Talk:Marriage/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Marriage. 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 7

→

Why Are We Only Talking About EUROPEAN Marriage?

This page should not be locked, as it is woefully inadequate in its content. Marriage has been an institution the world over since time immemorial, so why is there a large section on European tradition and nothing representing other continents? Talk about cultural discrimination and bias! India, Japan, the Americas -- anybody care to mention how they were ritualizing family relationships for centuries before anything like the Catholic church existed? Please do better. 64.255.87.32 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps YOU should add the content you so rigorously maintain should be there. Or do you think content just *happens* by magic? I wager the editors to date write ethno-centric content because they live in a european-centered culture. Big deal. When a person from India wants to add something from that cultural perspective, then he or she will and the article will be improved. Until then, get a grip. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

spouse does not mean you were married

Apologies if this discussion is in the archives but I believe that spouse has been merged with marriage. I would like to de-merge it as at least in the UK spouse does not have to mean marriage. I would like a Disambiguation page which links to marriage / husband / wife and Work spouse. This has been bought about by someone pointing out the Ipswich murderer's spouse was not his wife but a search on wikipedia for spouse found only marriage. sorry returned to add Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Common-law marriage is a much better link that also needs to be added to a disamb. page.Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But in many jurisdictions, common law marriage participants have the same legal rights/obligations as "formally married" people. Your link to work spouse brings up a good point. Marriage is such a broad and all-encompassing concept and has different meaning and significance to different people and I believe that is the root of much of the controversy about it. Marriage (as a general concept across society) contains elements of religion, legal rights and privilege, social support and recognition, intimacy and commitment. InsufficientData (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While i think the disambiguation page is a good idea in many ways it has a big disadvantage in terms of wikilinking for articles. There aren't that many articles that currently wikilink spouse (see [4]) so I'm inclined to think that it's the best way to go and then just trawl through the articles and make the best determination possible for each link. I disagree with the reasoning for turning it back into a redirect last summer, since it was a disambig page not simply a dictionary definition. But given that the page has changed a few times, more input is probably wise before being bold. -- SiobhanHansa 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, I will wait awhile and see how the discussion goes. I agree with what SiobhanHansa says , my main difficulty being put in spouse in the wiki search and it goes to marriage missing out the other possibilities. As I come across them I will as you say try to link direct. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Marriage penalty

I've added the following to clear up any perception that dual-income couples are the only losers in tax systems, as might be construed from the existing text.

"Conversely, when progressive tax is levied on the individual with no consideration for the partnership, dual-income couples fare much better than single-income couples with similar household incomes. The effect can be increased when the welfare system treats the same income as a shared income thereby denying welfare access to the non-earning spouse. Such systems apply in Australia and Canada, for example."

I also edited the previous paragraph to clarify that the individuals in a dual-income couple are worse off when incomes are added prior to taxation. They are not, in fact, collectively worse off compared to couples with one earner earning the same gross income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.189.121 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reworking the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section

How do other editors feel about the idea of reworking the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section by expanding it to include other "Contemporary beliefs about marriage"? This wouldn't involve removing any of the existing material, but would provide a place near the end of the article to mention some of the "opposing" views on the topic (i.e. the views of so-called Traditional marriage movement advocates.) Would the expansion of the "Criticisms of the institution of marriage" section in that way be controversial? (sdsds - talk) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As this proposal was unopposed I made a first attempt at it. Commenting here (or simply making edits in the new section) would both be great ways to improve this article further! (sdsds - talk) 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

yes i do agree with every one that seems to have commented back, this is something i feel very strongly about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoomtingOx (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Civil unions by definition are civil not religious

The article under Same-Sex Marriages states "Some religious denominations ceremonially perform civil unions, and recognize them as essentially equivalent to marriage.[citation needed]" By definition Civil Unions are performed as a legal agreement, not a religious agreement.
Cit: civil union. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved May 29, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil+union
I think that it should read "Some religious denominations ceremonially perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or commitment ceremonies, and recognize them as equivalent to marriage." It might be accurate to add something to the effect, "Civil unions, although legal in nature, may also be celebrated in some religious denominations." Civil union is specifically a term to distinguish unions recognized by the state from religious unions. I don't know how to document this - my church recognizes same-sex marriage - and will call it marriage, but I can't find a citation.
Still a newbie. Vectoriousd (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

removing section "Hypergyny and isogamy"

Jimmy Wales said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

The section "Hypergyny and isogamy" is a perfect example of this. It is pseudo information full of 'citation needed' tags. Not only is this section unverifiable, it also represents a (feminist) point of view. I will follow the advice of Jimmy Wales and aggressively remove this section daily until sources are provided and points of view are removed. Fschmidt2 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reasons for deleting the first time sounded a little odd. Admittedly, the current sources are poor, but could you be a little more specific about the POV you see here? And what exactly is "pseudo information"? There was very little that was "feminist" about the text and hypergyny is definitely an anthropological concept. The first five entries off a quick JSTOR search reveal that the term is used in various studies or commentaries about kinship and marriage:

Royal Incest and Inclusive Fitness. Pierre L. Van Den Berghe, Gene M. Mesher. American Ethnologist, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1980), pp. 300-317

Hunters and Farmers: Then and Now. Katherine A. Spielmann, James F. Eder. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23, (1994), pp. 303-323

Review: [untitled]. Linda Hitchcox. Reviewed work(s): Population Dynamics of a Philippine Rain Forest People: The San Ildefonso Agta by John D. Early; Thomas N. Headland. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 649-650

The Sociobiological Model and the Medieval Evidence. Susan Mosher Stuard. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1984), pp. 410-413

Human Behavioral Ecology. Lee Cronk. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20, (1991), pp. 25-53.

--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(I am not sure how to reply to a discussion in Wikipedia, so I will append my comment.) I will dissect the section in question below.

"In social science, hypergyny refers to the phenomenon in which women tend to marry men who are of slightly higher social status."

Common sense tells one that this isn't possible because men and women are on average of the same social status. Women may desire to marry men of higher status, but in general, this desire cannot be met.

I am not a sociologist but I know that this academic field is plagued with feminists. I don't care what anyone's point of view is, but when they make up words like "hypergyny" (which is only used by academic sociologists), the word should at least make common sense and be backed by evidence. "Hypergyny" fails on both counts.

"In the U.S., women’s hypergynous tendencies allow higher status men to be functionally polygynous."

Why only in the US? Not only in the US, and not only among humans, but generally, high status males reproduce more.

"In some cultures, women are expected to marry a spouse who is more economically, socially, or politically powerful. Known as hypergyny, this practice is common in India."

This makes it sound odd for women to desire higher status men, while the truth is that this is essentially universal, just as it is universal that men prefer physically attractive women.

"Though an expected social norm in America, hypergyny is slowly being replaced by isogamy, marriage between equals, and the marrying 'down' of woman. Many anthropologists ascribe this to increased gender equality between women and men."

This is pure nonsense. As I pointed out, it is simply impossible for women on average to marry up. No evidence is provided for the above statement because it is impossible for it to be true. The above is simply a lie designed to make it sound like feminism in America has promoted equality, when nothing could be further from the truth.

My point of view, which probably does not belong in Wikipedia, is that feminism has caused American women to become sluts, having lots of sex with high status men outside of marriage and ignoring men of their own status. I can also reference academic papers backing up this point of view. If the section on "hypergyny and isogamy" is to remain, then I should be free to add a section expressing my point of view.

Fschmidt2 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here's the thing: You cannot edit Wikipedia based on "what you know." All content has to be drawn from reliable sources, which a scholarly journal certainly is. Whether it's an academic term or not is irrelevant to whether it belongs in the article.

Just as an aside, arguing against peer-reviewed published works on the use of the hypergyny concept on the basis that "you know differently" is not going to work here. I do agree with you though that some better sources are necessary for the statements in the second paragraph.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The only source sited in the whole section is a book review published on the web, not an academic paper with peer review. This is hardly a reliable source.

If the term "hypergyny" is going to be used, it should be made clear that it is an term of academic sociologists, and not a term in general use. And there should be at least one reference to a truly reliable source containing the term.

I just noticed that the second paragraph of this section is a copy of a blog entry.

Fschmidt2 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to replace this text, there are numerous reliable sources that use the term hypergyny. One of the sources I gave above would probably work. We do agree, however, on the need for sources and the second paragraph, which fails WP:V--though I'm pretty sure the blog took from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I'm not really clear on why it matters whether ~~Joe~~John Q. Public uses the term or not; it's not like we do this with articles relevant to physics, geology or biology. (PS: Since you hinted that you're new to talk pages, I took the liberty of indenting your responses with a couple of colons; adding a colon to each subsequent response nests the exchange and makes it easier to follow.) --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding above: I don't see how this is even remotedly true. In fact, it is common knowledge that there are both men and women in higher and lower social status levels all over the planet, and it is actually quite common for anybody to desire to "marry up," and sometimes they manage to do so. If you are not aware of this, I think you just don't want to be aware of it. It is very hard to miss unless you are really trying to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In articles that cover controversial topics (like this one), if the article has poor source citations (like this one ;-) it is important not to eliminate any of the existing source citations without extremely good reason. I would encourage Fschmidt2 to read the cited source in the section being removed, and find at least one citable bit of information in it. Then present that information in the article and cite the source, eliminating all the unsourced material from the section. It isn't particularly the job of Fschmidt2 to do this, but it gets what Fschmidt2 apparently wants: less unsourced material in the article.

It certainly isn't Fschmidt2's job to add source citations to this material in the article: that job falls squarely on the shoulders of anyone who wants the material to remain! (sdsds - talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right--I wasn't trying to suggest that was his job, though I guess it could have seemed that way. I was pointing out that hypergyny exists in numerous WP:RS and that anyone who thinks it belongs in the article could justifiably add some of that material back in (properly cited). What I left unsaid was that I probably won't be doing that because I'm busy and don't really care to read up on hypergyny.

Regarding the source you mention, closer inspection reveals that it's a student report or something of the sort on a book. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think it's appropriate to use it here at all. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, those are good points! If the cited work does not qualify as a reliable source, then it is reasonable to remove it. At that point, the entire section is unreferenced and thus it is equally reasonable to eliminate it entirely! (I note as an aside that the book mentioned by the source does, according to Amazon's online book-searching software, contain 6 pages with references to hypergyny. But even so: that wasn't the work being cited! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

if anyone has doubts about hypergyny then one should simply look at the major pushes that exist for women to be stupid, lest no man want them, and the unique scorn with which smart women are often treated. That is the reverse partner of hypogyny, the desire of men to marry a woman inferior to themselves. it happens daily. Why wont most men marry a woman with a PhD? why not? whats wrong with it? I have no problems with it! 74.138.78.83 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to Fleet Marriage article

I have restored the wikilink to the Fleet Marriage article. What was the motivation for removing this? It seems directly relevant to the topic of recognition of marraiges by the church or state. Is there some dispute that Fleet Marriages existed? (sdsds - talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and consensus

I wonder if there's some misunderstanding: are all active editors aware of how incredibly controversial society (and wikipedians) find the topics covered by this article? Please re-read the banner at the top of this talk page, and reproduced here:

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please take a moment to glance through the archives of this talk page if you're in any doubt! This can't be about lots of editors insisting on the right to be WP:BOLD. Please can we work toward concensus on changes before being reckless? (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredible how obstructionist contributors to this article are. The article needs a lot of work to clean it up, and is flagged as such, and note that every time someone makes any attempt in that direction, it is frustrated. I have tried several times to crack through the barrier, without much to show for the effort. I understand that the article covers an area which is sensitive to many people, but if contributors remain objective there should not be the stand-off that has developed. I note my attempt to clean-up the section on Recognition, as an example of worthwhile clean-up which has been reverted several time. Good luck to those who are still there.Ewawer (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ewawer, please stop making edits to this article that violate WP:NPOV, which is an official English Wikipedia policy. (sdsds - talk) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an addition that may add more to your page about marriage, how about a section of remarriage? How remarriage works after a divorce or after a death. What do you think? I do have some information on how remarriage is done, if adding this section would be useful to the page. (Bmhans3 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

definition

I would suggest that the definition in the first sentence should state that marriage is normally between two people. Also, in the fourth sentence, instead of saying "It is often created by a contract or through civil processes" it should say that it is often "considered to be" a contract or created through civil processes. What do you think? Bwrs (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't clear the term "normally" could be used within the constraints of WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS. I attempted (for months) to introduce a phrase like "most frequently between one man and one woman," but I don't have statistics to support that frequency claim, and even so other editors might assert that mentioning that "detail" in the lead is inherently POV. (sdsds - talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Normal" is a major POV issue, because its opposite, "abnormal," has clearly negative connotations when used in reference to a person's way of life. Terms like "most often" and "most frequently" are, of course, quantitative matters and would need to reflect worldwide statistics. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

6 countries in the world currently allow same sex marriage. The other 200 or so don`t. Andycjp (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Information on marriage restrictions is already present in the main body of the article. Feel free to elaborate on it if you'd like. But the legal rarity of homosexual and/or polygamous marriages is not essential to the definition of marriage. There are other common aspects of marriage that are not so fundamental that they belong in the very first line. For example, most marriages occur between living, consenting, human adults (no, I'm not being facetious or grasping at straws by mentioning "living" and "human"--there are cultures in which people have been wedded to animals, inanimate objects, the deceased, or even the functioning body parts of living individuals; I can source this if you'd like). Plenty of marriages vary from plenty of norms and majorities. If the heterosexual norm is important enough to mention in the very first sentence of the article, then why aren't any others so important? Sure, marriage restrictions should be discussed. But to imply that the norm or the majority equals the definition, in the very first line, is to violate WP:POV, and likely to offend the minority from the outset. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the definition is to include misconceptions of marriage such as homosexual unions and contracts with multiple people, why not then include the misconceptions of marriage caused by people "marrying" goats and chairs? It is hypocrisy for this definition to lie about same-sex couples being included in the definition, but then not include the other common misconceptions. Suggested new definition: "Marriage is a union between two objects." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The introduction, "Marriage is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as 'the formal union of a man and a woman'," is not only a WP:POV but also a blatant WP:NAD violation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Note that it also conflicts with WP:CSB, a project rather than a policy but still highly worth reading in this instance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the edit summary from the first time I reverted your Concise Oxford Dictionary bit: The Concise Oxford Dictionary may give a definition of marriage, but it does not DEFINE marriage, laws and doctrine do. If you mean to use it as a source, give edition and page. --WikidSmaht (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it can be said that the definition of marriage as a "union of a man and a woman" is a POV. It is the normal definition (or at least part of it) of marriage. A definition of marriage as a "union of two people" is not wrong, or a POV, either. Nor is a definition of marriage as "a union of a man or a woman and a person of a same or opposite sex" isn't a POV either, though it may be an incorrect defintion, depending on ones POV.203.184.55.172 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So, no definition is a POV (in other words, I take it, no definition is right according to one's POV), although a definition can be wrong according to one's POV? *Scratches head.* Roger that... Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition is means to describing a "word" from it's origin to be specific to the word itself and not to describe "symantic" changes to a word by means of popular belief. Therefore the actual origin of a word and it's unabridged original meaning shall remain the definition of that word. This is not a POV issue. The definition of a word therefore should not be changed by "POV". Altered uses and "symantic" changes including references to the usage of such altered words by means of example of the original word with a variance of original definition might be mentioned but not accutely needed to show the definition of the word. What should be placed in the definition is the word and it's "original definition" and the fact of variable uses. There may be contraversy over placing links or even mention of the variable uses and relevancy to the definition of the word within this context as the origin of the word is defined and defined to allow no altering of the words meaning. Therefore there can be no alternative definition of such word. I would suggest that whom ever does edit the definition to be correct should reference the actuall origin and source that definition. My opinion on this discussion is that "Homosexuals" and "Polygamists" should define their own specific word(s) without use of the predefined and exclusive word "Marriage" as by definition "Marriage" does not apply to them. NOTE: IF YOU DISAGREE, PLEASE DO NOT EDIT or CHANGE MY WORDS - Make your point and allow others to read both of our arguments. 208.127.178.3 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)<--ENOCHIAN_BORG

I have since established a log in account so as to be identifiable. ENOCHIAN BORG (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no one is going to edit what you said on a talk page, that is frowned upon here. You might want to acquaint yourself with conventions, guidelines, and policies on the Wikipedia. Second, what you said is absolute bullshit. Your definition of definition is... queer, to say the least. Wikipedia defines a definition as “a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase” - “original meaning” is not part of the definition of definition, and never was. If definitions were immutable, dictionaries would never update any of their entries to include modern usages, but they do. Moreover, many words in English are completely divorced from their origins at this point, but no one debates the validity of their present usages. Language changes and adapts to real-world circumstances. GET OVER IT. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning, no king or ruler nor his/her beaurocracy had any hand in the process of establishing a recognized communal living arrangement. It was defined and controlled by the shaman, priest, imam, or whatever other theological entity existed in a particular area. Governmental registering and/or control is relatively recent in history, and I personally take exception to the idea that this type of usurption makes that control of the definition to even seem legitimate.216.175.79.174 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)REV. RAYMOND DAVIES June 28, 2008

A lot of things that were once controlled by religious officials are now civil matters, secular society finds value in this. Take as much exception as you want, Rev, it doesn’t change the facts. The fact that cultural developments are relatively recent doesn’t make them invalid. Culture is always changing. Out of curiousity, are you suggesting that a marriage not religiously blessed is not a real marriage? Also, note that a number of religious bodies have changed their definitions of marriage as well. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just think it's funny that after all these years, the issues covered in the essay WP:NOTLEX are still being rehashed for this article. MPS (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "personal" from the definition (sorry for not reaching consensus first). This is because often marriage is a public matter as well as a personal matter. In many cultures, including mine, one marries into the family, and is therefore also a family union. I guess I did not seek consensus first because it is so painstakingly obvious to me that the "personal" restriction is not a universally shared restriction. I would suggest that it is not even a commonly shared restriction. Sauve.sean (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC).

It is worthwhile to note the etymology of the word when discussing the definition.

MATRIMONIO (masculine noun, i.e. ‘ IL matrimonio’ in the singular; ‘I matrimoni’ in the plural). It derives from classical Latin ‘matrimonium’(neuter noun) just meaning ‘marriage’ and related to the noun ‘mater’ (mother) as ‘matrimonium’ was used as a legal term opposing to concubinage and indicates that children born of this marriage (matrimonium) were legitimate.

It is thus self-evident that the word marriage can not be used to describe male homosexuals, since they can not have children. Also, it can not refer to homosexual females since they can not have children within the marriage.

I now consider the consensus to be drawn to the side of a traditional definition. Those in favor of homosexuals being included in the definition will not only have to change societal views, but also come up with some other word entirely. There is no real dispute in the definition other than a created one. The neutrality of the traditional definition is not really in question here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You may consider consensus drawn in any way you want, however, it is obviously not so. Your edits have been reverted, please make your case on the talk page before trying to impose consensus on a controversial article. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

there certaintly is not consetn for the definition that was reverted back to. Err on the side of tradition rather than people's imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consensus exists. Try and change consensus before making controversial edits, please. You are ignoring the "This is "controversial." Do not change this without first reaching consensus on the talk page." message on the main page to make your changes, please stop edit warring and make your case here. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not consensus. You are just saying that there is consensus, hoping that people will believe you. There is not consensus. Your "definition" does not even match the Oxford definition. I changed the definition because there is not consensus on it and it should not stand as it is. Whoever added the definition and then the edit warning did so by ignoring the arguments against the definition at the time the warning was placed.

Comment to counter so to speak the Oxford dictionary defintion of Marriage, below, the Merriam-Webster definition:

Main Entry:

mar·riage

Pronunciation:

\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Date:

14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Can't use the dictionary form here, two respected dictionaries use difference definitions. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring up again the issue of the "personal" restriction in the definition. Marriage is not always personal. I can guess that the word "personal" was injected by activists trying to help protect their right to privacy. I would agree with them that were they wishing to make their own personal marriage personal, they could do so. But it must be pointed out that not everyone wishes fro their union to be a deeply personal one. Indeed, this is a highly American idea of individualism, and even many Americans would disagree. Sauve.sean (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with the removal of personal. It's not always a personal, nor is it a norm, nor is it odd. Often times, it's not personal, but rather a Societal thing (ie Marriage in the UK with the Monarchy, Marriage in tribal areas to build tribal relations, etc). That maybe should go. And about the not matching the definition, see the Merriam-Webster Definition I placed below. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording is awkward but my reading of the use of the word "personal" was to distinguish marriage from a business relationship - not as some kind of attempt to promote a view of marriage as a totally private arrangement. -- SiobhanHansa 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some times marriage is a business relationship though, and I doubt that was the author's intent. Not a biggy, just thought I'll leave that up for discussion.Sauve.sean (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right on the original author's intent - I don't know. I was just pointing out how it read to me. The distinction I read was more like the trying to overcome the difficulty when you introduce someone as your "partner" (i.e. what sort of partner are they to you? Business? Lover? What does it mean?) Even though marriages have often been made for business reasons that doesn't make it the same thing as a marriage actually being a business realionship. In cases where it is used for business it's rarely a business deal between the two people getting married - normally it's the parents consolidating their business relationship by introducing a personal relationship between relations into the deal. You can consolidate a business relationship in this way, but it's not a business relationship, it's adding in the extra component of a pseudo blood tie. So I think the distinction is valid if anyone were actually to be confused (which I think is a different matter and not one I'm convinced of). -- SiobhanHansa 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Although on occasion marriages are made for impersonal reasons, those examples are the rare exception and not the societal norm. I agree with leaving the word "personal" in the lead as SH stated above, to separate marriage from a business relationship. Dayewalker (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with what you define as "rare" and "societal norm". Which society? Where is it rare? Certainly not rare in Central Africa, The Middle East, Indonesia, Asia, where marriages to form a business/political/power relation are quite common, and quite within the societal norms. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Hmm. Good point, I was thinking more Ameri-centric on this one, I suppose. My question in relation to your answer, once a union of marriage is performed, wouldn't it then become a personal union? Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What is (OD)? Is it the reason you didn’t indent your reply? Anyway, define a “personal” union. Marriage in such situations is not necessarily private nor meaninful to the married parties, which is how I would probably define it. I am of the mind that we should either remove the word “personal” or replace it with the old description: “socially, religiously, or legally recognized”.--WikidSmaht (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the archives and found this old lead paragraph. Any thoughts on a reversion?

A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between people. Most marriages involve one woman and one man^[1]^[2], although people of the same sex may marry, and some marriages involve more than two people. The social, religious, or legal purposes of the relationship can vary widely, and may include: companionship or love; legitimizing sexual relations and procreation; the formation of a family unit; social and economic stability; education and development of offspring; and transfer of property.^[3]^[4] The feminine term for a married person is wife, the masculine is husband, and a generic term for either is spouse.
A marriage may be celebrated with a wedding ceremony,^[5] which may be performed by a religious officiator or through a similar government-sanctioned secular process. Despite the ceremony being led by somone else, most religious traditions maintain that the marriage itself is mediated between the two individuals themselves using vows, with the gathered witnessing, affirming, and legitimizing the marriage. 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.
From 2001, the legal concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage in several countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, as well as in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Civil unions are a separate form of legal union open to couples of the same sex, and they are currently recognized in 24 countries and 6 U.S. states. The legality of such unions vary by region. Like marriages, civil unions are performed and recognized by some religious denominations.
Polygamous marriage, in which a person takes more than one spouse, is accepted in a majority of global social traditions, though it is far less common than monogamy. Polygyny is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry is rare.^[6] Some marriages include more than two people, with multiple spouses being married to multiple spouses, a form of relationship sometimes called group marriage. This unique type of polygamy is rare.^[7]

So I just wanted to thank everyone for continuing to seek WP:NPOV and all that other wiki-stuff that guides our edits and reverts and edits and reverts. I think we are taking 100,000 steps forward and 50,000 steps back, which equals slow and steady progress.

(((Credit goes to MPS)))Sauve.sean (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No. That old intro contains too many details which are not necessary for the intro, being covered adequately in their own sections. Also, I removed the comment about “Most marriages” a while back because the sources cited did not support the statement, and even though common sense does, reliable sources are required on the Wikipedia. However, I have long thought that “personal” no longer belonged after someone declared that unions are “of” things/people, rather than “between” them. Since marriages are not always personal, we should either remove the word “personal” or replace it with the old description: “socially, religiously, or legally recognized”.--WikidSmaht (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the change that was just made. Very NPOV, and takes all aspects into consideration. It really breaks down into just that:a social, legal, and religious event. That's about it. Thanks for the bold edit :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This new intro is kind of ok, but:

it uses a slash between religious and spiritual. That style does not conform to WP:MOS.
it uses "or", whereas "and" might be more appropriate.

Other than those quibbles, it looks pretty good. (sdsds - talk) 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Left the "or" because it could be any one, but not necessarily more than one. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If a definition is to be used in the opening paragraph, it should reflect the fact that in most parts of the world, marriage is defined legally, culturally, and religiously as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. This is fact, and is not controversial. Any disagreements to this are obviously violations of NPOV. Sauve.sean (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the "this is controversial" flag on the definition does not mean that the definition as it stands (at any time) has concensus or is not itself subject to controversy. I seen a couple of users imply such a thing, and it is patently false. May I suggest that the wording of the flag be changed. Simply put, controversy does not equate to consensus. Especially when article "trolls" have established a false consensus by reverting all contributions that they wish to ignore.Sauve.sean (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show that no attempt to engage me in discussion about the article have been made despite several edit reverts, a block, and two weeks time. This article has thus been submitted for community review because of a concubine of biased "contributors" engaging in edit revert vandalism.Sauve.sean (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Suava.sean, let me say this with regard to your assumptions about the definition of marriage. Just because something has been the case for a certain period of time and is considered by a majority to be so, does not in and of itself make it so. Thus, even though at this point in time, the bulk of countries in the world and states within the United States consider marriage to be "between one man and one woman" does not mean that is an adequate definition, because it does not encompass the possibility that marriage can be between two members of the same-sex in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Thus, it is not a fact that marriage is between one man and one woman, because in some places marriage can be both heterosexual and homosexual. As well, some cultures legally and socially sanction polygamy and polyandry, thus, a world-view of the definition of marriage would be drastically denied to those in the world that define marriage as monogamous and/or polygamous/polyandrous. Origins of words do not necessarily pertain to a cultural institution that is evolving and changing throughout time. It is interesting to know how the word marriage was constructed in various languages, etc. However, it is not the definitive answer to the question of how to define marriage so as to accurately and inclusively portray it throughout the world and throughout different historical periods.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By consent

The current revision of the article includes the phrase, "Prior to 1545 all Christian marriages in Europe were by consent." This reads like an attempt to deny the reality of forced marriages. At a minimum this needs to be "clarified" or "tidied up". (sdsds - talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. "All" is one of those too-convenient words ("officially" is another) that I'd sometimes like to see voluntarily banned from the human vocabulary. Anyway, I've added a fact tag to that statement. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV-dispute tag

I am uncertain what dispute this tag atop the article refers to. If there is no specific dispute that is being actively negotiated, I'd like to remove the tag. My feeling is that someone stuck it there because marriage is a controversial issue, but the tag is a temporary measure, meant to address specific problems. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Depending on your understanding of "ongoing", there probably is "an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not." This is reflected by the occasional (usually anon IP) modification to the definition. Clearly some editors feel "one man, one woman" is integral to the definition of "marriage" and that anything else is POV-pushing by members of a LGBT-leaning "cabal" that controls Wikipedia. Other editors feel this so-called traditional marriage movement view is itself a clear POV-pushing affront to a common-sense definition of marriage.

Some of the editors who, over the course of years, have pushed the "traditional" view into this article have themselves been "pushed" out of Wikipedia (i.e. banned). That wouldn't however stop those editors from regularly returning to modify the article from anon IP addresses, if they chose to do so.

Personally I don't need the tag there at the top of the article (even tho' twas I who placed it there). So long as the editors who want to build concensus are all aware of the controversy, and discuss potentially controversial changes aforehand, we should be just find without the tag, neh? We really want to think, though, about how we want readers to perceive the article when they approach it for the first time. Do we feel the article usually meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy criterion? (sdsds - talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, IMO, the fact that some anon editors like to make drive by insertions of "traditional marriage" doesn't mean there is a POV bias (that is not to say that the article does not have a POV--it actually reflects a very Western and even US-centric perspective on marriage, especially in the debates over "traditional marriage" that it attracts). Those editors were banned, as I recall, because they refused to respect consensus that developed with regard to how the lead should deal with definitions of marriage. The fact that some IP-editors still find it difficult to respect this consensus (or are not aware of it) does not in and of itself indicate an NPOV problem. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" cannot replace objective truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.214.224 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. No amount of arguing and edit-warring on the Wikipedia will change the objective truth that marriage has existed for ages in more than one form, and currently exists in several forms other than the one you prefer. --WikidSmaht (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus", nor any wish to alter the definition of marriage, cannot replace the objective truth that marriage is between a man and a woman. 75.168.206.122 (talk)

You appear to be a bit deluded as to the meanings of “objective” and “truth”. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition is not about what marriage was in other languages, since those are not marriages, but supra-present pseduo-equivalents of marriage, not marriage itself as it currently stands. The past is not what is, but what was. The definition uses the word "is" not "was." Lets keep this in keeping with the reality of the thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauve.sean (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? “Marriage” is not defined only by the English word. That would be ludicrous! Nor is it defined solely by the Christian concept of it - few things are, even from the limited number of things that Christianity invented - of which marriage is not one.. And A) history is an important part of an encyclopedia plus B) I said “marriage has existed for ages [...] and currently exists” in multiple forms. So the distinction is accurate in both historical and contemporary contexts. Remember to sign talk page comments. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I've semi-protected the article for a few hours in response to tonight's attempts by a dynamic anon to force a change by brute force. Not kosher. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither is the article. It is treif, Wikibureaucrat. 75.168.214.67 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have a strong opinion. It is not, however, the only one. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and should favor any one view. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a bureaucratic dystopia, where objective truth is subject to revocation upon "consensus".75.168.211.99 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be a bit confused about the meanings of “objective” and “truth”. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No confusion here about objective truth. 75.168.221.28 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see #4. It would really be appreciated for you to take these major changes and removal of sourced content here instead of using an edit summary to explain why it's not needed. ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 05:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a consensus does not imply that there is no POV dispute. Also, if certain points of view are excluded from participation in a discussion, then no consensus exists. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this anon, to a degree. The former bit especially. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrections to the edits by the "same-sex marriage POV pushers" on Wikipedia are defined as "excessive vandalism". The only "consensus" here is the control of information by a limited socio-political demographic of internet users. 75.168.202.166 (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Consensus exists here. If you'd like to change it, start talking and stop trying to change this page through sheer tenacious edit warring. You've already been blocked once tonight and gotten the article semi-protected. Why don't you try and talk it over? Dayewalker (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Our side already tried talking. There is no resolution with the "same-sex marriage POV pushers". Eventually, the traditionalists and editors that believe in objective truth get blocked, then banned. 75.168.208.75 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to talk it over on the discussion page and just keep trying to edit war your opinion onto the page without even trying to politely discuss things, your disruptive edits will be reverted and you will be blocked. If you discuss it here civilly and try and make your point with reliable sources, consensus could be changed. The first step is to act civilly, which last night's edit war-a-palooza certainly was not. Dayewalker (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You got *that* right. This *is* war. 75.168.220.204 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. If there is a NPOV issue with this article, could the people who placed the tag up at leat be courteous enough to cite specific examples or remove the NPOVness itself? Because as far as I can see, there isn't any bias and cannot work to remove said bias if I cannot see it. Wolf ODonnell (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chair Jumping?///Church originaly against marriage?

My teachers used to tell me that people used to marry by jumping over chairs in front of a crowd. Anyone have anything on that?

I've read & heard on TV that the church didn't sanction marriage until they found out they could make a fortune of of it. Possibly has something to do with Luke 2o: 34-37 where Jesus says that no one who marries is worthy of heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Luke 20: is actually about children not so much sanctioning marriages and Jesus never said those who marry won't enter heaven. Thats ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.84.92 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

LUKE 20: 34-37:

Jesus said to them: "the men and women of this world marry; but those judged worthy of a place in the other world and of the resurrection of the dead, do not marry, for they are not subject to death any longer. They are like angels; they are sons of God, because they share in the resurrection." Obviously no where it says that Jesus is against marriage. He's talking about the people in Heaven, who don't have a reason to marry any more. 98.226.79.168 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

History Section

Let me begin by repeating a comment I think was made earlier that it is quite strange that anyone would place a NPOV tag on an article that contains so much unsourced material. I mean, I think the world can survive without a Wikipedia entry on marriage until someone who knows enough on the subject signs up to write the article. Worse yet, when sources are actually cited to support a statement, the evidence does not adequately reflect the statement. Case in point: "A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.[9]" Do you know what one of these supposed marriages is? It is between the demented sadist Nero and a boy he had castrated in an effort to turn the boy into a woman. To use this instance without mentioning the brutality involved in the relationship is academic dishonesty, particularly when the same section mentions the relative rights of Greek and Roman brides. If the rights of these brides are historically relevant, the extreme nature of this original same-sex marriage is also historically relevant. Interestedsister (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've altered this section so that it more accurately reflects the supporting references provided. Martial's 12.42 specifically documents the perception that same-sex marriage was an aberration: "The bearded Callistratus has been taken in marriage . . . in the same way as a virgin is usually taken in marriage by her husband." If the Romans are going to be cited as forebears of the concept of same-sex marriage in Europe, it is relevant that their wide acceptance of same-sex relationships never evolved into the concept of same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Interestedsister (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This section does indeed seem to be very poorly referenced. The citations are far from those any historian working in this area would use. Where are the references to core works like those of Jack Goody and Georges Duby? Some of it merely repeats modern popular belief rather than researched ideas. The medieval and early modern periods are dealt with in a trivial manner. anthro-cs 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy vs Bigamy

I see bigamy as a subset of polygamy, and thus don't support the apparently undiscussed change of this section's name. (sdsds - talk) 05:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Annulment

Where deos it comment in the Bible on Divorce or Annulment, and why is there no reference on the main page?

I cannot accept any man made or cultural understandings on such matters without scripture for back up. I am also not clear on the subject of marriage (in spiritual terms), as Adam and Eve were married without a clergyman or witnesses other than God. Does this mean that two people can be married as long as they pronounce it in front of God and each other, does God hold people to this kind of spiritual agreement/contract, or would this be fornication?

Some people could see the initial marriage ritual as the first sexual relations that an individual has with another(of course in mutual love and between man and woman), this physical/spiritual bond lasting until death. The rest of the journey being love, respect and duty to each other and children. Not a peice of paper that which ever State you live in recognises, ordained by a clergyman that might not of been appointed by God but by man in a Church that is physical only,(according to scripture two or more people discussing the matters of God will have Him present and that makes a Church).

Is this witness enough?

The reason why I am asking this is because there is an increasing amount of people who are getting married for legal reasons rather than genuine ones, there are also legal complications which are unecessarily complicated, especially to do with Divorce or Annulment. The Laws seem to be unfair and can be taken advantage of by selfish and cruel hearted people.

Pre-nups should be the other way round as to ensure a person is not getting married to you for your wealth. To make someone sign a pre-nup as it stands only proves that you don't trust them.

Can we bypass the Law of the land and still respect Gods Law? 195.171.94.254 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annulment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.94.254 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to ask such a question - you should find a forum that accepts the religious point of view you are asking from. This page is to discuss improvements to the article in keeping with (among other things) Wikipedia's neutral point of view, which does not take the perspective that there is necessarily any such thing as "Gods Law". -- SiobhanHansa 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

May I add that a discussion of marriage must include historic examples from other contexts than a Judeo-Christian one? Marriage is a world-wide cultural phenomenon that exists in every religion, not just those that ascribe to the Bible. While God may have his own ideas about what marriage is, surely it is relevant to discuss how marriage has evolved universally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.157.3 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

I have been reading through the discussions on same sex marriage on this page and I don't really understand the confusion on the matter. Of course if you are planning or involved in such a marriage you will be naturally opposed to the idea that same sex marriages are wrong.

But if you are open minded and read scripture (in this case the Bible) according to the author and NOT your own predetermined misconceptions it clearly states on numerous occasions that same sex relationships are wrong. Therefore same sex marriages are void in the eyes of God whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise.

Of course there are civil partnerships and States that approve of such marriages, but this does not mean that God changes his viewpoint. If you are looking for Gods approval there are standards that have to be met, one of the basic standards is that the relationship has to be between a man and a woman (having a sex change does not count).

People may try to change the Law of God as if Gods laws are outdated, even men of the cloth are changing laws as if it is they're law to change. These Clergymen have probably been assigned by men and NOT by God, therefore the famous words "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do" apply here.

From reading the Bible I get a strong sense that every physical reality is a symbolic meaning of a spiritual reality, in the case of marriage this is symbolic of the relationship between mankind and God. It's sacredness is based on love, respect and duty for one and other under Gods plan. This may initially look like people of the same sex can do this too, but there are other complications. For example God expects our relationships to be "fruitful" (or at least have the possibility) like the works of the left and right hand.

The left hand and the right hand both are different but yet work as one, this is a relationship. One hand is dominant, stronger, better at doing things but the relationship is based on equal respect to both hands, for the weaker hand holds down the fort and allows the stronger hand to work more efficiently.

Just like how mankind is supposed to be submissive to God, woman is supposed to be submissive to man, but not for obedience alone, love respect and duty comes into it on both sides, so even if one is dominant the other is equal and complimentry. If mankind is not submissive to God it has the same result as woman not being submissive to man, they will live apart. In the case of the "fallen angel" he attempted to become the dominant hand and was struck out of heaven. This is what happens when you assert yourself against God.

Same sex relationships are largely "fruitless" therefore cannot be holy because God is not "fruitless" and nothing God makes is "fruitless", same sex sexual relations come under "fornication".

According to the Bible, whether "married" or not this is sexual immorality, a perverse behaviour, hence sinful, thus leading to spiritual death.

God gives us a choice between ever lasting life and death. It is us who chooses between our desires and Gods desires. If the two don't match one dies, you guess which one.

I understand that many people may be offended by this and I can assure you that this is not my intention. It's just a cold hard fact that you can't be both holy and homosexual according to the principles in the Bible, Qaran (sorry if misspelled) and the Torah.

A popular belief is just that, popular; it is not necessarily correct. Times come and go but God remains the same.

Please remember not to judge, it is not your job. Just make sure that you are doing the right thing, regardless of the differences, don't harm others. God bless you all. 195.171.94.254 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Truth. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, God remains the same and non-existing being. ;-) --131.159.0.7 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

195.171.94.254 wrote: "I have been reading through the discussions on same sex marriage on this page and I don't really understand the confusion on the matter." I stopped reading immediately after that, and scanned the remainder of the message for question marks. Finding none, I concluded that 195.171.94.254 does not want to understand the confusion. 195.171.94.254, it is probably better for you to refrain from editing the article until you do "understand the confusion." Once you have understood it, you may be able to contribute to the article in a way consistent with the Neutral point of view policy, which is one of Wikipedia's Five pillars. (sdsds - talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Complete and utter crap. This article has nothing to do with anything but your wish to redefine marriage. Note to new editors: try and create a new article titled "Traditional Marriage" - to provide balance against the "Same Sex Marriage" article - and let's see how long you last on WikiDystopia. 75.168.220.204 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sup. I thought marriage or even civil unions had existed long before there had ever been religion. It was merely what lead to the union of 2 beings and their commitment to raise a child. Today, marriage has been redefined, as women now have more freedom and independence and we can now marry with members of other cultures. There are many single-parents trying to do their best at raising a child, and there are hundreds of same-sex couples raising children who can be as mentally and emotionally healthy as a regular child raised by heterosexual couples. What same-sex couples NEED are ALL(not some of) the benefits and protection by the law FOR FREE so they can be treated as equally as any regular household. If you deny them these rights, then aren't you violating the 14th amendment? You ARE in fact, treating U.S. citizens unequally by denying them these benefits which anyone except homosexuals can get. How would YOU feel if you can never get married to anyone you love? You would feel depressed and treated unfairly. You might feel loose and out of control because marriage is supposed to force commitment between 2 people. When they can't have that, then OF COURSE they'd be promiscuous. I do believe that marriage is not about procreation, because heterosexual couples who cannot procreate can marry, even heterosexual couples in which one of the members is in prison can still get married, the only people who can't marry and can consent are homosexual couples. Don't give me any of that bull about "oh if we allow same-sex marriage, then we will have to allow children and animals and inanimate objects to marry". Can children consent? NO. Can animals consent? NO. Can inanimate objects consent? NO. Can homosexuals consent? Yes. Civil Unions aren't marriages, in my opinion, because they are not recognized by the government at all. It shouldn't bother Matt and Mary when Bill and Bob get married. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage unless you want it to be. It is completely optional. Marriage isn't a right(it's a privilege), but still, I thought there is something called the First Amendment. Anyways, what is the "right" religion? I think other people might disagree with you there and want to pick a fight with you. Since no one wants that, then marriage is and has always been free of religion. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't believe the world was created in 7 days. What I do believe is that fossils exist.--69.181.185.194 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For me, an article on marriage should support and include most if not all available information on "marriage" as it has existed throughout history and today. The fact is that an article on marriage must, by virtue of being objective, state that some people believe that marriage can exist between people of the same sex. Whether this is your personal faith is not at question, nor at risk, because that statement merely reports the existence of alternative interpretations. Any validation of these interpretations must be handled personally, between yourself and those you love and trust. But I do not think it is valid to say that what someone else believes is wrong, because, for them, it is right. Wikipedia should be a forum where people can consider all possibilities so that their minds can be equipped to evaluate as many interpretations as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.157.3 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Legislatures have passed and doubtless will continue to pass laws in favor or same sex marriage. Has any state or country, in an open referendum endorsed this redefinition? California rejected it. Not aware that any other state was given that opportunity to weigh in. Of course, when imaginative justices "find" it in a constitution which, if it mentions such things, does it in a disparaging way, whaddya going to do when they "order" the legislature to pass a law? 173.79.111.95 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What does this question have to do with the article? Are you saying that because a referendum to ban same-sex marriage passed in California that any mention of the subject should be erased from this encyclopedia? Campagne (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's something about how God doesn't want us to do something. Still not sure which exact human being decided what God said, and which other humans decided the first human was right to say so. Depends what book you read I suppose. Agree that this has little to do with the article. except for the obvious fact that same-sex marriage is just a bit controversial. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Annulment return comment.

I can accept that this may not be a secular approach but this is a "discussion" page on a "religious" topic.

If this is just on the improvement of the page you could take my point on having references to the common religious scriptures like you do with other topics. What is the point of having a non-bias discussion page if you can't say what is on your mind (of course without being purposly offensive).

By the way I am not religeous. Just factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.94.254 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not religious, but great with "God bless you all" above. --131.159.0.7 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Marriage, Divorce & Annulment PS.

PS. All you need to do in order to be "neutral" is to phrase things such as "according to BLANK" and "from the BLANK point of view" so as people know where you are coming from. If people get offended by fact then what are they doing on this website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.94.254 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Links

Can we have links to the religeous books pertaining marriage, divorce and annulments on the main page?

It would be interesting to find out what the books says. 195.171.94.254 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which of the many books pertaining to marriage do you mean? And why specifically religious perspectives? -- SiobhanHansa 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See the comments above when consider the reason for suggestion. One is a diatribe on why same-sex marriage is evil, and then another "This is wrong" and then this comment. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is a indian muslim marriage scene being shown??????????

that is not how muslims marriages ..... why are you showing a "hindu" marriage instead of a musslim one??????

You call it an "indian muslim marriage" in the section header but then you a "'hindu'" marriage in your message. Are you saying the couple in the photo are Hindu not Muslim? Or that you think there needs to be a photo showing Muslim marriage in a country that is predominantly Muslim rather than predominantly Hindu? Or something else? -- SiobhanHansa 11:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 edits

In regards to the edits of Sauve.sean, consensus is still established until a new one comes into being, which won't happen without talk page discussion. Saying the vote on Prop 8 in California establishes a national consensus is WP:OR, and goes against prior discussion and consensus.

Sauve.sean has shown a tendency in the past to make his changes without prior discussion, so I've reverted them as per the note on the article page that shows consensus has been established and not to change the lede without discussion. I feel per wikipedia policies, this is something that should be discussed before undoing a previous consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Davewalker, please refer to WP:NPA. You have attacked me personally yet again.Sauve.sean (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out edits to a controversial topic without bothering to discuss it on the talk page as you did here [5] is not a personal attack. Following that edit, I reverted you and opened up this discussion here on the talk page in good faith to get the opinions of other editors on your suggested changes. As you can see in this section, other editors also oppose your changes as original research. Dayewalker (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You say "previous consensus" as if the definition as it stands has ever had consensus. It hasn't, plain as day.Sauve.sean (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Prop 8 may show how a slim majority of voting Californians feel about about something.

IT certainly isn't evidence of anything.

Kairos (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is evidence of a lot of things. It is not evidence that the nature of marriage as a concept is definitively limited to the form that Californian marriages now take, however. Suave.sean, I fail to see how old discussions in which many editors( the majority, I believe) disagreed with you qualify as consensus for making a controversial change now. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody dispute that the most prevalent form of marriage is between members of the opposite gender? Nobody has disputed that! That was my edit. How is there not consensus for that?

It is painfully obvious that the definition as it stands has NO consensus, other than between a few narrow-minded so-called wikipedia "contributors."

Dave, I apologize as I did not notice this section in the talk page until you mentioned it. Thank you for *eventually* choosing to inform rather than attack. Sauve.sean (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to scrap this entire article and replace with disambiguation page

This article is beyond poorly written, and well into some new state of uselessness of the type that gives Wikipedia a bad name. It doesn't define marriage to any useful degree, nor does it explain how marriage differs from non-marriage. There is clearly no consensus on what marriage is, so this article should be scrapped and replaced by a disambiguation page, where people can explain different types of marriage which are more clearly defined.

A disambiguation page would work well, and would allow us to split marriage into different articles focussing on different definitions of marriage, without conflicting with those other definitions. For example (and I welcome suggestions):

Marriage between prospective parents for the purpose of raising their own biological offspring. I suggest "Marriage (nuclear family)" as the title for this article.
Marriage between living humans for legal, fostering/adopting/step-parenting, non-procreative sexual or friendship purposes. I suggest "Marriage (civil union)" as the title.
Marriage between objects for conceptual purposes (such as a human, goat, ghost, the Berlin Wall, use of marriage to denote grouping of objects or ideas etc). I suggest "Marriage (of concepts)" as

the title.

As the article currently stands, Wikipedia would be better off without it, than with it in its current state.

Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I missed your point on why a former FA is a crap article, but ok. How can this get article get improved, it has a place in WP for good reason. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

When was it FA'd (I just scanned the history through 2001 but couldn't see where it was promoted or demoted)? Perhaps reverting to the version that was featured would be an improvement. -- SiobhanHansa 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think it was recent, so guessing we would lose a lot of information doing that. Maybe we should submit it for a review to see what in the article needs factual and structural improvement - besides many of the statements needing research and citation. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think those divisions accurately reflect the real seperate facets of marriage, and I am not sure that they are independent enough to be divided up in that way. I disagree with the proposal for this reason. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal because there's tremendous overlap between the first two proposed categories. We also don't need to introduce such a stark distinction between biological and adopted children. Think about it, if Cindy and John McCain had only one child, Bridget, your proposal would put them in the second category. Also, there would be substantial editing warring about the article titles, which would involve multiple page moves. Page moves are a pain to undo (and require administrator assistance to fix if done incorrectly). Ariadne55 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Andrew. The term "marriage" has many different meanings in the modern world, yet the opening paragraph tries to address each one in the same sentence. In my view, it should address each type of "marriage" separately and equally. (See my below post).--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew is certainly right on one count. The article is poorly written. In fact, the first section alone, "Selection of a Partner," is so full of grammatical errors, awkward sentences, wandering ideas, and unsourced statements that it's impossible to read further and take anything seriously. At the very best, this is "rough draft" material. To repeat Andrews statement, it is the kind of substandard writing that gives Wikipedia a bad name, and should be scrapped and rewritten. It certainly does not deserve to be semi-protected.Dualdraco (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is a battlefield in the culture wars. Editors who were traditionalists or believed in objective truth were suspended and banned. The article is the apparent property of cultural Marxists, identity multiculturalists, post modernists, and other WikiThugs who have ideologically sympathetic WikiBureacrats at their beckon call. Note well the attempt to include Noah Webster's definition of marriage in with the History section. If the editor persists in trying to get his entry included, he will be accused of not bowing to the god of consensus - and will eventually be suspended then banned. 75.168.220.204 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the history section

{{editsemiprotected}}

Could someone please remove the paragraph:

Economists Dr. Marina Adshade and Prof. Brooks Kaiser argue that^[8] marriage originated as a method to ensure that a father had a legal responsibility to provide for his children.

from this document. This is my research, and it does not in any way argue the point that is suggested here. In fact the paper does not discuss any legal issues but is a discussion of the evolutionary origins of marriage from a biological perspective.

I don't mind it being cited but I mind it being so inaccurately misrepresented.

Thank you.

(signed Adshade)

Done - I'm no academic specialist in this material, but a cursory reading of the reference obviously confirms the above disclaimer. (Let this be a lesson about quoting and interpreting primary sources against policy...) —EqualRights (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to distinguish between ceremonial marriage and legal marriage

The concepts of ceremonial marriage and the modern legal definition of marriage are seperate, yet the opening paragraph of the article refers to them both simultaneously, making it seem as though they are directly correlated. I personally think that the opening paragraph should be reworded so that it addresses each concept separately and equally as opposed to intertwining them. I may create a draft of a proposed new version of the opening paragraph in my userspace.--ParisianBlade (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

what?

Women in the Middle Ages not married till they were twenty-four? By law? That's hardly believeable. Somebody's pulling your chain, wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Marriage in The United States Of America

{{editsemiprotected}} I recommend adding the definition of marriage from the first edition of AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE / NOAH WEBSTER 1828 to the History Section; noting that Noah Webster was a Founding Father of the United States of America.

AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE / Noah Webster 1828

Marriage, n. [Fr. mariage, from marier, to marry, from mari a husband; L. mas, maris; Sp. maridage.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promotion domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

         Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled.   Heb. xiii.

2. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

         The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son.   Matt. xxii.

3. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev. xiii IacobusPatrius (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even so, that's a pretty narrow definition that asserts marriage only happens in America or to Christians. Dayewalker (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not done: Not clear where or how to add this to the article, and no consensus for the change, anyway.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can't add it - doesn't agree with the prevailing cultural Marxist and postmodernist groupthink on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.220.204 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the problem is that it uses a dictionary that is about 200 years old as a source. Two hundred years ago there was no indoor plumbing, Napoleon was ravaging Europe, and slaves were still kept in the deep south. If you want information of this type to be included you're going to have to find a better source than that. L'Aquatique[talk] 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Plumbing is an invention, marriage is the core unit of society for thousands of years. Your analogy fails. 75.168.214.145 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Analogy or not, the point still stands. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially a two-hundred year-old one. Dayewalker (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor (I hope) merely a Concordance and bible-study aid. The article certainly must acknowledge that religious values have affected the development of the social institution of marriage, but at the same time it is a social institution, and it is perceived through/affected by many differing (and dissonant) religious values. Even if it were proper to cast this article as a bible-study aid on the topic, there would still be heated exchanges over content. 71.197.93.206 (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice debate

The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre Marriage.

There should be a section about how man-woman marriage was viewed by Christanity before they sanctioned it. It used to be looked down upon in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh how was it looked down upon? It is spoken of throughout the New Testement so I fail to see your comment - ie see Mark 10:6-9, Ephesians 5:21, and many others. So I fail to see your point as it is sanctioned by Jesus...Floorwalker (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding cited information

There was lots of uncited information on this page before a large amount of it was removed. It is quite possible that lots of the information that was removed is correct. Anyone looking for ways to improve the article can add back the information that was deleted - with citations of course. Here is a large list of the stuff that was deleted:

stuff that was deleted

Fresheneesz (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of the stuff that was deleted, there were a couple unsourced pieces of information that seem like common knowlege to me. I'll list them here so people can find sources and replace them:

Some teach that sexual relations without marriage are fornication, which is sometimes also socially discouraged or even criminalized.
In many cultures the family of the bride was historically expected to provide a dowry to the husband.

Fresheneesz (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Marriage between a man and a woman

Please direct any conversation here that involves changing the definition of marriage on this article to be exclusively between a man and a woman. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

See To be or "Not!"

This really is not about marriage, this is about gay marriage.

Marriage defined in itself, is not under debate.

To be or "Not!"

Look up marriage in any dictionary. Not on an editable web page and you will find:

mar•riage (măr’ĭj) n. The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

The most profound evidence is the human body. Our bodies reveal specifically detailed organs. Women have wombs and breasts to carry and feed their young. The male sexual organ cannot be accurately linked to another male sexual organ. Just as a woman can not be linked to a woman. Nor can they procreate together. This is not debatable.

This is not rocket science. Joansviews (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot refute that there have been accepted homosexual marriages in the world. Marriage is a cultural concept. It is possible to discuss it solely within a Western, Judeo-Christian context, but even this context is in flux. Regardless of what you believe about marriage, marriages has existed in different forms in different cultures since before people had written language, and continues to exist today in a variety of formats. Describing these different formats does not constitute condoning them, it merely discusses marriage from a more wholistic approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.157.3 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An alien from the planet Zog weighs in.

As part of my study of human customs, I tried reading this page; but I have a few questions:

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

So what is the term for marriage recognized by religious authorities?

If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

I must apologize for my ignorance of anthropology, but what is meant by "personal status" as distinguished from "social status"?

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire.

Surely Romans would not have used the word "marriage". What word did they use?

Whereas the rape of male citizens was outlawed in the 100s CE, gay marriage was outlawed in the mid-300s by two of Constantine the Great's sons, Constantius II and Constans. While Constans was later denounced for having male lovers, emperors continued the condemnation of homosexuality. For example, a law decreed in 390 required any man "taking a women's role" in sex was to be burned to death.[21]

I don't see what the outlawing of gay marriage and rape of male citizens (I assume "rape" here means forced marriage, as in the Rape of the Sabine Women) has to do with homosexuality.

The average age of marriage in the late 1200s into the 1500s was around 25 years of age.

Is this the same for both men and women?

In ancient Chinese society, people of the same surname were not supposed to marry and doing so was seen as incest. However, because marriage to one's maternal relatives was not thought of as incest, families sometimes intermarried from one generation to another. Over time, Chinese people became more geographically mobile. Couples were married in what is called an extra-clan marriage, better known as antithetic marriage. This occurred around 5000 BC.

How can one know about marital practices in China prior to 5000 BC? I thought writing had not yet developed there.

Ben Standeven (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be a proper Wikipedia "thing" :) Kudos! ----occono (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How can you, as a Zoggian just dropping in, tell that marriage has anything to do with sex and historically and presently most commonly is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" (the Merriam-Webster primary definition) or "the condition of being a husband or wife" (the OED primary definition)? You Zoggians would have no idea what marriage is from the Wikipedia article about it. This is what happens when we politically-correct Earthlings substitute our own personal judgment of the meaning of words for the existing and documented meaning of words. This article is a deliberate deception, slanted so to accomplish political and social goals which is not what Wikipedia is for. Such a shame. 74.104.160.199 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I added in that, but as I am openly biased I included the full definition from Merriam-Webster.----occono (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Marriage

There is not any sections about the purposes of marriage and what it does. Why do we have it? What good (or bad) does it do for scoiety? The purposes of marriage are only alluded to. I think something like: "Some of marriage's purposes are to produce, protect, uphold and nurture society. Marriage is, for some, primarily an unselfish act to promote these measures in society. Of course, one gains stability and love from the realationship, so there is some "getting," but marriage must have an element of unselfishness to work. Many marriages fail, because they lack this element of unselfishness." Maybe only the first sentence is applicable for this article. Musicmgj (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sexual relations in Islam after marriage but before the wedding party

Right now it says, "the wedding can be held days, or months later whenever the couple and their families want to announce the marriage in public, no sexual relations are allowed before the wedding party."

I dont think this is correct. In Sunni Islam, the couple are legal to each other sexually after marriage. In fact, the wedding was usually held to signify the the marriage had been consumated. I motion to have the last part of that sentence removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.132.177 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Other forms of marriage

This article addresses a few forms of non-western, non-traditional marriage. Could a section be added that addresses such forms in more detail? These forms could include subsections of Homosexual European-style marriage, temporary marriage in Shi'i Islam, human/animal marriage in some Hindu sects, and so forth. Is anyone interested in helping put such a subset together? My edits have been repeatedly deleted. Thanks! Fariba Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibernia345 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 February 2009

The article should also include the forced marriage of vegetables as is common practice in the West Indies. When a vegetable is in short supply in the markets, it will be "married" to another vegetable that is currently plentiful. Thus, if onions are scarce and bananas are plentiful, they will be married by the market merchants. To buy one onion it may be necessary to buy a hand of bananas, too, in order to get your onion. This, indeed, is another fact of marriage in the modern world. There is really no justification for excluding the marriage of vegetables if we are also including so many other types of marriage. Bushcutter (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think limiting it to human beings is a reasonable threshold for inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, some of those onions have pretty nice curves. :) As the "repeatedly deleted"-er mentioned above, I felt that Hibernia's edits gave undue weight to a pretty fringe subject. I'd not be averse though to a separate section on "Alternative Practices" or some such. That's assuming that such practices are indeed widespread and can be reliably documented. The single BBC story doesn't cut it in that regard IMO. Franamax (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a BBC documentary is not an ideal source. But pick up virtually any cultural/social anthropology textbook (Keesing, Haviland, Shutz and Lavenda are all pretty popular and well-regarded) and there will be a chapter with examples of a number of very different non-European/Western marriages, and I would consider that to be a reliable source if we wqant to make this less Eurocentric (which I think is a good goal for an encyclopedia, a compendium of all knowledge). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be less Eurocentric, but I don't think we can achieve that by adding a separate section for "non-Western, non-traditional marriage." Rather, information on the world's various diverse marriage practices should occur in the relevant sections (Selection of a partner, Financial considerations, etc.). To an extent, the article already does this.

The "History" subsection breaks down the topic geographically, but predominantly consists of information on Europe, with a bit on China. Were this section expanded to include other cultures with the same depth it treats Europe, it would make the article far too long. I think History of marriage in Europe would work best as a separate article, keeping Marriage as a general overview of the different aspects of the institution, rather than the specifics of its development in one context.--Trystan (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be great to see more "less Eurocentric" information here, but being a volunteer encyclopedia I think we may have to be patient, and understanding of new editors when that comes along. We only have what is written, and what people may choose to write. For the nonce, we have what we have, and this article by no means exceeds the guidelines for excess length.

Perhaps moving the History section farther down would accomplish the goal? Although the normal flow of, say, a country or city article starts with the history - in the case of marriage, I'd consider well an approach that deals with the present-day first. This might address the euro-centric concerns but at the same time keep all the content in one place. Franamax (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The BBC recently noted a typical non-European marriage between a Sudanese man, one Mr.Tombe, and his neighbour's goat^[9]. Mr.Tombe had been having premarital sex with the goat, and would awaken the goat's owner at night with the noise of boisterous love-making. The goat's owner, a Mr.Alifi, and the community of Hai Malakal, urged to Mr.Tombe do the right thing and marry the goat. Since Sudan is a civilized, non-European culture, Tombe was required to pay a dowry. This article definitely needs more non-European examples such as this. Our society's approach to marriage needs to become much more open-minded like the Sudanese people, and the Sudanese example should encourage us to expand our narrow horizons. Bushcutter (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bushcutter, are you trying to make a productive contribution here, or are you just taking the piss? What's yer point? Do you have a proposal to word the entry? Can you propose a structure? Franamax (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, didn't you just say (4 paragraphs up) that "It would be great to see [some] "less Eurocentric" information here"? As far as I know, there is nothing less Eurocentric than Sudanese marriage to animals. I have brought you a documented, verifiable instance of a "less Eurocentric" marriage, and you have suggested that I'm "taking the piss". This man clearly had an ongoing relationship with the goat and married her. There's many more documented non-European examples such as men who marry children. Why don't we just put in a section titled "Less Eurocentric marriage practices" and start with these examples? Bushcutter (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that in response to serious comments. I also asked you for specific wording. Anecdotal is not the same as reliably-documented and widespread. You're talking about a Trivia section - which leads me to continue my suspicion that you're taking the piss with us and not coming close to a serious discussion. I'll AGF though and ask you again if you can propose something encyclopedic. I don't have access to the sources Slrubenstein mentions, perhaps you do. Franamax (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The order that a "dowry" be paid in this case is a satirical punishment: "You used the goat as a wife, you must pay a dowry, ha ha." We may as well add in a section for Rodney Dangerfield, he had some great bits about marriage as well. Using the article as evidence of a practice of "Sudanese marriage to animals" demonstrates either a misunderstanding of the context or deliberate disingenuousness. We will have more than enough content for the article restricting it to genuine cultural marital practices. There is no need to deliberately seek out the most outrageous examples one can find to make a point.--Trystan (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My view is that Bushcutter is taking the piss. I think the original suggestion - that we widen the examples of marriage - was a valid and sensible one. Don't know why Bushcutter has instead attempted to ridicule it by citing vegetables, children and animals as extreme examples. I don't find this constructive or in the spirit of wikipedia to improve knowledge. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede

The first three paragraphs just go around in circles, e.g. marriage is "in accordance with marriage laws", "People marry for many reasons", and other such news of the obvious. Marriage should be defined at the beginning, followed by an explanation of why it exists. Britannica (1974) says, "sometimes defined as a union between a man and a woman such that children borne by the woman are recognized as the legitimate offspring of both parents." This is considered a classic cross-cultural definition, although now we'd have to updated it with something on same-sex marriage. Kauffner (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a general summary of the article, which, on a topic like marriage, does tend to require stating some broad, 'obvious' things.--Trystan (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The description again: trans- and other-gendered marriage participants

The current description in the lead section doesn't seem to cover the case of marriage between humans whose identities don't conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender. (For background on this, consider starting to read at transgender.) What was wrong with the prior description, which was more general than this one that enumerates only the three "easy" (m-w, m-m, or w-w) cases? (sdsds - talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So recent edits instead claim marriage is a "union establishing a family unit." Nice idea, but very modern and western in its POV. Marriages don't necessarily establish new families. See matrilocal and patrilocal. (sdsds - talk) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition I prefer is the one we had up until a week ago, which was arrived at by consensus after considerable discussion: Marriage is a social, spiritual, and/or legal union of individuals.

In the second sentence we say that a polygamous marriage has more than two partners. My understanding is that, aside from the extremely rare instances of group marriage, polygamous marriages are between two people, generally a husband and a wife. It's the exclusivity of the marriage that is changed, not the number of partners. Husband and Wife A enter into Marriage 1, then Husband and Wife B enter into Marriage 2. Wife A and Wife B are not married to each other, so neither marriage has more than two parties.--Trystan (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Trystan. I think that version from a week or so ago was far superior to more recent versions, and should be restored. I don't see why it was changed in the first place. If I recall, it was part of one editor making a number of large changes. Too many to carefully review, and too much in good faith to simply revert, but not all useful improvements, either. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"A legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman," is how Britannica defines marriage. "A social, spiritual, and/or legal union of individuals" suggests that a union that violates both the law and social norms can be considered marriage. This is not the way any common reference defines the word. The question to ask about a definition is not, "What about transgendered people?", but whether it conforms to the definitions given in the WP:RS. The previous version of this article did not even mention sexuality until the fourth paragragh, as if marriage was some form of business contract. Kauffner (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is essential to mention early in the lead section that marriage is usually intimate if not down-right sexual. Pursuant to this I have restored the lead from this old version of the article, which makes this point clear in the third sentence, which is also the first sentence of the second paragraph. There is no consensus for allowing this point to "drift" lower, or omitting it entirely from the lead. (sdsds - talk) 06:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreement with our sources is of course important. The difficulty is that there are so many definitions of marriage, from so many different fields (anthropology, sociology, law, religion...) that we can't simply choose one and claim it is authoritative. Asking whether transgendered people fit the definition we choose to present is relevant, because they fit some of the definitions, such as this one: "Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."[6]--Trystan (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Words are defined by common usage, not by law. The bulk of this article compares marriage in different cultures, which suggests that an anthropological definition is most relevant. There several competing anthropological definitions, but not so many as to justify a "Let's make up ourselves" approach. Kauffner (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) By what criteria would we select one of the competing definitions? After reading "Defining Marriage and Legitimacy" (Bell, Current Anthropology 38:2), which contains contributions from several authors, it doesn't seem like there is any one definition of marriage that has any form of consensus behind it. (See also: [7]

If we are adopting an anthropological definition that purports to cross-culturally define a social construct, surely we don't want to choose one that is manifestly incompatible with modern legal definitions discussed later in the article.--Trystan (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To quote from Bell, "A cross-culturally valid conception of marriage must begin with a definition of husband-wife and with a distinction between spouses and lovers."[8] The current definition in the article not only doesn't meet this standard, it could refer to almost any group of people. A "religious union of individuals" sounds like a church or a temple. Kauffner (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The main thing I took from that article and its responses is that marriage is "so happily various as to elude, so far, definitional stasis." The other academics' comments on Bell's definition include: "I do not accept his definition of marriage." "I am more doubtful than he, however, about the usefulness of trying to create a cross-culturally valid definition." "Whether we need his "cross-culturally valid" definition of marriage is open to question..." etc.

As for Bell's definition, it is as follows: "Marriage is a relationship between one or more men (male or female) in severalty to one or more women that provides those men with a demand-right of sexual access within a domestic group and identifies women who bear the obligation of yielding to the demands of those specific men." He makes it clear that 'Western "marriage"' does not meet his criterion, since it doesn't provide for sexual access rights. I don't think it makes sense for us to adopt an anthropological definition that excludes the modern Western legal institution.

All of it is good fodder for expanding the Definition section, but not too helpful for the lead.--Trystan (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The classic anthropology definitions are the ones from Westermarck, Notes and Queries, and Leach. Leach's definition is too complex for the lede. But we can update Notes for the era of same sex marriage: A union of two individuals, usually a man and woman, such that the children of the woman are recognized as the legitimate offspring of both parents. Or we could update Westermarck: "a more or less durable connection between two individuals, usually a male and a female, lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." You can always come up with a culture somewhere for which a given definition doesn't work. That experts disagree isn't a reason for Wiki editors to fill the breach with WP:OR.Kauffner (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Family unit creation vs. kinship creation

Here's a late response to the editor who defined marriage as a "union establishing a family unit." While as mentioned above this isn't universally the case, marriages might trans-culturally create affinity and thus kinship (family) ties. It would be cool if someone could find a way to get this point across to readers. (sdsds - talk) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I do think the first sentence needs something beyond "union" to differentiate marriage from other unions (for example, business partnerships). But I'm not well-informed enough to come up with the magic phrase that will accomplish that goal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In traditional Asian/Confucian culture, a wife entered her husband's family. She was the servant of her mother-in-law until she had a child. Even European countries have some tradition of wives moving in with in-laws. America is quite exceptional in having no tradition of this. Kauffner (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed modification to first sentence (to add "that creates kinship")

How about: Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual, or legal union of individuals that creates kinship. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "religious" and "spiritual" are doing in the definition. How about: A socially and legally sanctioned union of two individuals that creates kinship. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion, which I did not make clear, is to add "that creates kinship" to the current text. Whether to change the current text itself is a subject for a separate discussion. So I've changed the heading of this section to make clear my intent. If you want to open up a discussion of the modifiers to the word "union" then feel free to open up a new section for that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - I don't know if there will be consensus for mentioning kinship creation in the first sentence, but personally I would like to see it there. (sdsds - talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we couldn't be more specific. A union creating kinship could refer to adoption. I'm not sure on the wording, but if we incorporate the notion that the relationship is typically sexual, it might make it clearer.--Trystan (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you agree that "creates kinship" is a step in the right direction. And I agree that it is only a step. But how to take that next step? Maybe someone out there has a bright idea. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It is almost a tautology, but when we observe other cultures (or try to think dispassionately about our own) we see that what makes a particular union a marriage is that it creates "in-laws". In modern American culture I've known young people who seem to hate this concept -- newly-wed couples who want to believe their marriage is only about themselves. Parents of newlyweds, on the other hand, think the marriage has done something more than unite the two individuals, i.e. at a minimum it has given them a son- or daughter-in-law, and siblings may feel it has given them a brother- or sister-in-law. (Almost) globally, a marriage ties together two families. These are affinal ties that adoption doesn't create. (Obviously adoption creates its own kinds of ties, but that's probably outside the scope of this discussion! ;-) The challenge is to find a citable source for this. (It isn't WP:OR -- I'm not that smart -- but it isn't exactly the most common way of thinking about marriage either!)

As regards the connection to sexuality, I too wish this could be in the first sentence because it seems "obvious", but to what extent is that culturally dependent? (sdsds - talk) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly many examples of sexless marriage: ghost marriage, levirate marriage, and Nuer female-female marriage. What is common cross-culturally is that the wife has an obligation to be faithful, or at least not to have relations without her husband's permission (even in the Nuer situation where the "husband" is female). In primitive society, men fight over unmarried women, so early marriage addresses a societal need that may not relate to the preferences of the couple involved. Kauffner (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The first of the comments on the Bell article rejects control over the wife's sexuality as a common cross-cultural factor, citing the Masai as a counter-example. If we approach this as trying to develop an essentialist definition, we will fail. I think we need to approach it as generally describing a collection of diverse practices, regarding which a counter-example can be found for every characteristic described.--Trystan (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as the lede goes, I have repeatedly written that the proper course is take one of the standard definitions used by anthropologists or dictionary writers, after suitable tweeking. No one seems to disagree, but no one agrees either.

As far as the Masai goes, I don't accept that they are counter-example. If you define marriage in terms of sexuality, what the Masai practice is polyandry (with a woman married to the group of "age-set" males). If you use a legitimacy-based or property-based definition, then there is a particular man who is the husband for any given married woman. Which definition is used yields a different perspective on the situation, but the Masai case doesn't disprove any of the three approaches. Kauffner (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While a number of editors have suggested further improvements to the first sentence, none seem to object to the "that creates kinship" addition. So I'm giving a last warning that I am about to make that change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed modification to first sentence (to remove "religious" and "spiritual")

I don't know what "religious" and "spiritual" are doing in the definition. How about: A socially and legally sanctioned union of two individuals that creates kinship. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please pursue this by reviewing the material in section 8, Marriage#Marriage and religion, particularly the statement there, "Some regard marriage as simply a contract, while others regard it as a sacred institution." Do you consider that statement to be consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is our policy? (sdsds - talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Marriage may be religious and spiritual, but it must be socially and legally sanctioned. The current definition implies that an otherwise unsanctioned union can be considered marriage on the basis of spirituality alone. Kauffner (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest removing "legal" as well, since "social" covers all the other terms. I don't think we can definitively state that legal recognition is required, particularly in the face of examples such as the illegal practice of polygamous marriage in modern North America. They are socially and religiously recognized within small communities, but not legally recognized.--Trystan (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that within our community of editors there are those who see their spiritual union with another person as the aspect which defines their own marriage, i.e. they "know" they are married to someone because they have found their soulmate and mutually declared their bond. It does not matter to them whether a priest has sanctified the bond; whether their parents and community even know about much less bless the bond; whether the state has allowed and recorded the bond. Even without any of those things they assert their marriage exists. You know they're wrong; they know they're right! You have your sources; they have theirs. The challenge we face in this article is, "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Doing that is our policy.[9] In deference to them I oppose removing "spiritual." In deference to those with profound religious zeal I oppose removing "religious." (sdsds - talk) 01:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are a thousand definitions of marriage, they can't all be represented in the lede, can they? There are longstanding definitions by anthopologists and in dictionaries that have greater authority than others. We can create a composite based on these definitions. Wikipedia is not the place for editors to seek validation of their relationships, much less have them redefined as marriage. Kauffner (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above consensus - Valerie505 (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed modification to first sentence (to add "(usually intimate and sexual)")

I propose to add the above phrase (from the first sentence of the second paragraph of this article) to the first sentence of this article so that the sentence would read: Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual and legal union (usually intimate and sexual) of individuals that creates kinship. Then the phrase could be removed from the first sentence of the second paragraph. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do statistics go?

Wanted to place a statistic on US marriage rates someplace. This is clearly too high a level article, but there seems no fork to anything appropriate either. I'd appreciate suggestions.Student7 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe create a new article then, Marriage rates by country? Presumably showing the divorce rate too? Also average age of couples marrying, a lot of interesting information could be shown, maybe even percentage of children born out of wedlock (so maybe Marriage demographics by country). Of course, it would need to be for more than just the US. Interesting idea though... Franamax (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical info

This edit added some interesting but unsourced historical information. It's been removed (and rightfully so - it makes statements far too bold and definitive to be left in without a source) but I think it's interesting enough and, if true, of enough value to the article that I'm preserving a link to it here in hopes that someone who can provide a source (or, alternately, a source for contradictory information) will come by and improve the article with that info. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bushman and other modern hunter gatherer societies have marriage too. I don't see any basis to connect marriage to agriculture. The idea that primitive peoples lived in an Eden with no sexual jealousy is a more extreme version of the position set forth by Margaret Mead in Coming of Age in Samoa, which has been pretty throughly discredited. Kauffner (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusion Between Religious Marriage and The Definition of Marriage in a Neutral Point-of-View

As a lexicographer I believe I have a say in this. Marriage can not have had an "original" definition on the basis that we don't know it's origins. What we do know in terms of the contention we're seeing here is that religion *Did Not Create or Originate* the word marriage, it not only predates Christianity, but also goes further back than most of the Pagan religions that we know of. Whether we're ready to admit to it or not, simply asserting that marriage "has always been between one man and one woman" is incorrect, it also included polygamy, usually limited to endogamy, dowry played a huge role as well. Please remember, this is not a religious encyclopedia, this is a worldwide encyclopedia that doesn't simply refer to one religion's definition of a particular term.

Perhaps I should parallel this with another example, should the word God be limited to "The Triune embellishment of Jesus of Nazerth, The Father, and The Holy Ghost"? Should we define "God" as the Hindu deity Moksha...after all, could the argument not be made that it was there "first"?

Including same-sex couples is not a change in definition to marriage, just as adding monogamous relationships to "marriage" (normally endowed with bigamy, polygamy, etc) does not change the it's concept either. What we decide as a society is completely up to us, but to take "ownership" of a definition is hypocritical to the institution that encyclopedias were built on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to argue con here. Assuming you are indeed a lexicographer (since it can in no way established that you are, in the same way you cannot confirm that I PhD in History and Ancient Cultures) then I'd concede that Christianity didn't invent the term marriage. But take this part of your argument:

'...simply asserting that marriage "has always been between one man and one woman" is incorrect, it also included polygamy, usually limited to endogamy, dowry played a huge role as well.'

You are wrongly jumping from the premise "marriage is not limited to man+woman" to the conclusion that "marriage encompasses man+man and woman+woman" without evidence.

Now heterosexuality and homosexuality have no doubt been around for a long time. But while the union of two heterosexuals (marriage) has been accepted for many thousands of year, the union of two homosexuals has not. While I can think of cases where homosexuality was accepted in the ancient world (Sparta being one example) I cannot think of instances where homosexuals were actually "married". Even in Sparta, males lived together from infancy to adulthood and each Spartan male had many homosexual experiences in that time. But Spartan men would always marry a woman.

Now from my understanding, homosexuality has (generally) become more widely accepted with time until the present. But never in history has the concept of marriage been extended to same sex couples. While the strictness of "1 man + 1 woman" may be questionable, marriage has certainly never applied to "1 wo/man + 1 wo/man". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

just because you can't think of it it's not true? research the page in question to find the info in question. See Marriage#Same-sex_marriage and the link from there to Same-sex_marriage#History which give historical context WITH REFS to marriage and similar recognition of same sex relationships ina historical context. Also remember to indent every paragraph while commenting. 98.217.181.54 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinship

Okay, people, why are you so protective of "that creates kinship." First of all, marriage DOES NOT always create kinship. If you want me to provide examples I may for many societies marriage is purely ceremonial. Secondly, if you are going to define marriage so broadly as you already have and prohibit any traditional definition, then you should not so constrict it unless you provide ample justification for such constriction as "kinship." Marriage SHOULD BE between a man and a woman. I see that you want a neutral point of view but if that is your desire you better adhere to your aspiration by letting me take out the phrase "that creates kinship." I know that if I tampered with inserting "between a man and a woman" you would eviscerate me and put me in prison. But I could do the same with you for such a myopic viewpoint. Please provide your justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsafdsa1 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions on the makeup of a married couple aside, how are you saying marriage does not create kinship? It creates a relationship, which is what kinship is. I don't see what point you're trying to make, please give more details. Thanks. Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fdsafdsa1, If you have reliable sources about marriages that are purely ceremonial, those could certainly get a mention later in the article as part of the effort to present a global perspective. Based on what you have said here, however, it sounds like you don't really think that removing the part about kinship is an improvement, but are just trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This is not a constructive editing practice, and I strongly encourage you to review the guidelines I've linked to here so you can learn how to participate in a more constructive way. I hope you decide to stick around and add neutral, properly sourced information to this and any other articles you have a genuine interest in improving in an appropriate consensus-based manner. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wife and husband are kin, so I don't see how there can be any exception to the "creates kinship." rule. But I do see two problems with the current definition: 1) It begs the question of "What is kinship?" and is therefore no better than the traditional anthropology definition of marriage as a union such that children are recognized as legitimate. 2) It is an "invented here" Wikipedia definition with no reference or source. Kauffner (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's focus our attention on providing a good description of marriage, rather than debating its definition. It is almost tautological for the article to assert that marriage creates affinal kinship. Marriage does create kinship, pretty much cross-culturally. Indeed, in observing other cultures the creation of "in-laws" is a strong clue that what happened was a marriage! And for many forms of marriage, like marriage to people who are already dead, the creation of kinship is super-important. In this regard, please be sure to help counter systemic bias as you consider edits to this article! (sdsds - talk) 01:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinship is good but the current definition leaves out the inherently sexual nature of the relationship; how is the current definition distinguisahble from adoption?? I would offer something like: Marriage is a socially recognized union of individuals that creates kinship and into a socially sanctioned sexual relationship that creates adultery taboos [10]. Mrdthree (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the use of the word 'taboo' - taboo is just another word for 'forbidden', I don't understand the structure -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not complicated. Taboo means (to cut and paste from wikipedia) "a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and forbidden." Using the word taboo allows us to escape arguments about religion and move straight to the issue at hand: social disapproval. People judge adulterers as violators of a marriage contract. The overall point is that marrriage sanctions a specific sexual relationship and creates the offense of adultery, which defines a breach of those expectations. Mrdthree (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it made no sense. You wrote Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship and specific sexual access rights, the violation of which is termed adultery. - what does adultery have to do with the broad definition typically used in lede's? You don't include "violations" in a definition. It's like saying glass is "a brittle transparent solid with irregular atomic structure WHICH BREAKS WHEN IT'S DROPPED" - it's just unnecessary -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Its plain english and you understand what the sentence means. Your example DOES NOT APPLY to this case-- it would if the words "sexual and exclusive" were included in the first sentence then you could complain I am unnecessarily elaborating them. So the question to my mind is do you disagree with the fact alleged or the way it is phrased? If it is a disagreement as to the facts, is that you disagree that marriage creates sexual access rights? or is it that you disagree that adultery is an infringement of marital sexual access rights? Again I offer my counterexample to the existing 'kinship' definition; the kinship definition does not distinguish between marriage and adoption. Mrdthree (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of most anthropogical definitions

I'm not quite sure that I understand the comment given for this [11] reversion. The edit summary refers to "what the majority has ruled", a reference I don't understand. It reverts two things; first, a change to the lead, which a relatively minor issue of rewording. I think my version was simpler than the list version, but I won't press the point. Second and more importantly, the edit guts the well-written, well-sourced section covering anthropological definitions of marriage. The removal of this material is, in my opinion, a serious detriment to the article.--Trystan (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted paragraphs in the "Definitions" section.--Trystan (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Trystan, I believe your sources are legitimate except for the fact that it's a generalization, perhaps we could come to a consensus? Take such an example, several famous authors of the past could have attributed the definition of 'God' to "Yahweh, from the Old Testament" although there is no historical backing or scientific evidence to prove such, therefore we must accompany the general perception of what "God" is. What if Edward Westermarck in his book had defined marriage between one tall male and one small female, we wouldn't use his source now would we? This is why we need anthropological evidence, unfortunately none exist so we must use "conflicting" opinions on that basis alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If a prominent anthropologist defined marriage as a tall male and a small female, and that definition was widely cited in academic literature, why wouldn't we include it? We're neutrally describing the history of a particular academic issue, not evaluating which historically proposed definitions seem "correct" to us in our modern context.

In what sense is the section a generalization? The section as a whole gives an accurate picture of diverse attempts to establish a cross-cultural definition, none of which has the consensus of the field behind it. Still, a good summary of the evolution of the debate amongst anthropologists is very valuable to the reader, since it conveys the complexity of the ostensibly simple task.

On what basis did you keep two particular definitions, those of Leach and Bell? Bell's is one of the more unintuitive, convoluted, and contested of any of them.--Trystan (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove any citing of singular Anthropologists and go with a general consensus (granted one exists) and if not, mention that no definition does exist? We also must remember that "The History of Marriage" is an extraordinarily old book, written a long time ago with no idea of the various traditions that existed. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has to write the definition. You can't quote "a general consensus". The current summary gives a sense of how the definitions have evolved through time. People didn't know about the variety of marriage traditions back in 1921? This is a patronizing view of the past. The definitions given by Westermarck and Notes and Queries are the classic ones and are referred to in numerous academic papers. Kauffner (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Article lede

Looks good the change made except one item. The lede now looks funky with the bullets. I'm not really delving into the article's content or what not, I just keep an eye on the article due it being a vandal magnet. It just looks funky, that's all. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I allude to in the above section, I think a prose discussion works better than trying to capture all of the permutations and combinations. I would suggest replacing the bulleted list with:

Marriage practices are very diverse across cultures. A person may be restricted a single spouse (marital monogamy), or may be able to marry multiple spouses at the same time (polygamy). Marriage may be restricted to opposite-sex unions of husband and wife, or may be open to same-sex couples as well.

The following two sentences are, I think, too specific for the lead, and could be included elsewhere in the article:

Polygamy has historical precedent in the Old Testament (for example, Abraham). While illegal in most Western societies as many others, it still remains common in some societies.^[10] Most countries where polygamy is still legal are moving to repeal those laws.^[11]

The lead paragraph could also be expanded to briefly mention that diverse marital practices can be found with regards to capacity, divorce and annulment, spousal rights, sexual monogamy, and a variety of other factors.--Trystan (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the bullets look funky. But the lede should reflect what mainstream sources say and focus on typical forms of marriage rather than trying validate every form imaginable. Polygamous unions with no legal or religious sanction and based strictly on emotion? I think it's covered. Kauffner (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that it does look like we are putting forward 'typical' marriages, but based on reviewing the anthropological sources for the Definitions section, I don't think we can make that claim. These are simply the forms of marriage most talked about in modern Western culture.--Trystan (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Impact of Media on the Institution of Marriage

What is the Impact of Media on the Institution of Marriage in the Society.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.51.192 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? How would this fit into the article? And sign your posts using four tildes, thanks! Consoar (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversial views section

The "Controversial views" section has been edited many times recently, and those edits show there is no consensus on how the article should treat this sub-topic. I suggest a discussion here could help reach such a consensus. I'll start: if this article doesn't link to the traditional marriage movement article, this article will not meet certain basic polices such as WP:NPOV. (sdsds - talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's getting dangerously close to being an edit war, so we should pause and discuss. Mrdthree seems to be saying (not trying to put words into your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong) that opposition to same-sex marriage is not inherently political, and thus should not be described as connected to a political movement. I don't understand this claim. How can efforts for or against legal recognition of same-sex marriage be non-political? Efforts to promote or prevent legislation is, by definition, a political matter. I hope Mrdthree can clarify his position, because either I'm severely misinterpreting his edit summaries or I simply don't understand the point he's trying to make. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell in the last 5 years there has been a social political movement to change the meaning of the word marriage. I am against the over extension of the word marriage.I have my 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s dictionaries and marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Somehow a judge ruled that definition should be changed. I am tired of all the P.C. redefining of words. I think that makes me a conservative, however on principle I am a libertarian, which means I am against laws defining marriage. My religious inclinations are vaguely diestic more than anything so I am simply a traditionalist. You can complain that the current romantic love definition of traditional marriage only goes back 100 years, fine but the monogamous definition of marriage goes back thousands of years. The evidence of cultures allowing same-sex marriage involves weak evidence or the mistranslation of words. Mrdthree (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Marriage itself has changed thousands of times throughout history, even the concept of love and monogamy are new. In lexicography, definitions change as society changes (not the other way around), why do we take a definition from the 60's and ignore all the history preceding it? What about the cultures that have and still do practice polygamy, that is more than just "One man and one woman" - correct? If we base our definitions on US customs then would we be ignorant of the fact that the word voter now includes African-Americans and women as opposed to "white male" - these are all things we must consider Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the bible and I am not sure what you mean by 'new' in terms of monogamy and marriage. The bible disapproves of adultery. The bible is fairly old. In general there have always been social taboos that helped enforce marriage contracts. I have no problem with polygamy and the cultures that practice polygamy usually have the strongest marriage taboos. Mrdthree (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't mentioned the Bible? Mrdthree you must understand that this is a neutral POV encyclopedia and you can not constantly revert the article to align with religious beliefs. They already have an encyclopedia for that called conservapedia, go post there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.222.54 (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is anything but neutral. 75.168.211.143 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are focusing on the religious aspects of the Bible and ignoring the historical value. If a 2-3 thousand year old book says a taboo in regards to adultery exists, then that is evidence that 2-3 thousand years ago, there were taboos towards adultery. Mrdthree (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Innaccuracies in the lede's bulleted list

I'm on record above as disliking the bulleted list in the lede, but if we are going to keep it, I think it needs at the very least some of its inaccuracies corrected. Such as:

The term "heterosexual marriage" isn't being used accurately. What is meant is opposite sex marriage, which isn't the same thing.
The term monogamy is being used ambiguously; it could be referring to marital monogamy or sexual monogamy.
A marriage between two people isn't necessarily monogamous, in any sense of the word. Polygamous marriages are still between one man and one woman, they just aren't exclusive.
The phrase "homosexual marriage" is neither an accurate nor a particularly popular way to refer to same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage" is far more common as the mildly inaccurate vernacular.
The details on polygamy being founded in the Old Testament and being phased out come across as rather random and far too specific for the lead of this article.

I'm still of the opinion that we can remedy all of the above problems while still covering all of the ground the paragraph currently covers with this edit, but if we are to keep the list, does anyone have any thoughts/comments on how to improve it?--Trystan (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the lede's bulleted list based on simplicity but I also like your concern for ambiguity. How do you suggest we could rephrase the lists without appearing too pleonastic? Also Trystan, what is the different between a heterosexual marriage (based on monogamy) and an opposite-sex marriage? Am I under the impression that they're different? Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that "heterosexual marriage" has any definitive meaning, since it doesn't seem to be used in academic sources. I take it as referring to the sexual orientation of the spouses, rather than their sex.

I gave trying to rephrase the list a shot, but didn't come out with anything legible. I think the section is missing a brief mention of at least a couple additional major ways in which marital practice varies across cultures, such as the respective rights of the parties and the ability to dissolve the marriage, but I wouldn't know how to add it to the current format. Trying to list "typical" forms of marriage grows unwieldy if we try and move beyond the two characteristics (exclusivity and sex) currently dealt with.--Trystan (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I too disapprove of a bullet points. I think they fail to convey the broader information in the article, are bound to attract controversy and a just, well, tacky. Also, what is a heterosexual marriage? I've never heard of that one before and I don't think it conveys the information that its author intended it to (would a polygamous marriage between heterosexual partners also be a "heterosexual marriage"). Really, we need to use something along the lines of "traditional" or "opposite" to represent normal marriages. - Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason it states "...in a monogamous heterosexual relationship", the reason why I approve of it is because it conveys the 3 possible forms of marriage, that is opposite-sex, same-sex, more than 2. -- Things like endogamy, polygyny, etc all fall into these categories and aren't gender-specific. I think it's important to convey all three possible types in the lede in a simplified format, especially considering the demographic of these articles are worldwide -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually the main reason I dislike it, because it implies that those three examples constitute the three basic types of marriage. They are certainly three types of marriage, but I am uncomfortable - without some reliable sources supporting the approach - to label them as the essential variations of the institution. One could very reasonably argue that the rights of the spouses, or the permanence of the union, or the capacity requirements to enter into it are more fundamental than the gender of the spouses or exclusivity of the marriage. These are certainly the three types of marriage that are making headlines in the modern western world, but I don't know if a a rigorous academic analysis would agree that marriage can be broken down into three fundamental types, or if it could, that this would be the way to do it.--Trystan (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of how marriage can differ without these 3 broad categories? Because let us say (and keep in mind I'm not endorsing this, just asking for discussion's sake) that we were going to make a giant list of all the types of marriages, what could we include that goes beyond MF, MM (FF), or Multiple? You did say "One could very reasonably argue that the rights of the spouses, or the permanence of the union, or the capacity requirements to enter into it are more fundamental than the gender of the spouses or exclusivity of the marriage" - the issue here however doesn't intrude on the broad definitions, rights and passages are determined culturally, just because a woman may have no rights that doesn't stop it from being a heterosexual relationship does it? Permanence of the uion or capacity requirements are again determined culturally, all these things are just variations of the 3 types of marriages. ALL of the above however would be great to include in a "history of the definition" section (or expansion of the current definitions). Of course it's up to you guys, I'd rather combine our works then write it all myself -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, we could describe "marriage between equals" and "marriage not between equals" as the two fundamental types. We could then say that various marriage practises (opposite-sex, same-sex, and polygamous) can occur, but all such variations can be classified into one of those two broad categories without intruding on their essential definitions.

To do so, it seems to me, would be to make an unsubstantiated value judgement that spousal equality is the one fundamental characteristic by which marriages should be classified. I'm not sure that we are any more justified in claiming that gender or exclusivity are the fundamental characteristics by which marriages should be classified. Given the wide variety of marriage practises, and the diverse attempts by anthropologists to analyze them, I am hesitant to have the article endorse any one taxonomy for classifying marriages that isn't grounded in the literature.--Trystan (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I could say that all marriages fall into two categories; unions between 2 partners and more than 2 partners. While true, the statement is far from an encyclopedic description of marriage and (to the best of my knowledge) has no foundation is scholarship. The bullet points should go. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "marriage between equals" and "marriage not between equals" mean exactly? Does it mean equals in terms of social status? Religion? Age? Tribe? Country? etc etc. - the reason I prefer the bulleted system is for simplicity's sake. Would you prefer we write it as two bullet points instead of one and if not, how would you write it? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to marriages in which the partners have equal legal rights, compared to those in which they don't, but it was just an arbitrary example. Another alternative that Duran Bell might propose is that the two fundamental categories of marriage are those in which a husband has a sexual access right to one or more women, and those in which this is not the case.

I couldn't suggest a way to rewrite the bulleted list that doesn't, in my view, over-simplify the inherent complexity of the issue. This edit was my proposed replacement, with an expectation that it could be expanded to address several additional ways in which marriage practise varies.--Trystan (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what other people think but I have no problem changing it granted it establishes simplicity. Perhaps we could start it with something like this:

Marriage practices vary across cultures and may take many forms. Monogamous relationships ..... Polygamy describes..... - something along those lines? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to go into specifics in the lead, particularly specifics that seem arbitrary. Those different practices are addressed later in the article, and in other articles that are linked from this one. Let’s just remove the bullet points from the lead. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I was bold, and removed the following from the lead, purely because WP:IDONTLIKEIT (In reality to match WP:BETTER). The following was removed:

* A [[heterosexual]] marriage uniting a man and woman as [[husband]] and [[wife]] (also known as a [[monogamy|monogamous]] [[heterosexuality|heterosexual]] marriage) * A [[same-sex marriage]] uniting a man and a man as [[husband]] and [[husband]], or a woman and a woman as [[wife]] and [[wife]] (also known as a [[monogamy|monogamous]] [[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage). * [[Polygamy]] in which a person takes more than one [[spouse]] has historical precedent in the [[Old Testament]] (for example, Abraham). While illegal in most Western societies as in many others, it still remains common in some [[society|societies]].<ref name="Murdoch">{{cite book|first=George Peter|last=Murdock|authorlink=George Peter Murdock|title=Social Structure|publisher=The MacMillan Company|location=New York|year=1949|isbn=0-02-922290-7}} See also: [[Kaingang]].</ref> Most countries where polygamy is still legal are moving to repeal those laws.<ref>Coontz, Stephanie. ''Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.'' Penguin, 2006. ISBN 014303667X. </ref>{{rp|274}}

Leaving it here, because the information could be useful in other places in the article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"...as no original definition exists"

These rather odd turn of phrase keeps getting reinserted into the article. I'm not quite sure what it is trying to convey. Asserting negative claims in articles is generally best avoided, and this one in particular makes no sense to me. In the context of an anthropological analysis of cross-cultural marital practises, the concept of an "original definition" has little to no meaning. What on earth would an "original definition" be? Whatever notion it is referring to, why do we need to explicitly state that it doesn't exist?--Trystan (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems a little weaselly. No "original definition" exists for most cultural crap. This is idea is also essentially presented by including historical examples of variations from what people consider "the definition". - BalthCat (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Methinks our POV radar should go off when we see WP:Weasel. Depending on if such statements are affirmative or negative, somebody's trying to stake out the "high ground" by associating their POV with historical precedent. Historical usage of particular concepts may in fact exist — as I do believe applies to "marriage." However, applying WP:OR and WP:V will take care that such are appropriately applied. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, of course an original definition exists! We just happen to not know what it is as the concept of marriage predates recorded history. Perhaps we could think of a better wording for this phrase or keep what we've currently have implemented? Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the "without knowing if they have a common origin" wording really addresses the problem. Do we have a source stating that anthropologists don't have a handle on the origins of marriage? For all I know, the field has a very good idea of how marriage evolved from primate mating behaviour to a social institution. The issue isn't that they don't know what marital practices are and have been in existence; it's that trying to abstract a core commonality that captures all of those documented practices is elusive.

Also, this edit moves the sources out of chronological order. Is there a particular reason to put Leach and Bell before the others? It reads like we're endorsing them over the others, and kind of breaks up the sense of how these theories developed over time.--Trystan (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is something I've noticed on various edits throughout wikipedia and it seems people are rearranging according to what THEY feel is best (and that is wrong), however I was once told that it should be rearranged according to popularity and how often it's sourced, although Leach seems to be sourced more than Westermarck, Bell is most definitely not. Could someone tell me how it's SUPPOSE to be, is it by last name, first name, sources? Consoar (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote the section originally, the definitions were in chronological order. I don't know why it was reordered or what the logic behind it is now. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the chronological order. I've also tagged the "common origin" phrase with a fact tag, to clarify that it isn't from the citation provided for that sentence.--Trystan (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit which cited the phrase to Westermarck. Westermarck specifically states that he tends to assume similar practises have a common origin, and goes into great detail outlining what he believes the biological origins of cross-cultural marriage practises to be.--Trystan (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also expanded Westermarck's definition to include various other marriages throughout history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1965 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Westermarck's definition, I can't find a passage where he makes it explicit one way or the other, but I can't make any sense of his work without proceeding on the assumption that he intends his definition to included non-exclusive (i.e. polygamous or potentially polygamous) marriages. I believe the same is true of the Notes & Queries definition. Gough's tweaking of the N&Q variation to cover the isolated instance of same-sex marriage among the Nayar makes very little sense if the definition doesn't already include polygynous marriages.

To my understanding, two women in polygynous marriages to the same man are not generally considered spouses vis-a-vis each other, strictly speaking. Rather, they are often termed 'sisters' and in some polygamous societies are required to be literally so. In many cultures, they would not share the same household, and in a few would not necessarily even be aware of each others' existence.--Trystan (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My multi-volume copy of Westermarck's book (The History of Human Marriage - mind you, the newest up-to-date edition he had written) came in the mail today and I realized that the original quote by him was inaccurately posted. The definition that existed (and that I have updated to quote Westermarck verbatim) was taken from the very first page of the very first chapter of the very first volume (Chapter I - The origin of Marriage). Now Westermarck did not say "marriage is defined as..." and proceeded to define it in it's current form of the article but rather began with the following line: "Definition of marriage as a social institution - The institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit" - Following this line Westermarck dedicates the rest of the chapter (which is just one big paragraph, taking up an entire page) and begins to give the various definitions of marriage. The one currently in the article is taken directly from the middle, others include "among the invertebrata" "The duty of marring the widow of a deceased brother" "social conditions of savages who know neither cattle-rearing nor agriculture, unless perhaps of the most primitive kind" etc etc. so my question is, how do we decide what is and isn't? I may edit the article to include his very first line and then go on to describe the rest, I wanted to see your suggestions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Westermarck discusses his own definition in this later book, which might be helpful.--Trystan (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Regarding this edit, the Oxford English Dictionary tends to agree with the Webster's etymology, and explicitly states that the last step in the evolution listed on myEtymology.com is incorrect:

The first element [of maritus] is probably not, as proposed by Priscian and many subsequent etymologists, mari-, mas ‘man, male’; it may be cognate with a number of words for young men and women...--Trystan (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 on this, the word marriage itself originated in the 12th century correct (in English that is)? Now based on this we understand that previous cultures used various (other) words to describe the union of things, or ceremonious things, or matrimonial, etc. Various etymologists agree that if we're going to discuss the ENGLISH word 'marriage' then the etymology from maritus & mas (that is, the latin origins) is correct. That being said I feel we need to include various words that describe marriage, otherwise anything that doesn't align itself with maritus would be invalid, let me know. Consoar (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, sort of a random question but does anyone know WHERE the word marriage appears during 1250-1300 C.E (as sourced)? I'm not debating it as I believe it, but where was it written?Consoar (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the date from the dictionary citation given. You could try looking up "marry" in Oxford English Dictionary. Kauffner (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The OED gives the date as 1135, but the first example provided is c.1300 from the South English Legendary.--Trystan (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd take the OED as more authoritative then an etymology website. So I think I'll change the etymology again. Some other words to include would be "matrimonial" and "wed". I'll leave out the PIE etymology this time, since I haven't read the OED entry. Ben Standeven (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My copy of OED says this exactly: "Middle English: from Old French mariage, from marier 'marry'" - I've edited the article as such. IIRC, we can't take the opinions of one etymologist and apply it to the article in general, otherwise we must exclusively state that there is a controversy. Nonetheless the definition oxford gives is very minute, all it says is: "the former union of man and woman as recognized by law" - wait a second, by law? Man and woman? What about polygamy? What about private marriages not recognized by the state? What about culturally diversity? Regimes? I don't think it's a realiable source but for the sake of the talk page I've included it's etymology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1965 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just an update, thanks to Trystan I found the source he received it from (regarding the etymology). The line directly before the Priscian quote read: "< maritus, marita married, of uncertain origin.>" which goes back to my point, the origin is unknown as far as I see. The word 'wed' was far more popular in terms marriage. Also, Katherine Barber, one of the top editors of Oxford claims the etymology of myetymology.com is correct, and that it does derive from the Latin mari, meaning “male.” Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainty is inherent in etymologies; so long as we accurately reflect the qualified language of the sources, it's not a reason to exclude a potential origin. If both Webster's and the OED suggest a likely origin, I think that more than meets WP:RS for including it, if we feel it benefits the article.--Trystan (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you source me to the version of the OED you were using? I also feel the problem with "potential" and "probable" origins do not benefit the article (unless of course we include all the possibilities), for example, simply saying "Source X says this and assumes source Y is wrong". So do we include all possible origins or no origins at all? Maybe we should go as far back as we know. This reminds me of the time when scientists believed that tonsils were a human vestigial and later learned that the assumptions were wrong. Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The unabridged on-line OED. I have no problem including a probable origin backed by highly reputable sources, but I'm also fine with leaving it out.--Trystan (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Taboos

No real discussion of marriage taboos. The article emphasizes the permissive history of marriage but pretty much ignores the long history of enforcement of loyalty and marriage bonds. For the woman, these penalties were much stricter and violation of marriage bonds could be a capital offense. These taboos play a powerful role distinguishing marriage from other relations. Mrdthree (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I thought marriage taboos meant things like not being able to marry someone with the same surname, totem animal, etc. Ben Standeven (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Marriage has historical and cultural taboos in addition to political and religious. THis means there is a social cost for violating certain cultural expectations of the marriage contract; such as adultery, incestuous marriage, spouse abandonment, flirting, dating, 'open marriages'. Different societies have different levels of taboo for marriages, with the consequences of such behavior being severe in conservative societies and minor in more permissive societies. Such taboos are maintained independent of religion and are often cultural in origin (communist countries had/have marriage, atheistic countries like Japan have marriage). (simple things like loyalties may have to be picked after a divorce). Mrdthree (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense I'm afraid, a taboo is nothing more than a social prejudice or "an inhibition or ban resulting from social custom" - since this isn't a country-specific encyclopedia what we in the United States may consider taboo could be completely acceptable in various other countries and cultures, for example, we don't mind divorce though in several other places it's taboo, so who's to choose what is and isn't right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1965 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I see his point in this regard. The contract is not always enforced just in an interpersonal sense, but society at large may expect you to keep that contract. For example the contract is often in the eyes of a god, a priest, or a judge, etc. (disclaimer: IANAMarriage Historian, but this seems pretty obvious to me ) "Violations" include, (As said above) adultery and dissolution, and even failure to initiate can be socially unacceptable, leading to the term "shot-gun wedding" :P. Headings that currently relate are "Termination" and "Rights and obligations". I'm not sure where would be best to integrate this section, but I think this article would benefit from a general introduction to the concept of the various cultural and legal ramifications to going against this spoken/unspoken/legal/religious/etc. contract. It could then lead into the various Marriage-by-culture/nation articles. - BalthCat (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanding Definitions

I think the way the definitions are organized are indeed very neat although I feel it's biased in the fact that it's ignoring sociological history. What I mean is the definition section does not include anything about dowry, business transactions, lines of succession, etc etc - now although most of us would agree that such concepts are taboo and frowned upon today (which I agree), I feel it's completely ignoring the historical implications of marriage. So we can do one of several things and I'd like your input, should we include things like polygamy, endogamy, etc directly into these sections or should we add a new sub-section (that is, an extra section within the definitions section) to explain how the definition has changed or updated with modern society? Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all good stuff, but I don't think it belongs in "definitions." There is already a "Financial considerations" section. If the emphasis is on how thinking on these issues has evolved over time, it could go in the history section. Kauffner (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned it in regards to the definitions section is because I feel we're just taking the X's and Y's of a certain lineage of marriage and leaving out the Z's. Perhaps you (and others) could elaborate on what I'm trying to get at, but it seems the problem with the anthropological definition is they exclude sociological definitions. I think what we should do (and I want all your opinions on this) is to go as far back in history as we can, I'm talking about Mesopotamia and beyond and look at their customs. The article could look something like this:

Anthropological Definitions

"Since the era of 'xyz' (here we could go as far back as credible evidence suggests) the definition of marriage has been applied and changed depending on the society. In Mesopotamian society, marriage was highly dependent on dowry, bride price, social standing, etc according to Hammurabi's Code...." <-- From here I assume we could go from BC to CE, right up until modern society, otherwise I feel it's unfair to only include the "modern" definitions. Suggestions? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly fair to argue that a given definition makes arbitrary distinctions between which aspects are essential and which are accidental to the institution. Is the definition of marriage in a particular culture the sum of all of that culture's marriage practices and laws, or just some necessary and sufficient core aspects? If so, which ones, and how are they distinguished? The problem is that entering that discussion without basing it on reliable sources would be original research. So long as we limit ourselves to citing the explicit attempts of others to define marriage, the section has a clear and natural boundary to it. For example, marriage certainly existed in the British Empire prior to 1866 and was the subject of many laws, but it hadn't been explicitly legally defined.--Trystan (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe they need to necessarily be "legally" defined in order to have a meaning of that particular era, I could name off idiom after idiom for example that have general meanings but aren't legally defined anywhere. Also, was there a reason for the recent "anthropological definitions" reversion you made? Because you said the "basic definition doesnt polygyny or polyandry" but in these relationships all partners are technically married to eachother, that is a 1 man -- 3 woman relationship also implies that the females were married to eachother. Just thought I'd point that out Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it doesn't need to be explicitly defined to be practiced or to have meaning, but I guess my point is that trying to formulate a definition is best left to anthropologists and lawmakers. Where they have explicitly done so, we can report on it, but otherwise it's uncharted territory. Here, can't even develop a strong consensus on a brief description of marriage for the opening line of the article. :) --Trystan (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Here, can't even develop a strong consensus on a brief description of marriage for the opening line of the article." - the beauty of wikipedia isn't it Trystan? ;) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the word 'marriage' is being redefined. Generally speaking the word marriage has meant heterosexual monogamous marriage, polygamy in foreign lands whose concept of marriage does not distinguish polygamy and monogamy, and recently same-sex marriage. Probably the best thing is to list cases and the argument for their inclusion under the concept 'marriage' and if a culture has some strange custom related but distinct from the meaning of marriage in English, then list these customs as as special cases and dont consider them as part of the definition. Also, I would like to see, for any unusual practices (by Western standards) a reference that states that for that foreign or ancient or prehistorical culture, they use the same word as they do for man-woman unions, which can be failry translated to the English word 'marriage', a word born of the Western tradition. Mrdthree (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That said I like the kinship definition. It hits my understanding of marriage on the head. Love may be important but there is a deeper loyalty bond created by marriage. The definition lacks discussion of sexual taboos and the fact that marriage generally creates the crime of adultery.Mrdthree (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Crime according to whom? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Correct DEFINITION of the Instinctive Human CONCEPT of Marriage

. . Here is the correct definition of the instinctive human concept of Marriage, as clarified in the scientific Life Science eBook, "The Octahedron, The Symbol Of Man, Blueprint For Civilization":
. . "Marriage - The intimate union of two healthy sovereign citizens of opposite gender and the same genre [i.e., White, Black, Brown, or Yellow - European, African, Oriental, or Asian], of approximately the same age and proper relative stature, near the start of the second season of their lives, while they live in the same sovereign city, practice the same culture, profess the same religion, and speak the same defined language, with the intent of building a common home in which they can breed delightfully beautiful, strong, healthy, educated, civilized, legitimate, and socially adaptable normal children, and who together enjoy frequent amative sexual pleasures".
. . This instinctive definition clearly excludes perversions such as homosexual, interracial, polygamous, inter-generational, inter-cultural, and platonic unions, or the union of slaves, incompetents, illiterates, midgets, or other freaks; or children to children, or tall women to short men, or celibate nuns to dead males or to fictitious comic-book characters.
. . This correct definition excludes as irrelevant any reference to any required ceremonies or to any required government, cult, or public approval or tradition.
. . . . . Civilized Man (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your genre might actually be more tetrahedral. Octahedral people sometimes eat their own poop.Mrdthree (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a reason why I made the talk section "Expanding Definitions" for this very purpose. Now, I don't know how accurate your source is (because of course marriage originated from more than one place at once, and thus had different customs) but I can definitely see how these "laws" were "enacted" and thus "defined" , I guess I'll wait and see what other wikipedians think first -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by Afaprof01

Could this particular user (or anyone else) explain to me the recent edits that he constantly readds into the article? Like

- US specific legal definitions from 1999, wouldn't this go under laws? - Why was a reference to the Confucius quote left but the link to the reference removed? From what I've gathered, the user added a definition from the author and removed the link to the reference so no editors could check - Why was the chronological order rearranged? - What does SSM have to do with an opening description of past marriages? - Why is the author quote being split (or added) the Confucius quote in the same manner? - The supposed 'well known definition' from 1845 was not sourced, was this a law in a particular country?

Other definitions such as: "An English common law definition was established in 1866 as: "...marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others" - into Christendom? Where else did this apply? What about to the Atheist (ie: secular), Islamic, etc type weddings?

To me this appears like a clear bias and looking at this users past edits, seems likely, I'd like others to comment Linestarz (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears pretty obvious according to the most recent edits -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Kinship and Sexual Access Rights

If you reject the idea that marriage includes sexual access rights, please explain why? Again my principle complaint with teh first line is that it is not identifying marriage-- marriage is a sexual relationship, not simply a union that creates kinship. Adoption is a union that creates kinship. Sexual access rights come from a marriage contract. This is a topic discussed unrelentenly in the article. Adultery is the violation of this aspect of a marriage contract. I am happy to leave out adultery but it is untrue that marriage is simply a union that creates kinship. This is a wrong definition. Mrdthree (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording is too vague to account for how variable the rights are between cultures. The issue of sexual rights should be covered, but such a vague phrase in the intro implies a non-existent uniformity. In some cultures, marriage creates a right to unconditional sexual access; in others, acting on such a "right" is considered rape. In some cultures, it creates a right to exclusive sexual access; in others, various forms of polygamy or other non-exclusive relationships are considered acceptable. It's better to describe the matter of rights in detail later in the article than to have an inadequate and potentially misleading statement in the introduction. It's true that marriage does more than just create kinship, but that is a fully integral part of it. If there's a good way to word the "more" element for the intro, that would be an improvement, but in lieu of that it's better to have just "kinship" in the introduction and use the rest of the article to elaborate on what composes the "more" in different cultures and social contexts. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that a sexual relationship is incidental to the definition of marriage? If so I challenge the idea. I mean who hasnt heard of immigration officers coming to check that a 'married couple' is cohabitating? The sexual relation is more essential than the kinship relation! Both are necessary features of marriage andboth should be stated. Please check all the cases you list and see that specific sexual access rights is abstract enough to apply as a common property to all of them. Mrdthree (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Marriage does not create sexual rights, it is not a crime to have sex before marriage and a married partner may refuse to have sexual relations during marriage. This is about marriage in general, not about a particular religious view. Maybe in the 1800's adultery was a legal charge, not anymore, maybe marital rape was ok then, not anymore. So no, the modern definition of marriage comes with no sexual rights. If one chooses to have sex before marriage, if one chooses to not have marital sex, or if the couple decides to have sex outside their marriage, that is their business. Society has no right to dictate how adults chose to arrange their kinship. Nobody can be charged for having sex before or outside marriage while marital rape is rape all the same. Marriage creates a kinship, any sexual relation a couple decide or not to have in or outside marriage is the couple's business not arising necessarily from the marriage. If the state can't enforce those so called rights then they do not arise from civil marriage. If a partner promises to not have sex with other, that is a personal agreement with or without marriage, no law no court can enforce it, the worst that can happen is that the cheated partner chooses to end the relationship or the marriage. The marriage is not canceled by the state because the person was cheated unless one partner files a dissolution which may be filed without any reason under any circumstance. In other words, no sexual rights only personal agreements regardless of marital status. Moreover if the person chooses to stayed married after finding out the adultery the marriage is valid notwithstanding the adultery. Again, the legal contract may confer many things, immigration benefits, health insurance, parental rights, etc, but does not provide sexual rights. The very idea is repulsive to human dignity and civilized society. Sexual relations is incidental to marriage. In the US a dying person can marry without ever being able to have sexual relation, a person with a life sentence without parole may marry a free person. and yes interacial marriage is legal too,Doubt? see [[12]] gorillasapiens (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that at all. Please re-read the examples I gave, and you'll see that I said nothing of the sort. I'm saying that the legal rights a spouse has in regard to the sexual relationship are too varying and complex to be accurately addressed with a quick mention in the intro. I'm saying that it's better to post-pone the discussion of those rights until later in the article where they can be given proper consideration than to have a statement which is likely to be misinterpreted and so vague that it's almost cryptic in the intro. "Specific" is still vague and prone to misinterpretation, because it is unclear if the same specific rights apply to all marriages or if it is specific to each culture. And immigration officials may verify cohabitation, but they do not demand proof of a sexual relationship! It's implied, but not legally mandated. And that's separate from the sexual rights of one spouse to the other, regardless. The "kinship" phrasing is itself vaguer than would be ideal, but so far attempts to craft a better (but still universally accurate) intro sentence have had problems similar to this one. In light of that, it's better to have a vague but accurate intro and let the article itself clarify the matter than to have a more precise but inaccurate intro. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis about the immigration officer, I just mean to point out there is an expectation of a sexual relation in marriage. I like the kinship statement but my point is that a sexual relationship is equal priority to kinship; they are both necessary components of marriage. Marriage is meant to encourage sex and to have the first sentence, define marriage as a kinship arrangement is half the story and does not explain mariage; it makes it the equivalent of (or indistinguishable from) adoption. Now if, for now you want to put "and a complex sexual relationship" then thats fine by me until someone rephrases it, but that sentence is more legitimate than a kinship definition of marriage. Mrdthree (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

and for the record, no!. immigrant officer cannot go into people's bedroom to check if they have intercourse. Cohabiting is not synonymous with intercourse. and intercourse is not mandated by marriage gorillasapiens (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Governor Sandford of South Caroline admitted to cheating, he is still married, and wasn't charged with adultery because that is not a violation of lawgorillasapiens (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I dont mean legal rights; I mean contractual rights. Marriage is a contract. Contracts create rights between parties. The violation of these rights terminates the contract. In marriage violation of the sexual terms of the agreement is known as adultery and adultery is grounds for terminating a marriage in all societies. As you pointed out the exact terms are negotiable, but nonetheless for it to be marriage there must be some sexual access terms. Mrdthree (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

How about: Marriage is a social union between individuals that creates kinship and places specific limitations on sexual access. Mrdthree (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Several criticisms of Duran Bell's sexual-access-based definition are included in his article that we cite. I think we need to keep in mind that we shouldn't be trying to define marriage - a task that has eluded anthropologists for decades - but to come up with a fairly clear, somewhat loose description of it. Reviewing the efforts of the anthropologists tends to support avoiding absolute, definitive statements about what marriage is, because marriage practises are so diverse that there are always exceptions.

I agree, and it has been raised in the past, that something more than "kinship" is needed. The consensus of the previous discussion on this point was that the sexual aspect is sufficiently addressed by the opening of the second lede paragraph. I still support moving this up to the first paragraph, and moving the "This union may also be called matrimony" sentence further down in the lede. That would leave our opening as:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic.--Trystan (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are claiming that marriage can take place without a sexual access limitation provide an example with references or the claim is original research/opinion. If it helps I would define that as a culture that has marriage without infedility or adultery being reason to break the contract. Mrdthree (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Trystan's proposal. It brings the important point that the relationship is of an intimate/sexual nature to the beginning (2nd sentence is still intro, just as good as 1st in my opinion, especially when attempts to work it into the 1st result in awkward wordings), using a wordings that is mostly already accepted by consensus. It would require a slightly altered segue into recognition in the 2nd paragraph, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem. He's also right that it's not our job to craft a perfect definition when better minds have struggled with that for far longer than we've been trying, lol! The intro is important and should be a good one, but there's still the entire article to elaborate on everything that can't be worked perfectly into the intro. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont like the qualifiers in the sentence. I think the qualifiers are editorializing without evidence. I think the qualifier, usually should be justified-- leaves open the idea of a nonsexual marriage. I want evidence for this. Also I want a counter example to the necessity of sexual access limitations associated with marriage, or its inclusion. For the positive assertion I offer the adultery articlem, states the Encyclopedia Britannica as stating adultery is universal.Mrdthree (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with trystan and icarus. The qualifier is proper and the conterexample has already been offer click here[[13]] This link shows that a person in jail may marry, a person that is about to die, both of them were not able to have sexual relations. More counter examples are found in other cultures, Brazilian formula one racer Joao Gilberto de Menezes married after becoming paraplegic. If one reads my other contributions to this section of the talk page, one can see other general examples. Many examples were presented. Governor Sandford of South Caroline is a famous example. the contract wasn't breached when he cheated for the marriage is still valid; only his wife personal expectation that was not enough to end the marriage. an explanation as to why a general but accurate description is better than a specific but not universally accurate was also given. Again adultery is a breach of agreement that may come with or without marriage. Infidelity being the more general term. Unmarried people may have personal agreements that relates to infidelity. And married people may stay married after their expectations are attacked when infidelity is committed. So while marriage may make official the expectations of the partners, those expectations are not rights and they don't arise necessarily from the marriage. It is not universal for husbands to own their wives and marital rape as a right is a bad definition. and what about polygamous marriages, surely exclusive sexual 'rights' dont apply there either. Consensus does not mean unanimity. I suspect a game is being played here just to get people going. I beleive Mrdthree is not serious about improving the article. gorillasapiens (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please rethink your examples; you have offered no counter example that marriage comes with the necessity of sexual access limitations. Your example of Sanford is moot; the wife retains the right to divorce on the basis of Sanford's infidelity; she chooses not to exercise that right. It is a common situation in contracts. My point is that there is an expectation concerning infidelity that necessarily comes with marriage. As for my 'not being serious' it was my arguments that lead Trystan to include the sexual nature of marriage in the lead. My last argument is that you must take the universality of adultery seriously, however defined.Mrdthree (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've explained that Sanford's wife could have divorced at will for no reason whatsoever, that is, even before the adultery so her right to get a divorce did not arise form the adultery. No one can ever be forced to be in a marriage against their will. This is a right irrespective of infidelity. As to the expectations, I have already mentioned that one may have an agreement with their significant other even before marriage. Maybe you can understand by points:

a married couple divorce because of adultery
a husband refuses to have sexual relation with his wife because of a headache
an unmarried couple have an agreement to not cheat on each other, the moment one partner finds out the other cheated the relantionship is over.
an unmarried couple decide to have sexual intercourse before marriage.
a married couple cannot physically have sexual relations because of age or disease but stay married because of love.
a married couple decides to divorce and live in different houses because of financial problems but continue to have sexual relations, reunite but never remarries.
a married couple get into an argument, stop forever having sexual relations but decide to stay married because of their faith's opposition to divorce.
a married couple allow each other to have a one night stand with their friends for physical pleasure because of an agreement but still love each other, live together and stay married
a married couple stay married after adultery
a married couple divorces for no reason at all, the relationship did not last
polygamous marriage; and on and on and on

what sexual rights, not existent before marriage, does marriage provide in each on the examples above? why are you only considering the first? I showed the right to dissolve a marriage is inherent in marriage, I showed the state cannot enforce any imaginary sexual rights you may think you have. I showed the expectations partner have does not necessarily arise from marriage. This is an encyclopedia not a description of you personal expectations for marriage. I suspect you are not serious in improving the article with this. since the very idea of male sexual ownership is demeaning to women I adamantly oppose any mention of it as a universal definition. gorillasapiens (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point; marriage comes with an expectation of sexual limitation in some form. MOre succint: Adultery is a corollary of marriage and it is universally recognized in cultures that recognize marriage. I dont care what the consequence is; but in all or almost all cultures there is a cost to breaking the expectation. In some cultures it is death, in most cultures it is simple social shunning, in other cases, the couple simply recognizes it as a violation of trust. My point is that marriage creates some expectation of sexual limitation. Your examples are somewhat useless; Suppose I said: 1. A couple wants to get married but doesnt want kinship to be established. Then what happens (god forbid) to our kinship definition of marriage?? But going over your cases: (3), (4), (6), (12) have nothing to do with marriage (1), (2), (5), (7), (8), (9) there is still some expectation of sexual limitation; (10) and (11) do not address the relevant issues. Mrdthree (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The expectations of sexual limitations arises from the relationship and not necessarily from the marriage. If a couple wants to get married say apparently for economic reasons, then the kinship is nevertheless established though presumably to economical ends. If a couple wants to get married but doesnt want the kinship, then they are confused and do not really want to get married. But if they do get married then the kinship is established whether they like or not, that is, they automatically get rights and responsibilities, say rights of Next of Kin related to decisions over medical care in case of partner incapacitation, property inheritance, child custody, etc. again whether they like it or not the kinship is established by law. What is never established is sexual rights except in a few theocracies. Neither are expectations of sexual limitation because that is a personal decision established by the relationship not by law, and not necessarily from the marriage. Or are you saying an unmarried couple cannot expect sexual limitation since it can only come with marriage so if one partner cheats, the relationship must continue after all marriage is what provides the expected sexual limitation, or are you saying a married couple may divorce but still have sexual relations though never with sexual limitations since after all the only thing that limited their sexual instinct outside their mutual relationship was the marriage itself, not their love and respect for each other? and by the way the death imposition. This is imposed by the very same exceptional theocracies that approve of polygamous marriages. Yet your definition declares universal the exceptional. Isn't that ironic? gorillasapiens (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The enclyclopedia britannica is a current and valid source of information[14]. Encyclopedia Gorillsapiens is less proven. As to your legal and marital hypotheticals: is there any legal way to block someone from having the rights of 'next of kin' and yet stay married? I would think there is. As for the universality of adultery. Every state (I know of) recognizes adultery as a violation of the marriage contract. No, I dont care what you do with your significant other(s). Mrdthree (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your citation quote adultery: sexual relations between a married person and someone other than the spouse. Written or customary prohibitions or taboos against adultery constitute part of the marriage code of virtually every society. Indeed, adultery seems to be as universal and, in some instances, as common as marriage. is a mere description of infidelity in marriage, not that marriage comes with sexual rights. Put another way: infidelity: sexual relations between an unmarried or married person with a person other than a spouse or partner. Written or customary prohibitions or taboos against infidelity constitute part of relationship expectations in every society. Indeed, infidelity in married or unmarried couples seems to be as universal and in some instances as common as relationships themselves. Again the expectations arise from the relationship not the necessarily from the marriage. The relationship comes with expectations, the marriage is like a rite of passage that doesn't change what is already there.gorillasapiens (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(withdraw criticism) if you can manage something like the comment from 7-31-09 21:48 I will drop my concerns on this thread: Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage.^[12] Mrdthree (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, this quote is well cited and I accept it as supported by the citation , therefore I also drop my concerns. Consensus agreed: Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of the marriage contract.^[13] gorillasapiens (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Great intro by Trystan! -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal definitions

I think we need to decide what to do with legal definitions. I had created a subsection under "Definitions" for them a while ago, thinking it could be expanded, but the English Common Law and Canadian definitions were quickly deleted, and the Roman one seems to be frequently coming and going. We also have a paragraph in the Anthropological Definitions section that discusses Hammurabi's Code, though the code does not define marriage, and I'm fairly certain that Hammurabi was not an anthropologist. :)

Legal definitions could fit equally well under "Definitions" or "Marriage Law". I still like it best under "Definitions". Marriage is so amorphous that a robust discussion presenting the diverse ways in which it has been defined is, I think, the best way to start off the article. How have anthropologists defined marriage? How have various legal systems? How have philosophers and religious figures? Alternatively, we could move any legal definitions into the "Marriage Law" section, where they would certainly not be out of place.

Either way, for legal discussion not involving definitions of marriage, like the Hammurabi's Code paragraph, I think the best place is under "Marriage laws".--Trystan (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hammurabi's Code is here. No definition of marriage that I see. (Nor is there anything about wives being equivalent to slaves.) The definitions given in the article should represent something more than just one author's opinion. By this standard, the definition by Thomas De Quincey strikes me as quite out of place. The Roman Law definition is from The Chinese Family System by Sing Ging Su, i.e. the same anthropology source as some of the other definitions given. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

When I think "anthropological definitions" I don't just think of individual anthropologists that have been quoted, I think of the "institutions" and origins of the social relationships of our past. This is why the definitions section needs some serious reformation, it's way too bland and short, arguments about who to quote and who not to quote rage every day. Also the interpretation of Babylon law (and Hammurabi's Code in particular) is important, rule #117 for instance dictated the "selling" of wives, and not only were they slaves but concubines to the male owners. Obviously it's cruel to think of them as "married" but that's what marriage was, an institution that has changed countless amount of times. My preposition is reforming this section to include the ABSOLUTE EARLIEST definitions we can find, that's a start.

Also I disagree with mixing marriage laws with definitions as suggested. First of all religious figures can define marriage how they want, there are articles dedicated to the various religions and their views on marriage, and besides, it would be slightly biased in terms of their faith :) - Also, definitions in terms of cultures (or something like Roman Law) is small, inadequate, and vague. Including them is no problem, I just feel that when we put them into the "marriage laws" section that we include what went behind these laws, such as the issue of property law, dowry, divorce, etc. It's like trying to define money as paper with words, this is encyclopedia, we must go beyond the mere words and understand the history of what's on it. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The definitions should be from secondary sources that focus on marriage. To create a description based on Hammurabi's code is WP:NOR. Section 117 doesn't give a husband a right to sell his wife. It says that both the husband and the wife can be sold into three years of forced labor if the family defaults. Section 172 provides for divorce while Section 119 says that a man can't sell his concubine. So I can't believe he could really sell his wife. Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner the laws are connected, look here at laws 141 and 146 for instance. What you're doing is looking at one law and saying "see! see!". Let me give you an example, I have the right to bear arms in the United States, this is civics 101. However I can't bear arms on an airplane, so in that case are my 2nd amendment rights being violated? If we look at the laws the same way you're looking at King Hammurabi's laws then yes, I have EVERY RIGHT to carry guns on an airplane, but in context we know that is NOT the case. Context is everything sir. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be my job prove that these claims are wrong. There is no citation for it now; Its just floating OR. Kauffner (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This source says only that the code provides for arranged marriage and brideprice, which is hardly the same as slavery. Even this is a bit misleading, since the code has a whole lot more to say about dowry than it does about "purchase price" (brideprice). Arranged marriage involves a decision by a parent made on behalf of a child. Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole concept of the bride price is in direct connection with the laws enacted, if you look at section 141 it explicitly states that for the wife to leave it's up to the discretion of the husband himself, especially the last part which states "she shall remain a servant in her husbands house" - which can only mean 2 things, one she is a still his wife and two she falls under the definition of a slave. Section 146 talks about the concept of polygamy and how a slave can not only assume equality as a wife, but serve the husband as well. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hammurabi, mariage and slavery

The particular statement about marriage being a cousin of slavery is established fallaciously. It is a generalization from one example: a century old commentary on Hammurabi's Code. To establish a radical idea like marriage is the cousin of slavery, several examples should be considered, or a reference that considers several examples should be provided. A more fair statement would be that women in ancient Mesopotamian civilizations had few rights. Prior to marriage, the woman had what rights her father gave her and when she was married, she traded those for what rights her husband gave her. The only way one could call marriage a cousin of slavery is in the more subtle way: that women were slaves and marriage was an institution in the female slavery enterprise. Mrdthree (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but I have to wonder what it is doing under "Anthropological definitions". Kauffner (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to explain this, can't either of you read the rules in the oldest set of laws we have? And Mrdthree I don't know if they've told you but this isn't Christianpedia, I know you love writing this from a pro-religious and pro-conservative bias but for once try to be partisan -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking over the available source on line (which does not have the older version of the book that is referenced but later editions),it seems clear that the text we have is nonsense and has no relation to the information given in the source. It does not talk about slavery or connect marriage and slavery - how this happened in our article I am not sure- but its a very poor representation of the source; or the author of the book changed his mind with more information and amended his text in later editions. Hardyplants (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The sad thing about wikipedia is the editors have no qualifications, if you have an internet connection and can type you're immediately qualified to add/edit whatever you want. That's fine, I'm not here to educate editors, I've moved it and removed any mention of slavery. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuer Woman-woman marriage

This is of no real interest to me, but just came across this article for those who have the interest:

AUTHOR: Susan McKinnon
TITLE: Domestic Exceptions: Evans-Pritchard and the Creation of Nuer Patrilineality and Equality
SOURCE: Cultural Anthropology 15 no1 35-83 F 2000

"It is bridewealth/childwealth, not birth and genealogical connection, that establishes membership in a thok dwiel. This is also the case, in varying permutations, in woman-woman marriage, ghost marriage, and the levirate (Evans-Pritchard 1951:108-114)."

fiction of woman-marriage.

It was still a marriage. And I've been loving your other edits to this article, I guess lying is wrong unless you're lying for Jesus, right? If you're a "professor" then I'm the queen of England -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem With Wikipedia

Does anyone notice that wikipedia has the most accurate, up-to-date articles until it comes to controversial issues? I just want to understand the motive behind people lying? Like the issue with Hammurabi's code, are people just too stupid to understand what these laws are saying, I'm fairly certain they still teach them in schools?

Or how about the two users Afaprof01 & Mrdthree, now I understand both of you are anti-gay marriage and pro-rah rah republican but wasn't lying part of the ten commandments you weren't suppose to follow? I mean, just looking at your past contributions I sometimes wonder what your purpose on this planet is to begin with?

Thanks, just had to ask -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My purpose is to love you and greet you in brotherhood. Mrdthree (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

hahahah great, Jesus must be proud :) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed Historyguy1965's last edit comments "With wikipedia, it's not necessarily what's right, but what a group concedes at a particular time". So how do you know what is "right", if you cannot agree by consensus what is right? -- Barrylb (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Because any anthropologist or historian that's studied a particular era knows of it's cultural customs, people here don't but they sure like to think they do! If we had wikipedia back in BCE we'd say the earth was flat and the sun was a God -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we all need to review how wikipedia works by rereading [15]. Hardyplants (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and people should also learn to understand the original citations that are included in various statements because there are far too many people who shrug their shoulders and say "I don't see the connection" - the inability for you to see what the source is saying and understanding the interpretation of the primary source is not the fault of the source, but yours -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009(UTC)

That is one reason why wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources, except maybe for quotes. Hardyplants (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no source for the Hammurabi stuff. It's just made-up nonsense. Why does it keep coming back? Kauffner (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are separate articles on the religious aspects of marriage, but there are also separate articles on the social and legal aspects. This is a generic marriage article. It is appropriate for its Lede to mention the aspects in an overview. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the best wording for the intro should be: Marriage is a union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the social norms of the culture or community"

And the secound para should mention that these social norms differ depending on religious, social, and contractual practices. Hardyplants (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed above, I see no reason to change the current wording, otherwise we might as well say -Marriage is a social, cultural, arranged, monogamous, bigamous, polygamous, etc etc...- Linestarz (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has three primary headings (by development: law, religion, economics) and some minor headings. This is spelled out in the article outline and these are acknowledged in the lead sentence: "...legal, social, emotional, economical, and religious." Mrdthree (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that such a huge group as the world's Catholics see it as a sacrament makes it a significant lede item. "Sacrament" to them ties it in with their view of salvation. I'm not Catholic, but as a responsible editor and also part of the Christianity WikiProject, I can't overlook the fact that editors of this Marriage article seem much more committed to (1) the "two individual" approach and disallowing any upfront reference to the overwhelming historical precedence of "man and woman" and (2) to downplay religious aspects even in the definition. I don't understand these biases.

I agree that this article does not need duplication of any of the main areas—law, religion, economics. In each area we need to say just enough to identify and briefly explain the area, and I think we mostly are doing that. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly notable that many religions have specific customs and beliefs surrounding marriage, and as such religion in general should be noted in the introductory section. But I disagree that any particular religion's beliefs should be specifically mentioned outside of the appropriate section which addresses many religions. That gives undue weight to those particular religions, seeing as no particular religion dominates the entire world population. I also disagree that the religious approach to marriage should be treated as in any way the most important aspect of marriage overall, such as listing it as the main reason people get married and every other reason as little more than a side note. This also amounts to undue weight, as religion is a very significant element of many societies' views of marriage, but not a single unambiguously most important element. In a nutshell, a balanced presentation addresses religion in a prominent way, but not a predominant way. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Afaprof01 if you sincerely believe that the giant paragraphs in the lede focusing on religion should be included then would you be against including information on Islamic, Hindu, etc traditions? By the time we get to religion 9,942 it'll be the large lede wikipedia has ever seen -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the two last "competing" versions of the lede [16] [17], I think they're both inadequate. The version mentioning a biblical injunction (whose bible?) and Canon Law / baptized (whose Canon, what is a "baptism"?) is clearly disproportionate for a second paragraph. Nevertheless, the previous version with "religious (ie: arranged marriages, family obligations, etc.)" seems inadequate. Just on a point of OR, marriage is really just a way of getting everyone to say it's OK for some certain two people to have sex with each other and to recognize the almost inevitable pair-bonding that ensues. At least that's the way the institution developed over historical time. Religion has certainly played a very fundamental role in this development, as witness many/all of Christian tradition saying you'll go straight to hell if you have sex outside of marriage, which is done by a pastor at a church, before God; Islam to a degree saying a man can't even look at a woman, especially "that way" unless he's married to her; Judaism I think saying you have to go ask a rabbi for approval; &c. I'll admit my vagueness on actual practice in different religions, but I know that many of them don't permit marriage outside the faith.

Clearly religion is intimately bound up with the idea of marriage, and until the last 20-40 years through most of the world has heavily influenced its definition and practice. I think religion deserves a little more prominence in the lede than a relative afterthought. Especially the parenthetical addenda: arranged marriages - what does that have to do with religion? Seems more like a social norm to me; family obligations - again, more of a social norm, OK we let you have sex, now you've got a kid, you have to look after it plus take care of your in-laws.

Apologies for the OR and opinions, but I think there's a neutral way between these two versions. Franamax (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A more neutral way (avoiding, for instance, the really awkward parenthetical) was what I was trying to get at with my edit [18]. Religion is mentioned (first in the list in one mention because it's prominent for may people, second in another mention because it's not unequivocally important enough to always be first). Further elaboration on what that means, overall or in any particular tradition, is cut out to avoid undue weight to religion overall or to any specific religion. That stuff can all be handled later in the section which exists specifically for that purpose (and even more in-depth in articles specifically about marriage and religion). I understand why Historyguy1965 reverted back to the last stable (or most stable, at least) version, but I personally believe that my edit is the best of the recent versions. Obviously I'm biased in favor of my own edit, but I hope the reasons I've explained for it make sense to other editors. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that version in the thicket of recent edits. I like it, except for the "and/or" bit - can you have an and/or in a list of items or should they instead be two separate items? Pretty good version though, and relatively neutral. Doesn't completely cover my little thesis above about marriage being a way of legitimizing sexual relations (which c'mon, that's what it's all about in a fundamental way, that and certain tax advantages). That point is mentioned a little further with the inclusion of adultery as a "violation of terms", but I don't see any mention of the bastard child concept, which is directly related to both marriage and sex, and religion for that matter. I do think it's a superior version though, considering the alternatives. Franamax (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my problem with some of the recent edits, there exists over 10,000 religions with thousands of different customs for marriages yet we include Biblical dictations and exclude everything else, to me this is extraordinary bias. Why do we mention things like canon law and cite Genesis but we don't cite the Quran, the vedas, bhagawath gita, etc? I have absolutely - NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER - including these in the article, but why the lead? If we keep the current version, that is, mentioning "religion" in a vague and general way then it covers all of the above, the way a lede should be. But Aafprof/mdthree insist on including their version of Christianity into the lede and somehow pretend it's a universal unbiased encyclopedia. What bothers me the most, more than anything is the cherrypicking of particular Biblical verses, if we ever do come to a consensus about including Biblical definitions of marriage in the lede then it's only fair to mention the polygamous unions, lack of legal age proclamations, incest, and the laws of divorce. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Historyguy, as we sail towards WP:RFPP, I must comment on your edit [19] placing "declaration of love" as the primary reason for marriage and stating that it is "axiomatically known" in the edit summary. First off, we don't do axioms here at English Wikipedia, we do proofs from external sources (except that it's axiomatic that you need at least a computer and an internet connection to contribute here directly). And what's love got to do with it? Marriage is a union between at least two individuals. It should surely be defined as a union of commitment, as it was just a few hours ago. Love is expressed person-to-person, marriage is (by one definition) a statement to society that the love is accompanied by a more or less permanent commitment to the other person(s). Perhaps you are thinking of popular polls where people are asked to pick one reason from a list of choices as to "why they got married"? Franamax (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax, I have no problem excluding it (or rather restoring it to it's original version). I just felt that if we broke it down (that is, people marrying for things like religious obligations, arranged marriages, etc) you'd have a greater percentage of people marrying for that, love, but if we can't do axioms then feel free to edit it -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I question Historyguy1965's good faith. Despite our lengthy conversations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrdthree#Do_you_know_how_to_use_wikipedia.3F ), during which we discuss that I am an agnostic/weak deist/ex-athiest, Historyguy1965 proceeds to accuse me and my arguments as being Christian as rhetoric or expediency demand i.e. ...But Aafprof/mdthree insist on including their version of Christianity into the lede and somehow pretend it's a universal unbiased encyclopedia. It is true I appear to have different beliefs than Historyguy1965, but I can only tell because he derides and restates my beliefs. But in part this enterprise is about documenting different beliefs. Mrdthree (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's probably a duck...just because Hitler says he isn't evil wouldn't make it so. Every single one of your contribs to this article are biased, and I really wouldn't care had I not seen you bend the truth in so many of them. Try this next time you edit an article, click "Preview" and re-read what you've edited, ask yourself questions like "Did I purposely malign the article to my pro-Christian bias?", "Is this seriously contributing to the article?", "Is this truly a NPOV statement?" , being honest goes a long way -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Hitler comparison proves my point. Mrdthree (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal comparison, try reading things twice before responding so that way you'll have a better understand of what's said. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Public Declaration of Love

Historyguy 1965 makes numerous unreferenced edits. It seems to me improbable that the most popular reason to marry is a public declaration of love. This may be the most popular reason in wealthy countries, but the wealthy are a billion people tops. what about the other ~4 billion that live in poorer nations? Do you really beleive they are marrying for love in Islamic countries, with all the social restrictions (I have numerous islamic friends), Hindu countries, and the poor areas of east asia, etc? I want evidence for such a claim if it is going to be put in the lead.Mrdthree (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you wasted your time typing this, if you'd have read the previous section and, in particular Franamax's post you'd have seen my response, I have no problem excluding it. You see I'm open to the possibility that I don't run everything, I love having input from other editors and am constantly reading the talk to see their opinions, try it some time -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment. and you did not concede anything to Franamax by way of axioms. In fact all I see is you repeating your claim that your uncited, personal opinions are widely accepted axioms: <Omitting parentheses>...I just felt that if we broke it down..you'd have a greater percentage of people marrying for that, love, but if we can't do axioms then feel free to edit it.... Mrdthree (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No I'm afraid you didn't understand it, I guess that goes back to the whole reading things twice mantra I'm trying to get you to understand -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Historically, people married to have legitimate children. In 18th century Europe, it was bad form to love your wife. A king put up his queen because he needed a legit son to succeed him. Even today, the Indian press talks about excitedly about "love marriages" because such things are daring and unusual in India. Kauffner (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments except maybe "it was bad form to love your wife" - which might have been true is some circles but was a minority view. Falling in love and then getting married is a relatively modern cultural view. Though one needs to keep in mind that marriage arrangements in the past were also dependent on the social strata that one belonged to; the poor were often allowed to seek out mates based on love and not obligation. It will make it easer to edit this article if we work with good sources, which there is no shortage, and avoid personal opinions. Hardyplants (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the first to point out that the idea of marrying for love was a relatively new (less than 100 y/o) concept. Based on public polling and obvious primeval/evolutionary instincts I assumed that love was the most popular form of partnership, I still believe this is true and most people aren't lying but like I said, I don't mind excluding it. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that makes you first to declare it and first to contradict it. Is that someone's tail you have caught in your mouth?Mrdthree (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should simplify it for you. I made a change in the article, yes? Now after several editors suggested an alternative, I conceded, why? Because it's wikipedia, this article is run by us, the editors. I, unlike yourself am open to changes, we all remember your whole "adultery/sexual access" whining, it was comical to see literally every editor disagree with you YET YOU STILL INSISTED IT BE ADDED AND CHANGED IT DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS AGAINST. It's not a matter of being right or wrong, but being smart. You can actually learn and benefit from other people without thinking you have the answer to the Universe. It's a beautiful thing :) -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Scope

We are getting to US specific for this general page on marriage. Hardyplants (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead is getting too vague again

Saying that "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship" is too general; that would make adoption a form of marriage. Can't we get a lead that says something? Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning historical definition of marriage

In the intro I added that "throughout history, marriage has usually been a union for men and women; some current movements seek to expand that definition." How is this at all POV? It's simply a fact. TheFix63 (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See lengthy discussion above. The ongoing social argument brings your statement into question under WP:POV. If there's a reliable, verifiable source that makes such a statement, it could be allowed; absent that source, it's too inflammatory, at least in this editor's opinion. Alan (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, you say "some current movements seek to expand that definition" which is completely false and misleading, same-sex marriage is also part of marriage, sorry, that's how lexicography works. Next you mention "usually a union for men and women" - if we're going to get specific, why not also mention white men and white women, after all facts are facts, right? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't think that black people got married before the civil rights era? What about nonwhite countries like China or India? Kauffner (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said, the editor mention marriages are "usually between men and women" (that doesn't exclude gay people or black couples) however it does use an adjective 'usually', so therefore why can't we apply the same standards to race as we do gender? I personally think it'd be stupid to but to not do so is a double standard -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy, boss. I think the point's already been made. Setting up a "slippery slope" argument serves nothing but to further inflame the argument. As I stated, if there's a good source for the statement, we might find consensus on allowing it. Otherwise, it doesn't add anything to the article and only turns the heat up on the argument. Alan (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, or the primary definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or the primary definition in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language reliable and verifiable?74.104.160.199 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is if we're going to add "usually has anything" then isn't it fair to include white men and women as well? I obviously wouldn't add such unnecessary redundancy into the lede but I'm just curious as to why TheFix63 doesn't feel it necessary to get as specific as possible. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The elephant-in-the-room that nearly everyone here is missing is that this article fails to reflect the fact that throughout all of the world, nearly all marriages, whether legalized or not, whether religiously recognized or not, whether polygamous or not, are between men and women. This is historically rooted and pervasive throughout the world. This fact stands despite the existence of same=sex marriage, which is legalized in a few countries and states and which must be mentioned in this article with links to the stand-alone article. But this article implies that there is no heterosexual bias in the occurrence of marriage throughout the world at present and throughout history. This article is clearly biased toward the POV of inclusion of same-sex marriage as equal in prevalence and common occurrence which is neither true, nor has factual references supporting such. Are same-sex marraige advocates so insecure with their position that they need to commandeer a Wikipedia article to bolster their POV that same-sex marriage has the same status as heterosexual marriage? Why is every attempt to differentiate between the status of the two always met with such entitled opposition? 74.104.160.199 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just a shame than whenever religiously-biased editors see that history contradicts their faith (as well as science, etc), they get all angry and flustered. What exactly is historically 'inaccurate' with the article? That we don't mention the fact that it's a divine union by Jesus? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Superstitions about marriage section proposal.

New section for superstitions about marriage to wedding or marriage article? ("Superstitions about marriage", Fort Worth Daily Gazette, Dec. 10, 1888, p.5 ). --Jaanusele (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede reverted for violation of WP:LEDE, MOS:LEDECITE, WP:SOURCE

Consensus cannot trump Wiki policies about content. The highly debated first paragraph is unsourced. The most recently RV'ed sentence lede sentence has a very credible source. Reference WP:LEDE, MOS:LEDECITE, WP:SOURCE Afaprof01 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my comment, are you for mentioning the fact that it's usually between the white race as well? Some things should just not be taking space in the lede - Linestarz (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Afaprof101, for someone continually citing "policies about content" you obviously overlooked Encyclopedia Britannica as a tertiary source, and in this instance, you are using it to push your POV. Please stop edit-warring and rely upon secondary sources to push your POV. -->David Shankbone 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The last time I looked, there was no citation/source for the first sentence. How can quoting from EB become POV? It's hardly a bastion for some kind of conservatism. ::The race issue is absurd. It may belong in history section, but nowhere that I've seen does it appear in a reputable definition source. Although there have been times since Sodom and Gomorrah (probably even before) that same-sex marriage has been accepted and even legalized, in civilized society it has never become the norm--at least not yet. I don't understand what you and other editors are afraid of to begin with a straightforward quote from a reputable source in the first sentence. It's compact, scholarly and correct. From reading the Talks all the way back, I get the impression it is a huge ego issue for some, coupled with a defense of gay marriage for others. That's certainly an editor's right, but how sad. Nothing commendable about it. Others have rights, too. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is not a source that can be used here, which is why you keep getting reverted, and are bordering on WP:3RR. And EB certainly doesn't trump the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's and Princeton's dictionaries. EB is tertiary; dictionaries are secondary, which run counter to the definition of marriage you prefer. -->David Shankbone 05:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it that EB is original research? Are the OED or MW dictionaries original research? While same-sex marriage exists, it counts for a very, very small portion of recognized marriages in nearly every society. The principle concept that the great majority of human beings have with regard to marriage is that of a long-term relationship of a sexual nature between a husband (a male human being) and wife (a female). Other forms should be cited; same-sex, polygamous, whatever, but that does not change what still constitutes marriage in the common lexicon. Without reflecting the overwhelmingly common use in the lede, reflects a pro-gay bias. It is literally using Wikipedia as a soapbox. 108.1.115.105 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a pro-gay bias, it's a pro-fact bias. Afaprof's reversions include (among other things) mentioning the "usually between" applicators, which is like say "Mathematicians, normally Asians, are..." or as linestars mentioned "Marriage, normally between one white male and one white female, is..." - also, where do you get the idea that marriage is that of a long-term relationship? According to whom? And which "common lexicon" are we following, the one's we see in the western world? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Historyguy, and further, this is a global article, not American. That means we take into account all definitions of marriage that exist. We don't try to strictly define marriage in this article. If you want to debate marriage in America, go to Marriage in the United States. Otherwise, the IP and Afaprof are wasting their time trying to insert their (conservative) American bias on an article that covers a global topic. -->David Shankbone 22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

I changed the first sentence of this article to one that is the definition provided by Merriam Webster's Dictionary. The previous definition is not valid because it includes other relationships like adoption that are clearly not marriages and furthermore it is not from any accredited lexicon and so lacks a proper source. I will not let this definition be changed until someone can come up with a better one to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with your proposed plan. wikipedia is great but fails in a number of controversial areas because some articles tend to be worked on by advocates for this or that position, and the tension between the different positions sometimes produces oddly skewed text heavily burdened with minor details. This article is one one of those pages, and your proposed hijacking of it, will not solve the problem. Hardyplants (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardypants, I am not hijacking it. This is a definition put forth by an established lexicon: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition. The previous definition which you want does not have any source to back it up and is way too vague including other relationships like adoption. Tell me who has accredited the previous definition and I will support keeping that definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please don't change the consensus definition without discussion here on the talk page first. Your first comment about "I will not let this definition be changed" certainly seems like you plan to edit war on this, please don't do that. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point and encyclopedias should have different definitions from dictionaries. However, my revision, albeit from a dictionary, is far better than the last definition which no one has yet to justify. I will try to come up with a better definition but the last one is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than it differing from the dictionary definition, what makes it unacceptable? It's accurate. Dayewalker (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship- this definition can include many other unions like adoption or even the relationship between a client and patron in the Roman Republic which was regarded by many as one constituting kinship. The problem with the current definition is that it is not specific enough. It would be like saying that the definition of murdering is killing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it important to you to use a definition of marriage that specifically defines it as a coupling of male and female, when that definition is obviously not accurate in all cases? Dayewalker (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are exceptions like polygamous or same-sex marriages but these are all modeled after what marriage really is. General definitions of marriage, like what the last lead sentence supports, only come later in dictionaries. In Merriam Webster, there is an entry for "an intimate or close union" but this is the third and not primary definition. Any close union really could be called a marriage, but without knowing what it really is (the new revision), we cannot know what the more abstract variations are either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You're getting way off the topic. You claim the first line of this article is wrong, and rather than bring your point to the talk page and try and convince you replace it with a dictionary definition that is demonstrably false. How is that better? Dayewalker (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming the first sentence is false, I am just claiming that it is better than the old lead sentence. You cannot include every detail and minor point about an article in the first sentence but the first sentence should be something that is specific enough so that it cannot be confused with other articles or issues. For example, the Barack Obama article's first sentence says that he is the 44th President of the United States. That in and of itself is specific enough so that we know exactly who we are talking about. There is definitely more to Barack Obama than his job, but it would be impossible to include everything in just one sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk • contribs)

Two points here, to begin with you're at 3RR. If you're not familiar with the three revert rule, please read up on it. Another revert will get you blocked.

Now, you're dancing around the issue. The fact that marriage is not limited to a male-female pairing in many locations is not a "minor point," and changing the lead of the article to ignore that is introducing a POV that is easily shown as inaccurate. Why don't you change you first sentence to include that provable fact? Dayewalker (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for telling me, I probably will create an account so I can do more revisions. Now, while you may have disagreements over the current lead sentence because you want to see more points added onto it, the new lead sentence still is better than the last sentence because the last sentence has elements in its set that are clearly not marriage like adoption. You have yet to answer this point. To answer your point, I am simply saying that marriage in its quintessential sense is between a man and a woman and all other marriages, however abstract, like that between art and math as some people say, are only called such because they are imitations of the actual thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk • contribs)

Creating an account won't allow you do do more revisions, 3RR applies to everyone. Lastly, gain consensus here before you revert. If you continue to do so, I will report you for edit warring against consensus, and you will be blocked.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:3RR again, the rule applies to editors, not accounts. If you create an account (which is certainly a good thing, go right ahead), you still can't make the same edits more than three times a day.

As for your point on the adoption, perhaps the previous lead sentence could have been taken in that way, and it should be discussed on this talk page on how to change it. However, your refusal to discuss inaccurately defining marriage as between a male-female pairing has resulted in a demonstrably false statement becoming the lead. I'll ask again, why don't you change your first sentence to include that provable fact, and make it more accurate and less POV? Dayewalker (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will stop reverting it if you so insist. However, my basic idea that you haven't addressed is that if marriage were defined as some vague union between individuals that creates kinship, all of the unions we metamorphically call marriages would be meaningless. You cannot understand a concept unless you know what it fundamentally means. You cannot understand calculus before you understand the building blocks of algebra and arithmetic. Saying something like the marriage between art and math would be much less meaningful if it were in imitation of some vague union between individuals that creates kinship, but because we know marriage to be between a man and a woman, this metaphor gives the relationship between art and math an exquisite attribute even though it is not obviously the same thing as my revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Marriages are not christian in origin. They existed before Christianity, in the time of the Greeks. Your continued assertion that marriages are only between a man and a woman is false, and no amount of saying otherwise will get you your way.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying marriages are Christian in origin, nor have I mentioned anything about religion throughout this entire discussion. All I am saying is that the current definition lacks the complementary quality that everyone associates with marriages as most marriages are between men and women-even those before Christianity existed. I know that there were a lot of polygamous marriages, but these still have the complementary quality of the union between the two sexes, although it was certainly not a mutually exclusive union as between one man and one woman. Without this complementary quality, the word "marriage" is meaningless and I suppose we should create a new word that means what "marriage" should mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is a strong word here. Do you have any evidence of this supposed fact besides your own opinion?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If marriages are not complementary, how are they any different from adoption? Everyone is a strong word and I should have said "most people" but the current definition makes marriage indistinguishable from adoption. Furthermore, you tend to harp on one thing I say and not address my entire argument. You have not yet said anything about complementariness and you have not given an example in Hellenic or Hellinistic Greece where marriages did not have the complementary nature of being between a man and a woman or where they were not viewed as such.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk • contribs)

You haven't provided any evidence to the opposite. Were you aware that Greeks were openly homosexual? That aside, how are they the same as adoption? Please make your case before demanding things for others. Sweeping statements won't work. Describe specifically how marriages are like adoptions.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that Greeks were openly homosexual but that does not mean they openly practiced same-sex marriage. Homosexual relationships between two men are not the same thing as a marriage. I hope we can agree on that. As far as my equation between adoption and marriage goes, I am not making it off what marriage is, but only what the current definition in this article says. Read it, "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship." You agree that this works, now replace the first word with adoption and the sentence holds just as true: "Adoption is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship." But you are right in that adoption clearly is not marriage, for saying that "adoption is marriage" is nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.12.237 (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that lead sentence is even problematic. I don't see how it states or implies that it is the only type of contract that creates kinship, just that it does (which is accurate). As a means of comparison, look at the lead sentence for put option: "A put option (sometimes simply called a "put") is a financial contract between two parties, the seller (writer) and the buyer of the option." For Beagle: "The Beagle is a breed of small to medium-sized dog." It's very common to start an article off with a very general description of what the item is, and then drill down into the specifics of what makes that thing unique. That's why dictionary definitions try to cram a lot of detail in, they must express the unique qualities of the thing in a sentence or two. We don't have to do that, we have several paragraphs in which to do so. But in no way are we stating that a beagle is the only small to medium breed of dog, or that the put option is the only type of financial contract. The rest of the articles explain why a put option is different from a call option or a lease, or why the beagle is different from a Jack Russell terrier or a poodle. Similarly, here, the rest of the article explains why a marriage is distinct from an adoption. As to stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, that is not always the case either historically or currently, and would be inaccurate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Seraphimblade, you summed the issue up quite elegantly. The first paragraph of the article does not have to sum up the entirety of the subject matter - that's why there's a whole article following that paragraph! The current consensus version may or may not be undesirably vague, but even if it is, that cannot possibly justify changing it to something that is more specific but demonstrably and unambiguously false. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lead sentence ought to be footnoted from a WP:RELY source. In this case, not from the bible (!) and not from some PC media, either. What is wrong with a dictionary.

Not sure where the Greeks being homosexual was going. They believed in one man-one woman marriages.

There's a problem (and not only here!) that marriage may mean whatever you want it to mean, and therefore means nothing at all. And therefore shouldn't have an article. Maybe we should talk about it "historically" and forget about the present since it has no meaning? Student7 (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Looking at the article, it pretty much has to be vague in the lead sentence. A "whatever" which gets clarified as the reader views different paragraphs. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New first sentence proposal. Asking for consensus. Pls vote.

Wikipedia does not base it's information on "popular votes", there's a reason we don't have votes on whether or not the earth is flat. Section should be archive per Wikipedia:CONSENSUS

 -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's obvious that there is considerable unrest and concern over the first sentence. Why can we say "usually sexual" and not be able to say "usually between a man and woman"? Both say "usually." Can anyone dispute "usually between a man and woman" on the basis of any evidence that it is incorrect? It seems irrational to force out "usually...man and woman." That is completely true, and that is how it is. Survival of the species largely depends on it. The history section can deal with how it was in ancient wherever.

Please note the requirement for the lead to be able to stand alone as both a summary of the important aspects and a concise overview of the article.

WP:LEAD's REQUIREMENTS: (WP:LEAD should serve as a check-list for this article's lead.)
The lead...

serves as an introduction to the article

serves as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article

should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article

should define the topic

should establish context

should explain why the subject is interesting or notable

should summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.

RECOMMEND THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE BE CHANGED TO READ:

Marriage is a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any).<ref>"marriage," ''Encyclopædia Britannica.'' 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 25 Oct. 2009</ref>

PLEASE VOTE HERE. IF "NO," PLEASE BRIEFLY STATE WHY NOT. THANK YOU.

YES. The edit wars on this one sentence have gone on long enough. The issue is the phrase "usually between a man and a woman." Unless that is untrue today, it should lead into this article.Afaprof01 (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion, not a vote. We settle things like this by talking about them, not up or down votes. Please refactor your suggestion so that it can be discussed rather than polled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
NO. Discussion, not a vote - (edit conflict)This is not the way wikipedia works. The only things that I have seen on wikipedia, where votes matter, are RfAs and Arbcom. For everything else, like say, the lead of an article, we have WP:CONSENSUS. Simply putting the lead to a majority vote will not work. Sockpuppets may become involved, making the entire matter impossible. No, this is not the way wikipedia works. Instead of putting the matter to a vote, propose a change, then let discussion take place regarding the proposal, allowing the proposal to change and evolve based upon discussion.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
So people who agree with this proposal just say "yes" and that counts as their vote, but people who say "no" have to justify it? That's hardly a neutral approach. And as others have pointed out, Wikipedia doesn't work by voting, anyway. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What is the reasoning behind the proposed change? The phrase "usually between a man and a woman" is of course true. Many things that can be said of marriage are true. That alone is not sufficient reason to add them to the lead sentence.--Trystan (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just hate a vote on the article on God too and the God with the most votes gets the exclusive definition? Now can you see why this doesn't work out? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to refactor per above suggestion, but have not done that before. After reading WP:RTP, I'm still not clear on what is the best way to achieve refactor of this Talk section. Will appreciate guidance. Thanks.Afaprof01 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many times this "Afaprof01" user has recommended this change over and over again but maybe we could explain something to him and all editors who may not quite understand how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not dictated by popular votes nor do we use adjectives like "usually" in the lede (the exceptions being a tradtional contingency that applies to all cultures and demographics, like 'intimacy') because otherwise it could open it up to definitions like these:

Marriage is a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a white man and a white woman, usually between right-handed people, usually between fertile couples, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any).

get my point?

Marriage is a union that's changed and updated thousands of times throughout history, to put these qualifiers means ignoring traditional and non-traditional aspects of it - Linestarz (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, despite your straw-man argument; we are here to produce a rounded introductory article based on valid sources, in a neutral fashion, without giving undue weight to minority views. Hardyplants (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my point - Linestarz (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rights and obligations

{{editsemiprotected}} The description of the Katuba states the writing is in Aramaic and should be "Hebrew". The cursive is clearly not Aramaic even shown in the wiki for Aramaic.

Thanks

First Sentence Proposal

Wikipedia articles, it is true, do not need to have lead sentences that fully define the subject of the article. However, given that there is no place in the whole introduction to this article that mentions this important fact about marriage, I thought that "individuals" could be changed to "men and women." This terminology is able to include all other types of marriages such as polygamy and polyandry without omitting reference to the important fact about marriage that it is primarily and most often between a man and a woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffdsajkl101 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. The wording of the lead sentence has been discussed here many time, so a change like that should not be made without discussion and consensus here. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the topic has been discussed many a time on this discussion page, but I felt that the article should have at least some allusion to this important fact about marriage which it currently lacks. The fact that it lacks this important facet illustrates the ineffectiveness of a consensus to produce anything accurate on this discussion forum so I have changed it to circumvent that deficiency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffdsajkl101 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Individuals is neutral. Maybe you don't know this, but the 'men and women' phrasing is language commonly pushed by anti same sex marriage activists in the US. It should not be used in the lead. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does more than allude to it. It gives multiple ways that marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman throughout history, in addition to the concept and history of same-sex marriages, for balance. Ffdsajkl101, you are very close to violating the three-revert rule. Please have a discussion here, and don't start an edit war. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though my choice of words is not as neutral as "individuals" it still is more effective in describing an indispensable aspect of marriage which the introduction of the article does not even mention. Same-sex marriage would not exist if the indispensable aspects of marriage did not exist. Furthermore, same-sex marriage has its own page and problems and history related to the subject can be dealt with in that article. The way the entire article is currently set up may allude to this indispensable aspect of marriage but does not do enough justice to it and thus readers will be deceived by the overly neutral language of the article.140.180.35.227 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, is like saying that unless we allude (to the fact) that the majority of marriages are between Caucasians then readers would be deceived by the otherwise "overly neutral language of the article." Also keep in mind that simply reasserting the words "indispensable aspect" every other sentence does not make something an "indispensable aspect", the history of marriage contradicts your idea and origins of one man and one woman. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I too oppose a change from "individuals" to "men and women," and have yet another reason for doing so. The phrase "men and women" could be taken to mean adults, i.e. as not including children. There are cultures (ours among them) where children can be married. I'm avoiding being judgmental; just sayin'.... (sdsds - talk) 04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose this as well. It is not always the case, either historically or currently, so to state categorically that marriage is only between a man and a woman is demonstrably false, regardless of anyone's views on whether that should be true or not. The rest of the article goes into great detail on the various ways marriage has been defined, including that it is most often done that way, so I see no need for the lead to contain a factually inaccurate statement to get that point across. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would approve this with the caveat that it reads "usually" or "predominantly" or equivalent. It should neither say nor imply "only," but that's not in the proposal. User:Ffdsajkl101's proposal says by way of explanation, "primarily and most often between a man and a woman," so "only" is not the recommendation. "Men and women" is far more usual and customary than is "usually for sexual purposes." Today, many are getting married for economic reasons, as well as others. Move the "usually sexual" phrase further down to separate the two "usually"'s, or delete sexual purposes. It is ludicrous to say "individuals" when all of the objections to "men and women" are very isolated examples. User:Historyguy1965 continually raises the issue of black/white race, and that's patently silly in the lead. The lead is to be the "big picture" and customary practices, not the exceptional or yesteryear views. If it's not mostly between males and females, then the perpetuity of the human race is at considerable risk. Afaprof01 (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is disagreement here over whether "men and women" would be factually correct. However, nobody seems to be disputing the correctness of "individuals", Ffdsajkl101 (talk · contribs) merely said that the phrase "men and women" was "more effective". Gabbe (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is an incomplete list of editors opting for the inclusion of the phrase (usually, not only) "men and women," and I believe they are agreeing to include the less-than-unanimous disclaimer "usually" or some synonym thereof:

Fdsafdsa1 4 June 2009
Mrdthree 2 July 2009
Mrdthree 4 July 2009
Afaprof01 22 August 2009
140.180.12.237 24 October 2009 (1)
140.180.12.237 24 October 2009 (2)
140.180.12.237 24 October 2009 (3)
140.180.12.237 24 October 2009 (4)
Ffdsajkl101 10 November 2009
140.180.35.227 10 November 2009 (says "readers will be deceived by the overly neutral language of the article")
Afaprof01 11 November 2009

None of them seem to ask that we say or imply "only" men and women. I agree that ONLY M&W is very incorrect. But "usually" or "typically" or "customarily" etc. is far more correct than the generic blob, "individuals." No one needs a Wiki article to know that it is not between chickens or orangutans or computers. The exceptional cases should not drive the lead.

To clarify the proposal, and if it doesn't say this then I hereby propose it: "Marriage is a social union or legal contract, ~~between individuals~~ [pick one:] usually/ typically/ customarily/ generally/ ordinarily/ mostly/ between a man and a woman, that creates kinship." I so hope we can reach this compromise and move on. There ARE more important things each of us can be spending our time on. Thanks for your consideration and input, Afaprof01 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not going to "pick one", we've had this debate a thousand times already, this isn't a popularity contest. And I won't even get into the ridiculous inference about your "list of editors", which include a random IP address 4x, a user 2x, and other editors such as "Fdsafdsa1" and "Ffdsajkl101". You're right about one thing however, there "ARE more important things each of us can be spending our time on", this isn't one of them. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on first sentence

I have looked at the recent comments on this dispute on the first sentence and I will conclude that scrapping "between individuals" for "usually between men and women" is the best revision and the one most in line with the consensus. The proponents of "men and women," of which there are many, have conceded to this compromise but the advocates of no change at all have failed to come up with any rationalization for not including this vague phrase "usually between men and women," which does not exclude more unusual forms of marriage and at the same time accurately characterizes, as has been said in earlier sections, an "indispensable aspect" of marriage.TXTXTXTXTX7 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and the discussion above does not seem to support such an edit. How do you see consensus for such a change in this discussion? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We have more agreement than disagreement for the change. I, fdsafdsa101, Mrdthree, Afaprof01, and others have all agreed that this is necessary and have given good cogent arguments for the change. What is more relevant is that you and a few others, although disagreeing, are not debating and have not yet given a good reason for why "usually between men and women" should be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TXTXTXTXTX7 (talk • contribs)

I also disagree, and there does not seem to be agreement to change a long-standing compromise. Please continue the discussion on this page, and don't edit war. Dayewalker (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Number one, I smell sock-puppets, though I'm purposely not going to point fingers for the sake of WP:DCASAS. Number two, there was never a consensus, since you're new I suggest you read up on on WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and please avoid thinking it's a popularity contest, ie: WP:DEMOCRACY. And number three, when making edits you don't change something and then freeze the changes, asserting a consensus must be reach that goes against your NEW edit. The lede is there as a result of discussion, to change it and then claim a new consensus must be formed violates WP:WQT. I know it may be a lot of reading but it's well worth it, I promise. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) That argument has been given many times. We do not often express "usually" in an article lead. Rather, we explore the usual and unusual patterns of something in the article proper. That's the same thing we do here, and I see no reason to change it. If we explored all the "usually" characteristics here, we'd have a lead saying something like "Marriage is usually between adults, usually between people of the same race, usually between men and women, usually between people who live in the same country, usually between people who aren't related...". Yet, there doesn't seem to be any push to include most of those other usual conditions. I wonder why that is? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the article say "usually intimate and sexual"? Yet some are saying we don't use that adverb in the Lede. And that's OK but "usually between man and women" isn't? C'mon! The "adults...same race...same country...aren't related" is an argument from absurdity. I wish someone would be perfectly honest and state the P.C. reason for such a huge gang-up to prevent the most unarguable attribute of marriage in the world. This dancing around the real issue is an insult to intelligence. Same race? I don't know why that may still be true, absent old laws that have been struck down. Do you? People make their own choices. Same country? Pretty obvious. How else would they meet? If they connect via a chat room or something, it would be a pretty lonely marriage if they didn't end up in the same country. Aren't related? How far back does that go? And what about the genetic issue of close relatives' offspring?

I am very, very disappointed in the crass stubborn non-negotiable and nonsensical arguments repeatedly been made against the "usually male and female" issue. The fact that some anti-gays use such a phrase is totally beside the point. We can't be responsible for what fringe groups may or may not be saying. The pure, hard, cold fact is that marriage is most assuredly and universally USUALLY an opposite sex thing. As said earlier, none of us would be here if that weren't the case.

Challenge: provide any evidence whatsoever that it is NOT a true statement. Also please provide any evidence that "usually intimate and sexual" is somehow a more true statement than "most often one man and one woman". BTW, I think User talk:Franamax's suggestion below of "between individuals, most often one man and one woman" is a good one. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"The pure, hard, cold fact is that marriage is most assuredly and universally USUALLY an opposite sex thing. As said earlier, none of us would be here if that weren't the case." - what??? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "between individuals, most often one man and one woman". As far as I know this is historically and globally correct (the "most often" bit) and also recognizes historical and current practice that it's primarily between people of whatever stripe or number. Franamax (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that isn't how wikipedia works. For instance, why does the article on God begin with "God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions" and not "God, usually known as Jesus, is a deity in theistic and deistic religions"? Or why is that Employer begins with "An employer is a person or institution that hires employees or workers" rather than "An employer, usually a white man, is a person or institution that hires employees or workers"? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because either of those exhibit a euro-centric view of the world. One man/one woman is generally true across culture and history. "Most often" doesn't exhibit a POV viewpoint that anything else is abnormal, and it doesn't depend on the views of only one culture, race or religious affinity. As far as I know, it reflects a global reality. Franamax (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So, why not use the other "usually" statements I put in, as those are largely globally usual as well? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, "most often" exhibits an adjective in which describing something vague which could very well be applied to both employer AND God. All you're doing is making excuses for every other qualifier BUT the 'man and woman' concept which, if going by that logic should also include everything else Seraphimblade suggested. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Well no, both those "usually" cases are demonstrably false when considered from either of a historical or global viewpoint. Most employers are Chinese or Indian and always have been, most Gods are anything but Jesus. However in those cases, there is no overwhelming majority, whereas so far as I know, one man/one woman is overwhelmingly true across the globe and throughout history. Polygamism and homosexual marriages are notable exceptions, but I think are and have always been a small minority of cases even in the cultures where they are accepted. One-to-one marriages are the norm not because God said so, or some right-wing group says that God said so, they are the norm because they are the best way to partition the "manpower" (so-to-speak). Polygamous marriages tend to arise where single women, especially widows, are most vulnerable and/or where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Homosexual marriages tend to arise where there is sufficient protection from the stigma associated with homsexuality. Don't get me wrong, I'm Canadian, where "man and woman" is a thing of the past, although we've got a case going right now on the polygamy thing, revolving around whose rights are more important. I just don't see a huge issue with recognizing what really is and has been by far the most common practice in the lead here. I'm in favour of reflecting reality without casting judgements on minority practice. Franamax (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear. I posted a comment earlier that, if we included all the usual circumstances, it would look like this: ""Marriage is usually between adults, usually between people of the same race, usually between men and women, usually between people who live in the same country, usually between people who aren't related...". All of these things are, and have been, usually and globally true of marriage. If we're going to include one "usually" in the lead, why not include all of these? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes it much more clear and you've got a good point there. So the consensus is we'll include all of them then? (Just kidding :) You draw the analogy much more clearly now, and I agree with you. Franamax (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is exactly why these discussions are important in regards to important topics, both of you exemplify why it works, well done. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

All this speculation is original research. What do reliable sources say, we are to report what is allready written, not contrive our own view of the issue. Hardyplants (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A number of interesting anthropological sources are quoted at Monogamy#Incidence of social monogamy. Gabbe (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I think it would be safest to say "a social union or legal contract between individuals, traditionally men and women". We know it's traditional (if somebody can backup with a source), and while that precedent is still the general norm today, we can leave that idea to the reader to figure out. That way, we don't run into the "usually..." problem, explained above. Would that be a good compromise? BTW, the article has been semi-protected for 4 days due to edit warring/block evasion problems. JamieS93 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

'Tradition' , by its very definition, exists in defiance of change, even when its persistence is a detriment to humanity. Many rural areas in the southern United States used 'tradition' as the keystone for clinging to policies of segregation long after civil rights had been accepted everywhere else. But we don't mention the 'tradition' of white people using seperate bathrooms from black people, nor is there even mention of how that was the case historically.

I don't think there can be any argument that marriage has traditionally (or historically) been between a man and woman. It's the factors contributing to why that has been the case that make it a bit misleading (historic suppression of, and laws against homosexuality, etc).
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The same question above would apply, as well—we could just as easily say "traditionally not between blood relatives, traditionally between people of the same race, traditionally between men and women...". If we try and fit all the "traditionally" or "usually" or however we phrase it into the lead sentence, we'd have an awfully long lead sentence! I think we should start out with what is universally true of it, and then use the article to describe the traditions, laws, practices, and so on that surround it. That's the way we generally do a lead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening statement

Since we clearly don't have a consensus, I think we should just leave the first sentence blank until we reach a consensus that works. If we absolutely have to have a first sentence while the decision on the consensus is pending, let's just fill it with the most neutral of all statements, "Marriage is a union." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodnoseRave (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is diputing any of the parts of the first sentence other than the proposed addition of a mention of one man and one woman. Obviously it's between individuals (because inanimate objects or groups of people don't marry each other) and obviously it promotes kinship. Cathardic (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus. A single user and all his sockpuppets don't count. It's one argument per person, not per account. We have general agreement between all people here, except you, Ffdsajkl101.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME, User:Daedalus969, but you overlook my argument. I oppose "individuals" and advocate "between individuals, most often one man and one woman." I certainly am not a sockpuppet. Please don't infer that I am. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Afa, although I originally did not address the comment to you, but rather, Rod, please tell me why you thought I was talking to you, when I clearly was not? Further, I have already filed an SPI. Please view Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ffdsajkl101. I did not list you in the list of socks per your contribution history outside this article, and the fact that it's more than 15 edits, but now you have me wondering, responding to a comment as though it was addressed to you when it clearly was not.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 12:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right you're not a sockpuppet, all these new users just magically appeared and just so happened to come here to just to happen to agree with this new proposition you've made. Obviously not suspicious, right? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Historyguy1965's statement above is a slanderous personal attack. It is a false accusation without merit. Afaprof01 (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody care to take these accusations to WP:SPI were they belong? Gabbe (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Victimizing yourself Afaprof01 does nothing, if a police officer arrests a suspected murderer or murder, that isn't a "personal attack", it's an arrest based on legitimate suspicion. Approximately 5 (newer) users signed up, all entered the discussion and all happened to concur with this proposition you've made. Luckily, WP:PNSD protects against such attempts. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And Afa, as I said on your talk page, edits such as these, where you strike someone else's comment are strictly prohibited. Go have a thorough reading of WP:TPO, and don't do that again.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you've made this a highly public admonition (totally unnecessary since you put it on my Talk page), I must point out that what you're ordering in your role as SysOp is in conflict with WP:RPA. Under "Removal of Text," it says: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I see nothing about 'strictly prohibited'. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Our suspicions were dead on, sockpuppets have been banned! Kudos to Daedalus for his contribution in this, well done. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suspicions about User:Afaprof01 were not dead on, however. WP:Civility and common courtesy would seem to warrant an acknowledgment of that fact, and some sort of apology. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Historyguy1965, please remove all references in which you name me in false accusation WP:PA. I think an apology is also in order. You jumped to a conclusion which has now been proven false, totally without merit. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was never proven false. You were not linked in the sockpuppet report, and checkuser was declined as the connections were so obvious(go have a read of WP:DUCK) that it wasn't needed to link the accounts. Quite simply, it is still up for debate. If a checkuser is requested again, say, if another account turns up in the manner of block evasion, to request for a rangeblock, it is possible it may be endorsed, and should it come back with results in your favor, it would then be proved false. Also, do not ask for a CU to prove a negative, that is not what CU is for, and it will be declined. I speak from experience, I have been fighting socks for a very long time.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the lines were rather obvious.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What lines? Afaprof01 (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The lines I drew in the sockpuppet report I filed. Go read it, I'm not linking you, as it is clearly linked above.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "proven false" nor was it "without merit", of all the users I suspected of sock-puppetry almost all were banned. Not only were my accusations legitimate, I still think you were part of it and that those sockpuppets were yours, what are you going to do? Sue me for having an opinion? What you call a "personal attack" is what I call Wikipedia guidelines, my accusations were based off WP:IDART, WP:CHRONO, WP:SIM and WP:SPASOCK. I hate it when people vandalize articles, and as a result of (not only my) suspicions a cowardly sockpuppet had several of his accounts banned. If you feel these suspicians were "personal attacks", then report it to an administrator and let them arbitrate. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments WP:RFC

The tenor and atmosphere of this Talk Page has degenerated into unprofessional, irrational and nonsensical arguments that sarcastically demean the change proposal. On the table is the latest in a series of efforts to gain consensus on changing "individuals" in the first sentence to some wording like "usually (or perhaps customarily) between one man and one woman." Major opponents of the proposal are unwilling to directly and constructively address efforts by the proponents. Some comments have become accusatory, personal attacks. Thank you for your efforts to help restore Good Faith and Civility, and relevant logic. Afaprof01 (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The old (and current) version reads "individuals", not "two individuals". An important distinction. Gabbe (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I regret the error and have corrected it in my WP:RFC. Afaprof01 (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Good faith" and "civility" is a two-way street. There wouldn't be an issue if you didn't try violating WP:EP with things such as trying to achieve a consensus with numbers. I encourage you to read WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and we can get back to editing instead of mindless exchanges. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

References used in this talkpage

^ "Dictionaries Take Lead in Redefining Modern Marriage". Washington Times. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
^ | Merriam-Webster definition.
^ Krier, James E. (2006). Property. Aspen Publishers. ISBN 0735557926. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Excerpt - page 335: '... at the wedding; hence the importance of including in the marriage ceremony the words, "With all my worldly goods I thee endow." ...'
^ GALLAGHER, MAGGIE (2002). "What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law" (PDF). LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW. Retrieved 2007-01-08.
^ Eleanor, Schick (1999). Navajo Wedding Day: A Dine Marriage Ceremony. Cavendish Children's Books. ISBN 0761450319.
^ Schwimmer, Brian. (2003). Polygamy. Kinship and Social Organization. http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/polygamy.html.
^ Murdock, George Peter (1949). Social Structure. New York: The MacMillan Company. ISBN 0-02-922290-7. See also: Kaingang.
^ [1]
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm
^ Murdock, George Peter (1949). Social Structure. New York: The MacMillan Company. ISBN 0-02-922290-7. See also: Kaingang.
^ Coontz, http://www.amazon.com/Marr Stephanie.Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage. Penguin, 2006. ISBN 014303667X. Online: http://www.amazon.com/Marr http://www.amazon.com/Marr]iage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X
^ Encyclopedia Brittanica "adultery" [2]
^ Encyclopedia Brittanica "adultery" [3]