reads "Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes."

PLEASE ADD "LOVE" - the ONE reason many people marry and not for any of the others. In my opinion the definition is incomplete. 2.15.110.247 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: I think that's pretty much covered under emotional. st170e 22:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Use and Meaning Wali Mujbir

In the second paragraph under the Islam section, there is mention of of a woman's father or grandfather being able to force the girl into marriage against her will, and cites his role as "wali mujbir" to do so with reference. The meaning of the term cited, which links to its use on another wikipedia page, is meant that the guardian acts as an agent or emissary for the woman relating her decisions and requests to the groom on her behalf.

It is hard to assume good faith when tons of pages of wikipedia are littered with these subtle infringements on the truth. Case in point, the use of an outdated, biased, and impossibly difficult to review source (citation 242) when there and hundreds of internet sites with more authentic sources. For example with direct citation of original sources:

http://www.quran-errors.com/authentic-hadith-regarding-forced-marriage-in-islam.html

Therefore, the last two sentences of the second paragraph should be deleted and combine the remainder with one of the others.

Lithiumman (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald's marriage status

Please comment at Talk:Glenn Greenwald#Partner vs Spouse, NOT here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Basic ideas

Marriage as a religious and civil idea is the social recognition and sanctification of a love relationship, to signal inwardly that such relationship is recognized and to signal outwardly that such relationship is appraised and defended by the society, for the purpose of sanctifying and defending personal love relationships and a potential new family. -Inowen (nlfte) 05:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As nice as that sounds, that doesn't fit with the way marriage has traditionally been or is practiced. A love relationship in marriage may be aspirational in many cultures and even a presumed prerequisite in many in the modern day, but it is not definitional. Many marriages are formed without love, and many continue without there ever having been love or with the love having left the relationship. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
One should start with the ideals, and I admit to referencing Christian marriage more than other types, where love is praised in the highest, and these other things are secondary. The arguments that marriage is a typically forced or arranged or abusive institution are cynical, and miss the point that women want husbands as much as men want young and pretty wives. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is about actual marriage, not one spin on what a good marriage should be. Christianity did not define marriage; the institution long predates the founding of that religion. We do already have a an article on Christian views on marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, then in simple terms, the word "union" is simplistic, such as to be overworked. What kind of union? Well, it involves friendship, partnership, sexual relations, and reproduction. All four of those are in the word "union," but that's not clear just from the solitary word. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to make a suggestion for the editing of this page, feel free to do so. If you just want to expound on your personal ideas of what a marriage should be, Wikipedia is not a place for that, as Wikipedia is not a forum. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit its not bad. It has the problem that it's missing some basic ideas, mostly coming from the personal (not social) side of marriage. Naturally it mentions religion, in case some backward folks connect marriage with religion. But for starters its too long for a lede section, isnt it?

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage).[1] The definition of marriage varies around the world not only between cultures and between religions, but also throughout the history of any given culture and religion, evolving to both expand and constrict in who and what is encompassed, but typically it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A marriage ceremony is known as a wedding. Nepali wedding

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by gender, socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world, arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition. Conversely, such practices may be outlawed and penalized in parts of the world out of concerns of the infringement of women's rights, or the infringement of children's rights (both female and male children), and because of international law.[2] Around the world, primarily in developed democracies, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights within marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples. These trends coincide with the broader human rights movement.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community, or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. When a marriage is performed and carried out by a government institution in accordance with the marriage laws of the jurisdiction, without religious content, it is a civil marriage. Civil marriage recognizes and creates the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony before the state. When a marriage is performed with religious content under the auspices of a religious institution it is a religious marriage. Religious marriage recognizes and creates the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony before that religion. Religious marriage is known variously as sacramental marriage in Catholicism, nikah in Islam, nissuin in Judaism, and various other names in other faith traditions, each with their own constraints as to what constitutes, and who can enter into, a valid religious marriage.

Some countries do not recognize locally performed religious marriage on its own, and require a separate civil marriage for official purposes. Conversely, civil marriage does not exist in some countries governed by a religious legal system, such as Saudi Arabia, where marriages contracted abroad might not be recognized if they were contracted contrary to Saudi interpretations of Islamic religious law. In countries governed by a mixed secular-religious legal system, such as in Lebanon and Israel, locally performed civil marriage also does not exist within the country, preventing interfaith and various other marriages contradicting religious laws from being entered into in the country, however, civil marriages performed abroad are recognized by the state even if they conflict with religious laws (in the case of recognition of marriage in Israel, this includes recognition of not only interfaith civil marriages performed abroad, but also overseas same-sex civil marriages).

The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved, and any offspring they may produce or adopt. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and a diminishing number of these permit polygyny, child marriages, and forced marriages. In modern times, a growing number of countries, primarily developed democracies, have lifted bans on and have established legal recognition for the marriages of interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment. In some areas, child marriages and polygamy may occur in spite of national laws against the practice.

Since the late twentieth century, major social changes in Western countries have led to changes in the demographics of marriage, with the age of first marriage increasing, fewer people marrying, and more couples choosing to cohabit rather than marry. For example, the number of marriages in Europe decreased by 30% from 1975 to 2005.[3]

Historically, in most cultures, married women had very few rights of their own, being considered, along with the family's children, the property of the husband; as such, they could not own or inherit property, or represent themselves legally (see for example coverture). In Europe, the United States, and other places in the developed world, beginning in the late 19th century and lasting through the 21st century, marriage has undergone gradual legal changes, aimed at improving the rights of the wife. These changes included giving wives legal identities of their own, abolishing the right of husbands to physically discipline their wives, giving wives property rights, liberalizing divorce laws, providing wives with reproductive rights of their own, and requiring a wife's consent when sexual relations occur. These changes have occurred primarily in Western countries. In the 21st century, there continue to be controversies regarding the legal status of married women, legal acceptance of or leniency towards violence within marriage (especially sexual violence), traditional marriage customs such as dowry and bride price, forced marriage, marriageable age, and criminalization of consensual behaviors such as premarital and extramarital sex.

-Inowen (nlfte) 05:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The intro is somewhat beyond the recommended length; you are welcome to suggest what should be shortened. But if it's going to convert it to your idea of the "basics", that I could not support. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to cut it in half, keeping top elements in the lede, and the rest into in an introduction or overview section. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Three or four paragraphs usually makes a sufficient lead. The overview is a kind of a catch for a lot of ramble, which can be refactored in some more or less sensible order. There's a lot of material, and the article is of some size. It could be that there will need to be additional sections and spin off articles from the material present that we can plan for. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

Change "Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, as well as many Anglicans and Methodists, consider marriage termed holy matrimony to be an expression of divine grace,[224] termed a sacrament and mystery in the first two Christian traditions." to "Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, as well as many Anglicans and Methodists, consider marriage termed holy matrimony to be an expression of divine grace,[224] termed a sacrament and mystery in the first two Christian traditions. For this reason the Catholic Church requires couples to go through Marriage preparation courses before mariage. [1] <ref Can. 1063 Pastors of souls are obliged to take care that their ecclesiastical community offers the Christian faithful the assistance by which the matrimonial state is preserved in a Christian spirit and advances in perfection. This assistance must be offered especially by: 1/ preaching, catechesis adapted to minors, youth, and adults, and even the use of instruments of social communication, by which the Christian faithful are instructed about the meaning of Christian marriage and about the function of Christian spouses and parents; 2/ personal preparation to enter marriage, which disposes the spouses to the holiness and duties of their new state; Can.* 1064 It is for the local ordinary to take care that such assistance is organized fit-tingly, after he has also heard men and women proven by experience and expertise if it seems opportune. Can.* 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration. Can.* 1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.*</ref> Elie Hague (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Catholic News Agency is hardly the rigorous, peer-reviewed source that this type of claim would most benefit from.  Spintendo  19:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018

Change "Christians often[quantify] marry for religious reasons, ranging from following the biblical injunction for a "man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one",[Gen. 2:24][222] to accessing the Divine grace of the Roman Catholic Sacrament.[223]" to "Of the many reasons for Christians to marry, the religious ones are wide in variety, ranging from following the biblical injunction for a "man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one",[Gen. 2:24][222] to accessing the Divine grace of the Roman Catholic Sacrament.[223] Elie Hague (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. This is just wordier (bordering on ungrammatical) without actually adding anything substantive. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
She's quoting the Bible and you're saying its not "substantive." Dear Wikipedia, the pro-atheism bias has got to stop. -Inowen (nlfte) 07:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how to explain this to you, @Inowen:, if you can't plainly read it, but the text that Elie Hague requests be changed already includes the exact same Bible verse. --Equivamp - talk 02:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In world culture

Here's were I go with the basic idea of marriage:

In world culture, marriage is a social recognition and sanction of a close personal relationship between two people, →traditionally evolutionarily← one male and one female, for the purpose of sanctifying a new family and preparing a home for when the procreation of children occurs. → The marriage ceremony is called a wedding.
→There is a strong connection between the ideas of marriage and family, and many or most who enter marriage are anticipated to start a family. Because there are social and legal sanctions for families, belonging to a family unit is coveted, and accommodations for non-standard families has in recent years become a key issue in politics, affecting the status and definition of "family" and "marriage."
→When consecrated within a religion, marriage is sometimes referred to as a covenant in the sight of God.
The idea of a civil marriage arose from the need to separate religion and state for the purpose of "intermarriage;" marriage between culturally non-similar individuals. The basic form and purpose of religious and civil marriage are similar and nearly universal. Because it is a socially recognized office and has membership benefits, people enter into civil marriage out of convenience or necessity.
In parts of the developed world, there is a minority movement which promotes the homosexual union, and demands the sanctification of such unions. As such several regional governments have legalized homosexual marriage.
(→ indicates late insert - user:Inowen)

Yes there is a lot of windbagging from anti-traditional groups saying that marriage has nothing to do with male and female union, reproduction and children, but those are just political activists, and the big picture is straightforward. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, no. This is not a place to promote your unsourced political beliefs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
How are these statements political? And how are they even beliefs, when they are just statements? And how are they unsourced (these are the common definitions). -Inowen (nlfte) 02:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Your claim that there is one unified world culture, for whom there is one fixed definition, and everything else is outside the culture is a clear casting out of an array of marriage formats that don't match what you chose to see as "traditional". That marriage is inherently religious (by use of the term "sanctify") or original;y religious (it arose in many societies as as societal thing) is a POV used politically. Calling support for same-sex marriage a "minority movement" does not reflect its status in a number of places... including the US, where support for same-sex marriage reached the majority point in 2011, years before it went legal nationwide. And yes, legal nationwide - that's a national government, not a regional one.
As for unsourced - I don't see any sourcing in your statement, do you? Nor are your claims supported by the existing text of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to change the lead, but if there were, it certainly wouldn't be to something so inaccurate that it contradicts itself in order to spread its own falsehoods. The current lead is sourced, accurate, neutral, and comprehensive. It should stay. --Equivamp - talk 02:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I stated above that the current lede is not bad, even though it did go on too long, as ledes sometimes collect a lot of inserted material, problematic only because of a pro-feminist slant. But in any case, what I wrote above was straight=forward. There is also a need to identify POV on the anti-traditionalism side, from those who reject the simple common definition of marriage. The result of doing acrobatics to accomodate this crowd is for example to use the term "spouse" instead of "man and woman," which is essentially kiting the debate about homosexual marriage to the article on spouses. I pick up on that sort of off-usage of language, even though it may have been a fix for a long article debate. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If using one centuries-old common world that is inclusive of all the current and traditional forms of marriage instead of a three word phrase that excludes some is your idea of acrobatics, then please don't invite me to the circus. The debate on "homosexual marriage" has been on whether it should exist as a legal and social status, but I've seen little or no debate over whether it now does clearly exist as a legal and social status in various places. To be aware that same-sex marriage exists is not to kite any debate but to reflect reality. There is nothing "off-usage of language" to refer to the members of the marriage as spouses; it is literally what the word means. If you want to speak to the common definition of marriage, look at some dictionaries; here's Merriam-Webster, here's American Heritage, --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is the rule that inclusivity such that "excludes none" is a supreme principle? Does that mean one has to accept the definition of "marriage" promoted by pedophiles or worse, and then accept the meddling of these groups with the common definition? -Inowen (nlfte) 05:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
When trying to define something, yes, one wants something that includes the things the term refers to. Why would we want a general article on marriage that excludes them? If you wish to undo whatever evolution you've seen take place in the word marriage (as reflected by basically every up-to-date English language dictionary of significance), then Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.... much less a place to put a rather broad, baseless characterization on those with whom you disagree. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler:"When trying to define something, yes, one wants something that includes the things the term refers to." So you think what pedophiles think has to be included in the main definition, unto changing it. Thanks for that. 'According to political minority groups marriage has very inclusive dimensions' is sufficient treatment. Your point of view is a fringe POV.-Inowen (nlfte) 21:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "pedophiles" you're referring to, Inowen, nor what "political minority groups" or "fringe". Currently, poll after poll show that same-sex marriage has majority support in the US, United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and more. If you think the majority of the country is one big political minority fringe pedophilia group, you may want to do a little research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that not all points of view are valid. And the popular support for gay marriage is due to the legal imbalance of social protections afforded married heterosexuals versus homosexuals. If the economics were different and people weren't left out in the rain, there would be less support. So "marriage" is in this way defined differently from its main meaning of a family covenant, as instead a package of social protections. There lacks a term for the kind of bond that homosexuals have ("long-term partner" was often used), so the word "marriage" became borrowed. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: as 'interesting' as your assertions are, do you have any reliable sources to back up the claims you make? This seems to be yet another attempt to use wikipedia as a soapbox for your preconceived beliefs. Alssa1 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alssa1: What is the thing which you disagree with most; is it the connection between marriage and family? Its in the UDHR and ICCPR for example:

Definitions of the right to marriage and family. The right to marriage and family is enshrined in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right is enshrined in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. ..http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/marriage_family_definition.html

emphasis mine -Inowen (nlfte) 21:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: I'm referring to your last comment, you know the one that begins with "The point is that not all points of view are valid...". You make a series of assertions in that comment, do you have some reliable sources to back up each one? Alssa1 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Many of us in the real world know too many same-sex couples raising children and too many sex-mingling couples choosing not to for us to accept the idea that family-building is intrinsic in male/female pairings or absent in other combinations. Perhaps there is some other place besides Wikipedia for you to go make your points; they seem to be gaining no traction here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So those of us who don't agree with your big gay agenda 'don't live in the real world' and we are welcome to go somewhere else? Is that the substance of your words? -Inowen (nlfte) 08:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-marriage-prep-should-be-more-than-a-few-parish-meetings-19699
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marriage/Archive_15&oldid=1026636827"