Talk:Marriage/Archive 6

message: Or, at least, from someone who has not been involved with this debate, and came here via the RfC. I think the lead as it stands right now is in very good shape, NPOV-wise, explanation-wise, potential alien-readership wise, and everything. It makes very clear that marriage may semantically be used to refer to many different types of unions, but that many people believe that only one such union should be allowed to actually occur. This is just fine-the term "murder" has a clear linguistic meaning, even though I imagine most are of the opinion that it should never be allowed. For such a contentious topic, I think an excellent job has been done. Seraphimblade 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greetings from the planet Zog

message: Most societies/countries give married couples a more favourable tax bracket than single individuals and non-married couples (which are usually treated by the tax code as two single persons).
The rationale behind this *might* be / *might* have been that "marrying" and "having children" were considered to be synonyms (i.e. if you married you'd also soon have children, because if you were married you'd invariably have sex and before birth control that invariably led to children).
Because children are an economic burden (i.e. they cost money to raise, everything from diapers to university tuition). Another rationale might have been to encourage individuals to marry and subsequently have children.  
However, today, this connection is no longer a "given" in most western societies, i.e. married couples without children are just as common as non-married couples with children. The tax code clearly favours marriage over children. 
Might be an interesting addition to the article. I started by mentioning the more favourable tax code treatment of married couples in the article.
--Soylentyellow 10:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as i have said, there is not always favorable taxation for married couples.  if the tax rates are such that the tax a married couple pays is exactly twice (or less) of that of a single person making half of the income, then married couples will never pay more, and with income averaging, will often pay less than their combined tax paid as two single persons.  however, that is clearly not the case in the U.S. (the tax for married filing jointly is more than double the tax on half the income for the single taxpayer class) and i suspect other places. but if spouses make roughly the same pay to start with, income averaging doesn't do much to help.  certainly the most common case in the U.S. is that spouses do not make roughly the same income (stay at home mom or part-time employed mom or full-time mom and unemployed/underemployed dad, etc.) so most married couples do better tax-wise as married than if they were not.  but not all.  r b-j 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tax brackets, marriage and children 

message: Perhaps we could reach better agreement on the lead sentence if it were broken up into smaller sentences. For example:A marriage is a particlar type of socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of people.  Most frequently, a marriage involves one man and one woman.  People marry to: form a family unit, legitimize sexual relations and procreation, educate and develop offspring, gain social or economic stability, security, or companionship, or for various combinations of these purposes.It's possible we could then all agree on the first sentence.  All the controversy could then be in the second or third sentence.  Wouldn't that be a nice improvement?  Sdsds 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the lead - the path of several small sentences 

message: You've still got an RfC up about the 31 Dec "consensus", so... The "consensus" wording sacrificed accuracy in the name of political correctness by giving undue weight to the tiny proportion of SSM. Use of sex-neutral terms for the description of marriage is misleading if you don't qualify it immediately with the overwhelming predominance of intra-sexual (I think that's right--in export a transfer to a subsidiary in known as an "intercompany", not "intracompany", transfer...) marriage. Anyway, the current wording omits the whole ugly "people" cul-de-sac (sorry, Sdsds) and is less misleading (though I would guess "most often between one man and one or more women" would be most accurate...but certainly won't act w/o a cite) , and the RfC is about ancient history... so does anyone object to deleting it? Andyvphil 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what consensus? 

message: I'm just a bit curious: how certain are each of you who contribute to this discussion that everyone who refers to themselves as the "husband" of someone else is biologically male?  How certain are you that everyone who refers to themselves as the "wife" of someone else is biologically female? How certain are you about the biological sex of each person you personally know whom you describe as someone else's husband or wife? Not to get too graphic, but have you looked at their genitals? Examined their DNA? Or are you making some assumptions?  Have you all at least skimmed Passing (gender), or some equivalent source of information? Sdsds 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know the Moon exists? Nkras 11:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Verifiable sources. The moon verifiably exists. -- Ec5618 12:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you sure? Nkras 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because I've seen the moon, of course. And it's quite reliably sourced. In terms of the earlier question, while in many of the same-sex pairings I've seen the two refer to each other just as "partners", I have seen cases where one partner identifies as the "husband" and the other as the "wife". (And in at least a few of these cases, trust me-you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference without a very thorough physical examination.) Of course, whether this can be sourced or not is another story, but it does happen. I'll see what I can find in terms of sources.Seraphimblade 12:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  personally, i think that this touches on sophistry.  How certain [am I] that everyone who refers to themselves as the "wife" of someone else is biologically female?  if you allow for no exception, i would answer "not at all certain".  in fact, i would feel pretty confident that some male somewhere in the world, at some time in history, called himself (or herself) someone's wife.  stranger things have happened.  still not the point.  just because somthing like this happens in the vast minority of cases does not mean we grant it equal weight in the lead (which would be WP:Undue weight).  this is the kind of thing you could do with practically any article and it would become cumbersome (and unrepresentative) to be itemizing all of the zillion exceptions to the accurate generalization done in the lead describing what whatever widget is the subject of the article. r b-j 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the lack of good data about the actual number of "exceptions to the rule", does the addition of a single word like "most" really give the viewpoint WP:Undue weight?  (Of course giving it two words - like "most frequently" - would certainly be over-the-top! ;-) Sdsds 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's not over the top!  it's what "most" means.  how do you possibly come to the conclusion that "most frequently" is over the top?!  it's conservative.  "vast majority" is probably at least as accurate and closer to the top than "most frequently".  how can "most frequently" be over-the-top and "most" is not?  Sdsds, you're hardly making any sense. r b-j 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the present first sentence. I think one man and one woman as the common form of marriage should be there. And that the terms husband and wife should be explained after. I don't think there's a problem with saying that in their marital roles men are known as husbands and women as wives. (If a qualifying word must be inserted I suggest generally or widely) The exceptions are very minor and even same-sex couples use the terms. WJBscribe 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the essay known as WP:NOTLEX, wikipedia knows that the husband means male because its sources say so. husband similarly, wife. Wikipedia lives and dies by the sources it cites. MPS 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MPS, feel free to point to NOTLEX, but please stop saying you 'agree' with it. You wrote it, naturally you agree with it. -- Ec5618 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, i agree with it, too.  this shit is sophistry and it is here only because there is a small component of the population that is evidently over-represented here that simply cannot accept the meanings of words like "marriage", "husband", "wife" and continues to dis-ingenuously press their question of "do those words really mean what they mean?"  it's shit like this (that this small component of the population insists does not stink) that motivates me to undiplomatically toss WP:AGF out the window.  people are clearly trying to use Wikipedia as their soapbox to move social evolution along in a direction that they advocate.  this is clearly against what WP is meant to be and they should get their own website to do that. r b-j 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  r b-j, you might have realized - if you were paying attention - that some well-meaning editors of wikipedia feel dictionaries are not always valuable sources.  Would you consult a dictionary to determine if Zenit-3SL rockets were reliable launch vehicles? Reliability is of primary importance for rockets, but to make your determination wouldn't you rather rely on something more up-to-date, like http://www.sea-launch.com/news_releases/nr_070201.html ?  Maybe the truth about wives all having the same gender is a little like the truth about the reliability of rockets, i.e. it is something that has changed with the passage of time. Sdsds 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  when an article about a single word that is in common use, where it becomes contentious about what this article is going to say about this commonly used single word subject particularly the lead which does serve the role of definition, and some editors what to replace the "harmful" dictionary definition with one of their own POV, i become dubious of the well-meaning of such editors in terms of meaning well for what Wikipedia is supposed to be. r b-j 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male husbands and female wives - How sure are you? 

message: Would this article be a good place for a comparative etymology of "husband" and "wife"? I think it's interesting, because they have somewhat different origins. DanB†DanD 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirects of husband and wife to marriage are ticking bombs.  Defusing them somehow, without detonating them, would be a great service.  Sdsds 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to Be Bold and did it. Even i couldnt help but chuckle that the words "husband" and "wife" are not mentioned in "marriage" until half the page down.... I love to say what the word actually means (etymologically) and think the articles should only!! mention the position in a marriage. The whole ssm/polygamy debate will sooner or later get there, i fear, but i tried to get around that. Help please--FlammingoParliament 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: husbands and wives redux

message: I just had a look at the first line's cited dicdefs, and they emphasize the legal aspect of marriage, while not mentioning religion at all. (I can't access the OED site, but my copy of the compact edition at home doesn't mention either religion or law in the main definition.)
Of course, a sacramental view of marriage is an essential part of the definition, but our references do not at the moment support this.
[edited to add: okay, well, rbj's change removes the inconsistency, but introduces the problem that religious marriage is now not mentioned in the lead, which I think is obviously a problematic omission.]
DanB†DanD 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't expect the edit will last.  but it's the only one that is devoid of any particular editor's POV.  Halfdome can lol all he wants.  (not very persuasive.) r b-j 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: religiously recognized?

message: Some unappreciative vandal, masquerading as a decent-hearted editor, wrote: "let's take out the Marriage and Love stub (and reference) until we can figure out what to say."  Perhaps that decent-hearted editor, upon seeing what was done in their name, will put that material back? Sdsds 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think love has something to do with marriage and i see no reason why "expression of love" be it erotic love, familial love, or romantic love cannot go in the list of reasons for why people get married.  it was clumsy language. r b-j 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully support edits which replace language that seems clumsy with language that seems less so. I find it difficult to support edits which delete text that includes relevant citations of reliable sources, replacing it with nothing of value. Sdsds 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal Masquerade? 

message: When we keep changing the first sentence of this article, we look like fools. How about something like this? 
Marriage refers to certain human relationships. For a relationship to be a marriage the participants must have certain characteristics (see "Restrictions"), the participants must have certain reasons for marrying (see "Purposes"), and the marriage must be recognized in at least one of several ways (see "Recognition"). 
 Would it stand a chance of being stable? Sdsds 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasel words, IMHO.  Pretty ghastly.  Joie de Vivre 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well intended, but I doubt it would survive, and I do agree with Joie de Vivre. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed definition which defers controversy to subsequent sections 

message: I came here responding to an RfC, but don't see the subheading in the talk page anywhere.
If this RfC is still open, please provide the necessary format for such comments.
Having said that, the lead sentence is wrong as it gives primacy to two person marriages.  There are many examples of multiple person marriages around the world (such as multiple wives..multiple husbands also exist though they are rarer).  Remember, Wikipedia has a global scope, it is not sufficient to define a term in such a way that it does not factor in this global diversity.-75.179.159.240 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it group Marriage is extremely rare. The examples you give are not group marriage what they are polygamy. One person has multiple wives or one person has multiple husbands, but each wife (or husband) is not married to the other wife or husband.If what you are saying was true then Islam would permit same-sex marriage. Additional all Christians would recognize that Rachel and Leah in addition to being married to Jacob would have been married to each other (a same-sex marriage). I do think that we need to spell-out the difference between group marriage and polygamy because you are not the first person to make the assertion that marriages between more than two people are common.--Riferimento 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The examples you give are not group marriage what they are polygamy."  Yes and no.  Social scientists look at relationships from a number of different perspectives.  One of them is looking at institutions and another is looking at social relationships.  Humans are complex beings and culture is probably the most complex of human inventions, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that institutional categories and social relationships overlap.  Marriage institutionalizes social relationships.  In other words, the fact that it is polygamy does not exclude it from being marriage.  Now, as for being rare, it -is- rare (though I believe it still exists in Africa, the Middle East (I believe Islam - or at least some forms of it - still supports polygamy), certain parts of Asia (as I recall, the only case study of polyandry I've read about is in the Himalayas - the Tuvan people I *think*, but its been awhile since I've read any on it), and South America.  Still, the fact that it is rare is not license to pretend it doesn't exist.  It would be inaccurate for this article to define marriage as exclusively between two people.-75.179.159.240 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Permit me to clarify my objection.  The article states, "Marriage refers to a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between two people.[1][2] The social, religious, or legal purpose of the relationship can vary widely. Some marriages include more than two people"
The article, I believe, should state "Marriage refers to a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship[1][2]. The social, religious, or legal purpose of the relationship can vary widely. The overwhelming majority of modern marriages are between two people."  -75.179.159.240 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course polygamy is marriage that is not the point. Please read the Polygamy article particularly the section on group marriage. One man/women can be married to more than one spouse, but at each wedding only one spouse is married to one spouse. To imply that polygamy is group marriage is incorrect.--Riferimento 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "but at each wedding only one spouse is married to one spouse"  I've never seen any source which states that in all forms of polygamy, a particular wedding ceremony is only between two people.-75.179.159.240 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To assume something exist because you have not read of its non-existence seems faulty. It would seem to me that if three people were married e.g. one man and two women and the man died if it were a group marriage the two women would still be married. This would be an example of same-sex marriage. I believe that the lack of this argument ever being offered is at least circumstantial evidence that group marriage is so rare that we can not state it without detailed explanation and support for its existence. Kaingang --Riferimento 18:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To assume that something exists because you haven't read of its existence seems even more faulty.  To assume that something must be true in all cultures because "it would seem to me" (that is, because that's what makes sense in your culture) is what those of us who have studied anthropology call "culture-bound ideas".  Again, the point I am raising is not whether group marriage is rare, just that it does exist and, so, we cannot write the article as if it does not.-75.179.159.240 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I conceded my point and struck my reply, I assume that you last comment is a request for formal apology for questioning you. I am sorry--Riferimento 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead, let's just drop it.  You don't owe me any apology, you're just trying to write the best article you can - something which should be encouraged.  I'll strikeout my last comment and, hopefully, we can just move on.  Cool? -75.179.159.240 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The marriage as a social construct section is very short, unsourced and seems to be pointless. Can we merge it with another section somewhere? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first and the last. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sdsds, Without citation it borders on original research. Maybe I don’t understand it? Could you expand the section and provide some citations?--Riferimento 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleter or merge section? 

message: There's nothing in here about pre and post nuptial agreements. Also, do we need a section on marriage in popular culture? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prenups 

message: What's the NPOV dispute about? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the one to explain the dispute because I do not think it is valid.  But, as I understand it there are those who believe that unless the first line contains the word husband and wife or man and women undue weight is given to all other marriages. The reason we need the tag is because the first line of this article has not in the last three months (maybe longer) ever been stable for a week. It is my opinion that removing the tag without a week of stability would not alert readers to the fact that what they are reading is not a consensus and is liable to change multiple times in a day.--Riferimento 22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, same-sex marriages, group marriage and polgamy are statistically uinsignificant compared to heterosexual monogamous marriage, so the sentence should reflect that. What about something like "Marriage is socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between two or more people, most typically between a man and a woman." Seems to cover it all to me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the two main advocates of the one man and a woman version are presently blocked (one indefinitely) answers may not be forthcoming quickly. I agree that your version above gives due weight to the common form of marriages. WJBscribe 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I was the one who reported Nkras to WP:AN/I. New version below. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the tag. For the past several days, the article has been bouncing back and forth between a lead that denies the existence of same-sex marriage altogether, and a lead in which same-sex marriage (and, now, the group marriage practices of a specific tiny ethnic group) are given undue weight. Neither version is at all good! At the moment the definition has become so vague that it could refer to a relationship of any kind -- parents and children have a "legally, religiously, or socially recognized relationship" so according to the article's lead are apparently married! DanB†DanD 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, you make a very good point. Could offer a solution? The problem so far is that there are so many different types of marriage with so many exceptions that when ever specificity has been tried other editors have objected that western society is given undue weight.--Riferimento 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about ""Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized sexual relationship between two or more people, most typically between a man and a woman."? That defines it a bit more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is my latest try? Marriages is a relationship in which two or more individuals not related by blood covenant with each other to have sexual relations, formally declare romantic love, and share property in perpetuity.--Riferimento 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I much prefer Dev920's, as "the phrasing is awkward for many readers (though not actually incorrect), and the reasons are just a small subset of the many reasons people marry. As for Dev's, I'm not fond of "most typically", but admittedly I can't quite put my finger on why. I'd prefer "most frequently", but minor quibbles aside, this is essentially the phrasing I've personally been pushing for, so you won't get any substantial arguments from me.--John Kenneth Fisher 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that the question of who is to be considered a blood relation is not so clear.  Some cultures consider as blood relatives people whom other cultures wouldn't even have a name for.-75.179.159.240 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marriage the condition that makes an individual a spouse, or the institution the creates this condition. I like this version it is based on the OED definition.--Riferimento 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marriage is the condition that makes an individual a spouse. That's a great way to start! It isn't even controversial. (Is it?)  But the reader will next ask, "How do I know if this condition applies in any particular case?"  There are two wildly different kinds of answers.  The easiest kind goes, "If some authority recognizes the marriage, that's good enough for me: it's a marriage!" The more difficult kind goes, "You know its a marriage because your faith tells you in a marriage certain conditions exist, and you or someone you trust has verified those conditions have been met." Those believing SSM=M are clearly in the first camp. Those holding the opposing opinion are in the second.  I just can't compose a second sentence that gives approprate weight to eacho of these two views. Sdsds 02:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Marriage is not always a sexual relationship. But it is a committed relationship, where the participants promise to honor some commitment to each other. –Shoaler (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute