Talk:Marriage/Archive 11
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Still problematic lede
We still have the problem in the lede that I complained about a year and a half ago: it's too vague. Adoption also creates kinship, after all (which again is what I said a year and a half ago). Can we come up with a lede that actually describes marriage? Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that other things can create kinship doesn't mean that marriage doesn't. The lead doesn't say this is the exclusive way to create kinship. Can you please enumerate your points or suggestions on how to improve the lead. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you would reread what I said, I used the word "also"; you are inventing an objection I didn't make. It seems pointless to enumerate my points when there is but one, which I have already listed: the lede really says nothing of substance about what marriage is. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm at a loss as to what you're suggesting we do to improve the lead. You can't just say its vague, then use and example that someone else explains to you is not vague in the manner you claim and then say ... "I don't need to explain further just fix it." Please help me understand what you think the problem is. Marriage may create kinship in a very wide variety of ways, so I don't think we can get much more specific than that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looking up his previous statement of objection, it was "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." That's not the case, as we're not saying that marriage is any social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. We are explaining what marriage is, not what qualifies for the term\. If I say "Orange CountyMOSB is a county district in southern California", that does not make Los Angeles County Orange County; if I say that "A cheesesteak is a sandwich of beef and cheese on a roll", that does not make a cheeseburger a cheese steak. The concept of marriage is (as the discussions here will show) pretty darned flexible, and we also needn't assume that the reader doesn't know English. If you have some alternate wording that delineates more clearly but obeys the call in WP:MOSBEGIN for a concise definition, it'd be good to see it. What one finds looking at most individual dictionary definitions is that they exclude forms of marriage that this article is designed to include (which they may include in a later definition), making them far more problematic for this article than something that fails to specifically exclude some other form of kinship creation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Marriage and anthropological theory
It seems that some of the problems with defining marriage stems from editors having different points of departure. Here are some views from different anthropological schools taken form an anthropological textbook. It particularly talks about how the western individual concept of marriage is different from the kinship based concept prevalent in many other societies:
- "Structuralist theory of kinship regards marriage in traditional societies as a form of group-based reciprocity, where the exchange concerns the ‘super-gift’, that is women. Later studies, not least those carried out by female anthropologists, have shown that this is a dubious generalisation. It is not necessarily the case that men exchange women; often, the power relations between the genders may be more equitable. A central point in Lévi-Strauss’s theory of kinship is never the less that marriage in traditional societies is group-based, and that it can be understood as a form of long-term reciprocity. Affi nality creates stable alliances. When distinct kin groups (clans, moieties or other units that compose society) systematically exchange women, all of society becomes integrated through deep and long-lived commitments. In certain cases, one waits an entire generation before ‘the gift’ is reciprocated in the shape of another woman. In societies which practise transmission of bridewealth, it may occur that men work for their parents-in-law to fulfi l their obligations virtually for the rest of their lives. Put differently, by marrying a particular woman, the man and his lineage commit themselves to working for the affi nal family for years to come. This was the case among the Kachin, the Burmese highlanders studied by Edmund Leach. Their marriage system meant that the lineages who became wife-givers (mayu) were higher-ranking than the lineages who received wives (dama), and this relationship was confirmed in that the bridewealth had to be ‘paid’ over many years. Men thus had a lower rank than their parents-in-law, expressed through their enduring debt relationship." (Hylland Eriksen: What is Anthropology pp 108-109 )
- "The concept of marriage, too, has been subjected to criticism along the same lines as Schneider’s critique of the concept of kinship. Edmund Leach, like Rodney Needham after him, claimed that it was impossible to make a list of criteria defi ning marriage which would be acceptable everywhere. As a conclusion, they claimed that marriage does not exist as a cross-culturally valid category; the bond between a man and woman who have children together varies so much in content that it cannot be designated with the same term everywhere." (Hylland Eriksen p 113)
- "The argument against arranged marriage is that marriage is supposed to be based on free choice and true love. But how freely chosen are the marriages of the majority in western societies? All research indicates that people marry within their social class and their cultural milieu, and that powerful informal norms regulate the relationship between the spouses. A difference is that arranged marriages involve entire kin groups woven together through ties of reciprocity, while ‘love’ or freely chosen marriages only involve two individuals." (Hylland Eriksen p. 162)
·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes editors have different points of departure but I'm well aware of the anthropological literature myself and I'm unsure how these quotes are going to help. Can you make suggestions for improving the article based upon the anthropological literature? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Mehr
Hello,
I do not know how to edit things on Wikipedia but I just wanted to let you know that your section on "mehr" does not appear to be correct. Mehr in Islam is considered a gift that is payable to the wife beginning at the time of her marriage, unless she chooses to designate part or all of the payment as "deferred." Mehr payable beginning at marriage is called "prompt" Mehr and may be demanded by the wife at any time. If the husband refuses to pay it she may refuse to engage in marital relations with him. By contrast, "deferred" Mehr is not payable until death or divorce. This article also conflates Mehr with alimony. Islam does not recognize alimony for a wife past the period of Iddat (unless the husband and wife had a pre-existing agreement about it) although her ex-husband must provide "maintenance" (child support) to their minor children. Mehr is also NOT the wife's share in the husband's estate. It is true that unpaid Mehr becomes a debt at the death of the husband which must be paid out of his estate. However, Mehr is not an inheritance share. It must be paid to the wife out of the estate BEFORE the remainder of the estate can be distributed to the Islamic heirs. When the rest of the estate is distributed to the heirs, the wife, as one of the Islamic heirs, will be entitled to a share of the estate whether or not she has already received her deferred Mehr from the estate.
If you would like to see a very good summary on the topic of Mehr, go to: http://www.zawaj.com/payments-to-and-from-the-bride-in-islamic-law-and-tradition/
(58.65.152.230 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
Marraige in Islam
I don't know who did write this section, but I sure that he/she is not very aware of marriege in Islam, becuase what is written uder shia Islam is just the same of what happens in Sunna Islam, so I do suggest putting them under one subtitle Islam, because now this makes confusion for non-muslims and non-religous muslims.
Thank you very much
92.98.55.191 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Salam
Hanlon & White reference needs fixed
Nowhere does the original reference appear. Only "IBID" types referring to "Hanlon & White". Can someone who knows the reference fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosslink (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Two SSM sections are not needed
<<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)>
- Marriage doesn't have to be religious. SSM deserves to be on this article. IJA (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- <<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)>
- Pyromania--because there's substantial, sourced information enough on the topic to have an entire article fork on the relationshp between religion and SSM. The two sentences that remain are the standard way of summarizing such a content fork. Removing it orphans the article Religious arguments about same-sex marriage entirely. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Joe above. It's two different sections on two different facets of the topic. Dayewalker (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Pyromania--because there's substantial, sourced information enough on the topic to have an entire article fork on the relationshp between religion and SSM. The two sentences that remain are the standard way of summarizing such a content fork. Removing it orphans the article Religious arguments about same-sex marriage entirely. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with Pyromania's view. There is a difference between the history of same-sex marriage and coverage of the tension that exists in many parts of the world on religious views. More importantly, the article "marriage" has already forked signficant content on both subjects into separate articles Same-sex marriage and Religious arguments about same-sex marriage, and it is entirely inappropriate to remove the connections with those content forks. After those forks, what's left here does not in any way seem disproportionate with the amount of sourced material we have. Removing the section under religion specifically delinks the substanial content built under the content fork. Were the disputed section enormous, I'd see the point for cutting it down, but it's two sentences, which is entirely in-line with the typical sort of summary given to "see also" content forks. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I do agree with some of Pyromania's views of ways the article could be constructively expanded (perhaps Jainism, etc.), nothing I said above should be taken otherwise. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Pyro has broken the 3-revert rule and
likely will soon be blockedhas been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)- As has one of his socks, it appears. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. There's a new SPI, which hopefully can be used to "sweep", since it's obviously the same guy, but he might have more socks (in addition also to his known IP, 167.206.79.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is already on a year-long sabbatical). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- This user doesn't have any socks. They are a sock, of the prolific sockmaster Brucejenner (talk · contribs). Nothing more to really do so, since this user is banned, I'm going to redact all their edits to this page.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I saw. Does this mean that a "sweep" by the checkuser is pointless at present? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, the CU should be endorsed, this guy has a habit of making sleeper accounts. It would be worth it.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I saw. Does this mean that a "sweep" by the checkuser is pointless at present? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- This user doesn't have any socks. They are a sock, of the prolific sockmaster Brucejenner (talk · contribs). Nothing more to really do so, since this user is banned, I'm going to redact all their edits to this page.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. There's a new SPI, which hopefully can be used to "sweep", since it's obviously the same guy, but he might have more socks (in addition also to his known IP, 167.206.79.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is already on a year-long sabbatical). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- As has one of his socks, it appears. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Pyro has broken the 3-revert rule and
SSM v. Interracial, Polygamous, Kin Marriage
The poster above raises the issue of same-sex marriage having its own subsection under 'Marriage and religion.' The poster isn't right about there being two sections: there are actually more, since 'Marriage restrictions' includes same-sex marriage and 'Contemporary views' is mostly about same-sex marriage. Now compare that to interracial marriage. There is only one section on interracial marriage, the one under marriage restrictions that talks about US miscegenation laws. But interracial marriage is a vast topic representing 1 in 7 marriages in the US. (And it's been an issue for a long time. Look at Othello.) Polygamy is mentioned only in a few scattered sentences despite being a larger controversy than same-sex marriage in most Muslim societies, where same-sex marriage is mostly not an issue. Close-kin marriage gets a paragraph in the US section and maybe two other sentences elsewhere, despite >10% of all marriages being between relatives, with the same-sex proportion obviously being far less.
Judging by representation in the world, it seems like SSM has too much weight. The only question is whether "controversy" is explicitly a factor in assigning weight. But considering the situation outside the West, even if all weight is assigned based on controversy alone, I still think these other restrictions deserve greater weight. To make one concrete proposal, let's either add subsections on other restrictions to 'Marriage and religion', OR remove same-sex marriage as its own subsection.
I can add these subsections if there is some agreement on this. —Othniel Kenaz 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to see the addition of great, sourced material, particuarly about historical and non-Western marriage practices. Polygamy in various forms (Muslim, early Christian, LDS) is a fascinating topic in particular, and had a broad impact on the cultures it was common in. (I'm less sure there's a lot to say about close-kin marriages, but heck, if there're reliable sources out there that discuss it, great!) --j⚛e deckertalk 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC) PS: the article is protected right now, once you have something together, I believe you should be able to ask that it be added by an admin using the "editprotected" template. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a mistake to weight things primarily by their representation in the populace, because they do not carry that weight in the discussion. In much of the world through much of history, marriage between races was not a different thing than marriage within a race, and to separate that out would be like separating out marriages in which the man is 2-10 inches taller than the woman, which would likely make up an even larger portion of the populace. SSM, on the other hand, is a different thing almost everywhere - either forbidden, or categorized separately, and where it's not categorized separately legally its often part of an active issue. It's the edge case, and edges are important when depicting things.
- That is not to say that there isn't room for adding discussion of other matters where a difference is really made, and certainly in reflecting on kin marriage we could discuss the range of it being illegal, taboo, or part of a strong tradition in various societies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- NatGertler: I agree. The reason I picked on polygamy is that I do think there's a lot to say about it's practice and cultural influence that can be sourced, both in historic times and more modern ones as well, I guess. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the United States I do think interracial marriage has been an extremely important topic and a limiting case that has evolved over time. It's hard to generalize, though. There are definitely contexts where caste or religion make more sense as separating factors. But in those cases you could start talking about inter-caste marriage or interfaith marriage as more appropriate topics.
- I think on interracial marriage one reason it is very important in the United States is the legacy of slavery. It now occurs to me that one other subject that definitely ought to be mentioned is slave marriage. (Yes, another marriage. Don't puke.) Slaves made up much of the world for most of recorded history. In some cultures they could marry free people, while in other cultures they could not. We don't even have a page about slave marriage, so I won't make any new sections, but it is important. —Othniel Kenaz 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, observing the USA from Australia, it's obvious that interracial marriage is a bigger issue there than here. Being a global article, it would be wrong for this article to concentrate on the United States, but it could be valid to develop some sort of comparison section, comparing practices and attitudes around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll submit to the admins small subsections on polygamy and close-kin marriage today or tomorrow. On interracial marriage, I don't know if religion is all that relevant given that no religion I've heard of forbids it. (Although Judaism has opposed interfaith marriage and in Israel that has sometimes been similar to racism. I don't think I could make a section out of just that, though.) —Othniel Kenaz 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to reenter this obliquely because I had a link that set of a spam filter here, but if you Google "sin of interracial marriage", the top link should take you to a 1982 speech on that from the founder and then-head of the Worldwide Church of God (which has since reorganized and may no longer have that view, although spin-off churches do). So yes, there have been and continue to be religions that bar interracial marriage; where you have calls to "white purity", you are likely to have some church rising to meet the demand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll submit to the admins small subsections on polygamy and close-kin marriage today or tomorrow. On interracial marriage, I don't know if religion is all that relevant given that no religion I've heard of forbids it. (Although Judaism has opposed interfaith marriage and in Israel that has sometimes been similar to racism. I don't think I could make a section out of just that, though.) —Othniel Kenaz 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Othniel Kenaz, 14 July 2010
{{editprotected}}
Hello. After discussion on the talk page I believe there is consensus to add subsections under Marriage and religion after its last subsection. I have therefore made the following.
Polygamy
Religious groups have differing views on the legitimacy of polygyny, or the practice of a man taking more than one wife. Most Christian groups prohibit it and condemnations can be found from very early Christian leaders.[1] But polygamy is allowed in Islam and also Confucianism, though in most areas today it is uncommon.[2][3] Religious law on polygamy has evolved over time in religions like Judaism and Hinduism.
Close-kin marriage
Religion has commonly weighed in on the matter of which relatives, if any, are allowed to marry. Relations may be by consanguinity or affinity, meaning by blood or by marriage. On the marriage of cousins, Catholic policy has evolved from initial acceptance, through a long period of general prohibition, to the modern-day requirement for a dispensation.[4] Islam has always allowed it, while Hindu strictures vary widely.[5][6]
—Othniel Kenaz 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could the other editors involved with this article please confirm that there is agreement to add the wording above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Disabled request as there has been no response. Please reactivate when you have a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Ezphilosophy, 16 July 2010
{{editprotected}}
In the last paragraph under the section Modern Customs, it seems that "man" and "woman" should be plural. Also, it is bit comma-heavy.
Ezphilosophy (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be changed. It looks like it was written by someone who does not speak English natively, or else is a bad typist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've had a go at it, but it's still not very good. If you can do better, please state the exact wording you would like! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No need for UU picture---move it to "Religious arguments about SSM"
<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>
- Fresh off your block, you picked up where you left off. You're about an inch or two away from an indefinite block. How badly do you want to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>
- Addition of Heterosexual couples is unneutral. You are removing the only Homosexual wedding image, is this neutral? TbhotchTalk C. 21:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>
- Brucejenner (talk · contribs) You are banned, the only thing that you are doing is extend your conviction. TbhotchTalk C. 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from your own opinion, you have provided no reasoning to remove this image. I see no reason to remove it.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>
- Addition of Heterosexual couples is unneutral. You are removing the only Homosexual wedding image, is this neutral? TbhotchTalk C. 21:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>
Malapropism needs correction
subtopic Sex and procreation ........ second paragraph On the other hand, marriage is not a prerequisite for having children.......In the United States, the highest judicial body ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that procreation within marriage could be abridged by artificial insemination.
It seems clear to me that the word "contraception" vice "insemnation" is required.
Would someone who is knowledgable of editing make the change, please.
71.235.145.26 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)mesterquest@yahoo.com
- "contraception" vice "insemnation"??? What is that supposed to mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- IP poster is correct in noting that Griswold was not about insemination but about contraception, and that the sentence didn't make sense as it stood. I have removed the sentence, as it did not belong with that paragraph - paragraph was about unmarried people having kids, and Griswold is about married people not having kids. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The item was originally entered on July 19, 2009 (so it just had its anniversary), and was basically correct at that time, albeit worded a little oddly.[1] That was clarified by another editor on the 20th, and I would say it was worded correctly.[2] It was then modified on August 17, 2009, by X-factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to include the incorrect comment about insemination, and I think it had remained that way in the subsequent 11 months.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have now added back the version that appears to be factually correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's factually correct... but it's still not relevant to the partagraph, which is about children outside of wedlock. It should be moved or deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. It be gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's factually correct... but it's still not relevant to the partagraph, which is about children outside of wedlock. It should be moved or deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have now added back the version that appears to be factually correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The item was originally entered on July 19, 2009 (so it just had its anniversary), and was basically correct at that time, albeit worded a little oddly.[1] That was clarified by another editor on the 20th, and I would say it was worded correctly.[2] It was then modified on August 17, 2009, by X-factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to include the incorrect comment about insemination, and I think it had remained that way in the subsequent 11 months.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from ZeepAl, 7 August 2010
The following statement is opinionated and should be removed. One can not state that there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and then follow that by the comment it is believed. The only statement of fact within the sentence is regarding the Theodosian Code. The statement references same-sex unions not marriage. If it is to be retained, at a minimum it should be placed under the definition of same-sex unions and not marriage.
There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[43] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[43] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[44] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex marriage in ancient Rome[45] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[46]
ZeepAl (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Every statement, including the first and second sentence, is followed by a reliable source and is from a neutral point of view. Stickee (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit Request
Request changes in section 9.4 Hinduism. Last line says " Hindu widows cannot remarry." This is factually wrong.
" The Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act 1856 empowers a Hindu widow to remarry. Though traditionally widow remarriages were frowned upon and are still considered taboo in many parts of India, the society is changing and the incidence of widow remarriage is on a rise."
125.22.37.66 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Pooja
<http://www.lawisgreek.com/widow-remarriage-under-hindu-laws/> <lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report81.pdf>
Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
OED definition
Unproductive discussion. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Marriage as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (Compact) - the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. Don't tell me this is just western.82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster definitionMain 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 marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage Merriam-Webster's Advanced Learner's Dictionary definitionmar·riage Pronounced: /ˈmerɪʤ/Listen to audio Function: noun Inflected forms: plural mar·riag·es Meaning: 1 a : the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife [count] ▪ It was his second marriage. ▪ They have a very happy marriage. ▪ Her first two marriages ended in divorce. [noncount] ▪ She has old-fashioned ideas about marriage. ▪ the institution of marriage ▪ He proposed marriage to his girlfriend. [=asked his girlfriend to marry him] ▪ couples living together before marriage ▪ They were joined in marriage [=they were married] last year. ▪ They are related by marriage. [=they are related because one of them is married to a family member of the other] —see also arranged marriage, civil marriage, marriage of convenience, mixed marriage b : a similar relationship between people of the same sex [count] ▪ a same-sex marriage [noncount] ▪ opponents/supporters of same-sex marriage ▪ gay marriage 2 [count] : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other ▪ Many friends and relatives were present at their marriage. ▪ a priest who has performed many marriages 3 [singular] : a close union of or between two things ▪ a marriage of sweet and spicy flavors ▪ a marriage of science and art ▪ a marriage between form and function http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/marriage Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English definitionmar‧riage 1 [uncountable and countable] the relationship between two people who are married, or the state of being marriedCOLLOCATIONS happy/unhappy marriage mixed marriage (=between people of different races or religions) arranged marriage (=your parents choose the person who you marry) loveless marriage a marriage breaks down (=it ends because of disagreements) the breakdown/break-up of your marriage (=the end of your marriage) sex before marriage/outside marriage be born outside marriage (=be born when your parents are not married) propose marriage formal (=ask someone to marry you) consummate a marriage (=make your marriage complete by having sex) annul a marriage formal (=a court or church leader officially ends a marriage) She has three daughters from a previous marriage. One in three marriages ends in divorce. marriage to his marriage to Marilyn Monroe marriage between In Denmark they have legalized marriage between gay couples. They have a very happy marriage. children of mixed marriages Women were often forced into arranged marriages. She felt trapped in a loveless marriage. She moved to London after the break-up of her marriage. My parents disapprove of sex before marriage. More than half of all births in the region are outside marriage. 2 [countable] the ceremony in which two people get married [= wedding]: The marriage took place at St Bartholomew's church. 3 by marriage if you are related to someone by marriage, they are married to someone in your family, or you are married to someone in theirs: her cousin by marriage http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/marriage No matter how you look at the issue, by many respected dictionaries and by the dozens countries all over the world supported fact is that marriage involves two people. And there is no reason to hold this fact back from the Wikipedia users/readers. Resolved. Settled. Like it or not. Articles have to be editted in WP:NPOV fashion. --Destinero (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You are right I have got nothing to worry about in that regard, but someone was attempting to link my IP to that username a short time ago. I would be interested (not worried about) what was going on then?82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Why no mention of prominent 20th century theologian Karl Barth on marriage?
Unproductive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I do not have any of Barth's writings, and I am quoting him here from a another book, the ellipsis is not my own, but the complete quote is surely worth searching out and including in the article. Could someone do this. I think it comes from his book The Doctrine of Creation Vol. 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Cased closed? yet another example of a single editor unknowledgable on the subject acting like a member of a judiciary. Barth's views on marriage are quite relevant to this article within the section on christian marriage. The quote is plain english - the reason it may be unclear to some (though surely not to all) is that as I pointed out it is incomplete - which is why I asked if someone could reference the fuller context of it. One has no right here to dismiss Barth as not being an expert on marriage. Anthropology and Sociology do not have a monopoly on the subject - though they both have valid insights to contribute. The christian understanding of marriage is theological first. Please stop confusing not being notable with I haven't heard of him. No editor here is knowledgable on every subject - those with a smidgin of humility are quick to ask first than assume themselves to be experts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk • contribs) 17:24, August 14, 2010
|
Serious question about lede and the sexuality issue
Unproductive discussion. 'Discussing' what you think other editors' 'agendas' are is nothing but disruptive. Discuss content, not editors.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Didn't the lede used to specify that most marriage are between individuals of opposite sex, and or that most marriages were monogamous? No matter how broadly we use this term nowadays, I believe the current lede is not explicit enough about the most common form of marriage. I'm a proponent of gay marriage as a legal institution, and I recognize that the entry should include all forms of marriage, but I do think that it is informative to point out what the most common form of marriage is in practice. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Please be sensible in the degree of indentation you use. There is no need for using such language either generally or directed at particular users. I realise you have not used the terms directly at anyone but using them generally in the way you do is not helpful to the discussion either 82.18.164.15 (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You really do sound like Brucejenner. Now, arguing that there is an agenda, that other users POV push, is nothing but disruptive. Do not comment on other users in this way, just discuss the content. I urge you to stop, continuing in this manner will simply make you look like either a meatpuppet, or a sock(by way of an anonymity site) of Brucejenner. And I'm sure you know what happens to socks of banned users.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a modern English dictionary; it is an encyclopedia. Therefore, it is not proscriptive, it is descriptive. And it describes all types of marriages throughout history, including Chinese and Hindu marriages—which, guess what, were not always monogamous or love marriages. The dictionary has a specific purpose, which is to define what people speaking a certain language in a certain place mean when they say something. And for Anglo-Saxon society in the modern era, when people say "marriage" in colloquial conversation, incidentally they are probably referring to a marriage between a man and a woman, because of heterosexuals' sheer numbers, but that doesn't preclude the population's understanding of other types of marriages.
|
Descriptive terms
Unproductive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Woman - descriptive of a person of the feminine gender and female sex Marriage - most commonly understood to be a formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't dare suggest we include the above in the article, if we want to be politically correct.82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that the accusation of "POV pushing" comes from CTFJ83, he/she is told to "ignore the IP". Daedalus will have something to say about you accusing editors of "POV pushing", as he was death on it earlier.82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Man - descriptive of a person of the masculine gender and male sex Woman - descriptive of a person of the feminine gender and female sex Marriage - most commonly understood to be a formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Could we have a productive discussion about the above. Thanks 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) |
In defense of "individuals"
Discussion Closed due to there being no contributions for several months, and more recent discussion now taking place futher down this page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please see Intersexuality for details. Some editors may wish to deny that marriage applies to the types of individuals described there, but of course if they wish to do so they must provide reliable sources. (sdsds - talk) 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC) <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>
<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>
There are two reasons it makes sense: 1.The standard definition, for 6,000 years, is between a man and a woman. Why change this just because in very recent history, there are same sex marriages in only a handful of jurisdictions? 31 times ballot measures have been introduced to support gay marriage. All 31 went down in defeat. <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)> <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>
<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)>
It does occur to me as an aside, however, that we might want to think about whether "gender restrictions" are actually restrictions under all significant viewpoints, since many people might view those restrictions as just being part of the definition. Khin2718 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(replying to pat) I guess I must have missed when the bible became law in the US. Doesn't your bible also say slavery is ok, women are property, and people who work on Sunday are put to death? You can't pick and choose what parts you want to believe in and what parts you ignore. CTJF83 chat 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Would anyone object if I changed "individuals" to "two individuals"? In the case of polygamy the relationship is still pairwise, since pairs of people are still married: the only difference is that one person can have many pairwise relationships. -Khin2718 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"Individuals" sounds sterile, vague, and is not the common definition. Man and woman is the consensus mainstream definition. I think there are some people who want to include "individuals" as some recognition of these gay marriages,or perhaps some other reason. Gay marriage is only a recent fad and not accepted in many places. Andywatkins1888 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I support the current use of "individuals" in the lead. The word marriage is commonly used, even by those who disapprove gay marriage and group marriage, in those sentences, "individuals" is the most inclusive term to cover the various ways the concept is described. The current "individuals" text is also more accurately describes marriages including intersexed people, and in some cases transgendered folks. (Different states often come to different conclusions about whether a transgendered person is male or female.) Finally, "man" and "woman" conflates sex with gender in societies that recognize or have recognized a third gender, such as the Hijra (South_Asia). --Joe Decker (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC) "Individuals" covers all the bases. To call same-sex marriage a "recent fad" displays ignorance of the topic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I can't really agree with the "covering all bases" argument for the use of "individuals" in the first sentence of the definition of marriage. The word is NOT commonly used to describe either gay unions or group unions outside of the limited municipalities where such unions are recognized. The majority of definitions of marriage are specific to the union of a man and a woman. Both plural marriage and same-sex marriage are better addressed in specific subsections of the definition - ie history, marriage law and controversies - rather than the introductory paragraph.
|
Inappropriate sentence
This sentence does not belong here. There are other places for value judgements. "John Witte, Professor of Law and director of the Law and Religion Program at Emory University, warns that contemporary liberal attitudes toward marriage ultimately will produce a family that is "haphazardly bound together in the common pursuit of selfish ends."[37]" Helen Webberley helenw@bigpond.net.au 27/6/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.202.174 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence was inappropriate for its section and has been removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where would be the best place in the article to put this statement. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't belong here at all. Conservapedia or a personal blog might be the best place if you want to publish value judgements by random pundits.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Where would be the best place in the article to put this statement. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- But there is already a criticism section in the article refering to marriage - which contains value judgements on marriage itself. Should there not therefore be a section for criticism of contempory views on marriage, and a response to the critique of marriage.? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't cotain any such valiue judgment actually. It merely says that people have made value judgments. The value judgments themselves are described in the article criticism of marriage.I think the criticism section is largely irrelevant - it should be written in to the history section describing the varying and changing views of marriage. John Witte's view should of course also be mentioned - but there is no need to attribute it to any one person - it would make more sense to put it into a historical context and attribute it to a particular cultural trend in the 20th century and source it to a work that makes general sociological observations about changing views on marriage.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- But there is already a criticism section in the article refering to marriage - which contains value judgements on marriage itself. Should there not therefore be a section for criticism of contempory views on marriage, and a response to the critique of marriage.? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I take it then you are not refering to John Witte, Professor of Law and director of the Law and Religion Program at Emory University as a random pundit?82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean "no need to attribute it to any one person"?82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that it makes more sense to put Dr Wittes (and other random pundits ) opinions into a larger historical perspective instead of quoting their particular personal views. Dr. Wittes opinion is for example shared by a large number of conservative Americans and Europeans - that is interesting, Dr. Witte's personal opinions about marriage are not. And yes my statement of him being a random pundit is a value judgment - and that is why I made it here in the talk page not the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please stop using this term "random pundits", it implies some sort of media pundit. If his views have been quoted in a media article by a pundit, that is one thing, however it is not at all clear from what you are saying that you don't regard him in the same way. Einstein could be quoted in a newspaper article by a "random pundit". The term is extremely derogatory, and it should not be a reflection on who is quoted, if they are quoted by an article writer who is not well known.82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- ^ The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325: ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME 4.Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second. Chronologically arranged, with brief notes and prefaces, by A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D. T&T CLARK, EDINBURGH WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
- ^ http://www.dinahproject.com/articles_view_details.asp?id=217
- ^ http://threekingdoms.com/history.htm
- ^ Ottenheimer, Martin (1996). "Chapter 3". Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage. University of Illinois.
- ^ http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544772