Talk:Shotgun wedding

message: There are 11 words for seize in the hebrew language all have different meanings here are some of the different breakdowns you can find, just so people know your perpetuating a false idea
So tephas the hebrew word for sieze has been traslated as rape, the word taphas can also be traslated as to take, as in,"to take as wife", to ay hold, to seize upon, to grab hold, to have taken, to have caught/catch
The word chazaq which is used i verse 25 and verse 27 when dealing with actual rape means to force.
The next part in the verse says they were discovered, kinda alluding to it was consent, rember were working in english through English lexicon translations not the original hebrew, sometimes a translation has infered something that wasnt there in the first place
In verse 25-27 they talk about the woman screaming alerting someone to the fact its rape, but she doesnt scream in verse 28 does that not tell you yet this situation is different to the last, when a woman screams, and they are found the man dies, but they are found and no screaming is involved
26 but onto the damsel who shout do nothing.
27 for he found her in a feild, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was non to save her.
In the law of moses premarital sex was not condemned, but they had to marry.
Dueteronomy is talking about those who are found having premarital sex.
However there are some pre existing historical peices of knowledge about this passage even if it was about rape, first one the woman also had a right to refuse, but the final decision was down to a father, it depended on lots of things, thats why there would also have been a forced cost in either consensual or no concensual situations, because now she has been violated the usual behaviour of a culture is to reject her and let her exist as a spinster so he would have to either marry her or pay her way.
The thing is yiur presenting the source that suits your agenda, i just looked through multiple sources to find my information, and there are veried opinions, this meaning rape has never been a concensus thats why each different bible actually addresses this in different terminology
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deuteronomy 22:28 KJVA
https://bible.com/bible/546/deu.22.28.KJVA
“If a man comes upon a girl who is a virgin but who is not engaged, and he grabs her and has sexual relations with her, and they are caught in the act,
D'varim (Deu) 22:28 CJB
https://bible.com/bible/1275/deu.22.28.CJB
“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
Deuteronomy 22:28 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/deu.22.28.NASB
Notice the they are caught in the act, they be found
If an ish find a na'arah that is a betulah, which is not orasah (betrothed), and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Devarim 22:28 OJB
https://bible.com/bible/130/deu.22.28.OJB
See this orthodox jewish version, he lays hold
http://biblicaltruth.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/h8610_Taphas.gif
If you look at the above link it takes you to a picture, with the multiple meanings, and non of them mean rape. 
So another breakdown of taphas on a different source
to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
(Qal)
to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
So lets look where the word has been used
Hebrew תָּפַשׂ⁠ (taphas),
which occurs 65 times in 60 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV
Genesis 4:21 to handle a harp, you dont rape harps
Genesis 39:12 whe potiphers wife trys to get joseph to sleep with her, she takes hold of his garment
Numbers 5:13 used in accordance to a woman cheating with a man behind her husbands back "neither she be taken" is how the word is used
Deuteronomy 20: 19 seizing a city to take for your own
Dueteronomy  21:19 his father and mother lay hold of him
Josiah 8:23 and the king of Ai they took them alive, there taking possession.
Have you noticed you have to read in and around the sentence to infer meaning
Verse 23 of deuteronomy a man is sleeping with a married woman, 25 he rapes a married woman, 26 do nothing to the woman, 27 she was found in the country she screamed  noone could rescue her 28 he meets a woman, they lie together, they are discovered, there was no screaming 29 he needs to pay and marry.
What this echos is exodus, when a man sleeps with a woman not pledged to be married and he pays the bride price.
The whole section isnt about rape it is about different acts that occur, marraige violations, rape, adultery, it reads not at all as your presenting
There is a huge difference between the two word meanings and it is clear to us that NOBODY was ever commanded to marry a rapist, i believe you may be falsely supporting the rape concept, however i undertand, because below i provided some quotes where some versions have taken the translation of rape.
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
Deuteronomy 22:28 NIV
https://bible.com/bible/111/deu.22.28.NIV
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered,
Deuteronomy 22:28 CSB
https://bible.com/bible/1713/deu.22.28.CSBeuteronomy 22:28-29 does not mention consensual sex, but rape.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmanen (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Deuteronomy 22 does not mention pregnancy anywhere. It is therefore not relevant to the subject of shotgun weddings, which exist to cover up unintended pregnancies. Instead, what is described here in Deuteronomy is a marry-your-rapist law, which exists to "restore the honour" of a woman (most often a virgin) who has had sex (against her will) out of wedlock; pregnancy is not necessarily a factor. Since it is not relevant to this article about shotgun weddings, I'm going to remove any reference to Deuteronomy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 

message: Many countries, that is a bit vague, can anybody give some specific examples? Sander123 12:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: The murphy brown reference seems a bit out of place.. if anywhere it should be in the culture references section, but my preference would be to remove it entirely.
Mleinart 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murphy brown? 

message: I removed the trivia section without integration the deleted material because I don't see it as remotely relevant. A list of songs that included the phrase "shotgun wedding" and movies/shows that had shotgun wedding scenes? Come on. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information.  TheBLPGuy 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section removed

message: Although it was harder to get a divorce for women, in societies where children were important in a relationship, a woman could be divorced for infertility. A shotgun wedding's main purpose was to ensure the mother and child had a provider. perhaps that should be changed. Rds865 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ensuring fertility 

message: It is only in America that the term "shotgun wedding" has any purchase, or any history, and it is not a suitable title for an entry which purports to deal with an cross-national issue. 
The reasons for its occurrence and the instigators of it in the different cultures (e.g. the male/female spouse; the family of the girl or of the boy; the community) are so different that the term "shotgun wedding", with its distinct connotations is not apposite, and therefore quite misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.188.108 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

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

message: I assume this means 2005-2009, or even 2007-2009. If it was, e.g, the late 1800s or late 1900s, it would mean in the second half (and probably the last third) of the century. No likelihood of confusion for a while, but I wonder if there's a better way to convey the period intended? Koro Neil (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late 2000s?