Talk:Christian views on marriage

message: I am thinking off adding a short section on Anabaptist marriage views. While similar to Protestantism, the movement has historically taken a harder line on divorce. Also, marriage customs differ from in some respects (e.g., some sects have no wedding rings, etc.).
Also, I think there may be some value to adding a brief reference to Friends (Quaker) view on marriage considering their somewhat unique perspective on marriage.
Would these entries best fit under the Protestant section or elsewhere? Any other comments, ideas, suggestions? Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anabaptist and Friends (Quaker) marriage? 

message: At the present, in addition to this article, there is also Monogamy in Christianity and a Polygamy in Christianity. Any thoughts on merging some or all of these articles? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surv1v4l1st, seems like a good idea provided that the main article is Christian views of marriage. Is that what you have in mind? ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I think that makes the most sense. There seems to be a lot of duplicated materials in the other articles that could use some trimming too. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 15:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidating articles? 

message: I now realize why Afaprof changed what I thought was a correction to the page. Jewish views on marriage is the article that one gets to when clicking on Marriage in the Bible. However, I do not think that the above mentioned article is the main article for anything in this article. The vast majority of what it describes is based on Jewish traditions that are not themselves taken directly from the Hebrew bible. In other words 90% of the entry has nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical foundations of Christian views on marriage. If there were in fact a real entry about "Marriage in the bible", then that entry would be appropriate. I suggest we remove this link altogether or put it into "see also" or something of that sort.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree and have removed the "Main" tag. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But your same argument could apply to Jewish views on marriage. Very little of it directly relates to what is written in the Jewish Bible. In which case it seems extremely odd that someone clicking on Marriage in the Bible should be directed to that article. I think we should set up a disambiguation page that offers readers access to the Jewish Bible or the Christian Bible - otherwise it doesn't make sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish views on marriage 

message: I think the introduction to this article could use some sources to back up many of the claims that are made and to direct people to places for more information/greater understanding.  The claims are all mostly good but there is no harm in expanding the bibliography for this article; more sources will facilitate learning for those who want to go beyond what is provided in the text.  There is no reason why the introduction here could not be as adorned with references as other similar articles.Säadtrain (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: Actually, the picture that located on the top of the page is named "Misalliance", so I think that it can't represent a typical Christian wedding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plankalkulist (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Page 

message: I have moved some material here from the article on Monogamy in Christianity for several reasons and I thought I would summarize my thinking.
* The material addresses an essentially identical topic, and on that basis I could not discern a relevant reason for having the material in two places
* This article is clearly more substantial and, quite importantly, is more actively edited and corrected. The page view numbers are considerably higher and the number of article watchers is more than double (69 versus "less than 30" for Monogamy in Christianity)
* I have some concerns that elements of what is being moved over have an 1) uncited and 2) interpretive aspect. I regret "cluttering" this article, but I judge that the material is much more likely to get proper scrutiny here. For a variety of reasons I chose not to address some of the issues I sense in the moved elements, nor is the subject matter something of personal pressing importance intellectually. If I were being incisive I would be apt to remove all the exegesis, and trim the quotes to the editorial style that the section here already has/had. I think the moved content would very much benefit from integration into Christian views on marriage, as well as stylistic reformatting to the style of that article, removal of interpretive components (unless they represent cited viewpoints), and redaction of primary source material. I hope you understand that the motivation is to get this material consolidated by an active editorial team. FeatherPluma (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material moved from [[Monogamy in Christianity]] 

message: I can't find anything in the article (or anywhere else on wikipedia) that addresses Christian views on interracial marriage. Could some people work on adding something? Most churches permit it now but 200 years ago, things were much different. We could focus on arguments for/against and how they changed over time--173.49.255.8 (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interracial marriage. 

message: The article stats regarding the New Testament; "it calls voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons the sin of fornication."
This is simply not so. Persons interpret it as stating this, but it does not directly state this, nor even necessarily imply it. Rather, it portrays prostituting oneself, whatever the form of reward, as fornication.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.254.232 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are stating that the New Testament invented the term "fornication" (translated into English), but never clearly defined what it entailed. I am pretty sure the term was not invented by the Greeks or Jewish people but had a prevailing definition. While it may be one of those terms that is difficult to translate into English (like "love", eros, agape, etc.), I'm guessing that really isn't true. The comment sounds like "lawyering" to me. The New Testament isn't primarily about "law" but is a credo, a book about faith. The term "fornication" or any other term may be challenged as to the accuracy of translation into English (or Greek, as the case may be). But the definition was whatever prevailed at the time. Teens and young adults were not encouraged and were definitely discouraged from having pre-marital sex. This prevailed among all property-owning societies of the time, regardless of religion. Student7 (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fornication as used in the New Testament. 

message: A recent revert on Christian views of marriage, rather than trying to address the longstanding POV issues cited on the talk page:
1. Removed a POV tag without discussion.
2. Referred to another's edits as "massively POV" while restoring for instance a sentence claiming that Jesus made a particular claim.  Rather than that Jesus is recorded in the New Testament to have made a particular claim.  I can't imagine a worse POV error than that.  It did not cite any actual "massively POV" statement, didn't cite any on the talk page, and made the article more POV in the following ways at least:
3. Removed clearly factual statements with references.
4. Could have, but did not, improve the hatnote distinguishing "Biblical" from "Christian" views, which you must acknowledge are required, from this reference alone:  
5. Did all this with a clearly Christian-POV user name.  Which, if nothing else, discourages persons not of Christian faith from fixing the POV problems and kind of signals a Christian mafia is going to revert edits without discussion that seriously challenge some dogma or other, or bring up uncomfortable history.
6. Removed utterly innocuous factual statements about divorce that are clearly referenced in other articles in Wikipedia.  As the article stands it pretends that divorce was always permitted on compassionate grounds, which is just plain historical denial.  It's grossly POV to deny that divorce was forbidden until the 20th century by most Christian sects, nor that it continues to carry stigma, guilt and shame, all that must be acknowledged clearly in the passages about divorce.
7. Removed distinctions between Christian sects that do not agree on key questions like divorce or same-sex marriage.  As if the majority view must be correct within Christianity.
8.  Removed distinctions between civil and religious marriage and the extremely brief historical mention of the Theodosian Code and modern same sex marriage rulings in former Roman Empire countries.
If this happens again, serious sanctions should be invoked.  There is no room in Wikipedia for Christian POV warriors trying to whitewash Christianity nor any other religion.
The language reverted was moderate, factual and fair.  Overt fair statements that would call the morality of Christianity into account - for instance calling it a hate cult that made it a high priority in the 4th century to hunt down and murder good citizens who happened to have same sex marriages - have not been included.
The hatnote does need improvement and perhaps a separate Biblical view of marriage page needs to be created to debunk the idea that there is any such view.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.95.94 (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous unsigned message complains of a previous editor having a point of view. I have never before seen an editor maligned for having a name that suggested a POV. Warnings that an edit "kind of signals a Christian mafia is going to revert edits without discussion" are not all the way up to the sort of polite, fact-based standard I expect from Wikipedia. There are complaints that editors on Wikipedia are becoming nasty. Let's gently work to prove those complaints wrong. Pete unseth (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian views of marriage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Christian views on marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517211113/http://www.mccchurch.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsandInitiatives/MarriageEquality/Marriage_Equality.htm to http://www.mccchurch.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsandInitiatives/MarriageEquality/Marriage_Equality.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Christian views on marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622095840/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111080159/http://www.thelocal.se/22810/20091022/ to http://www.thelocal.se/22810/20091022/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111130074536/http://cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/52556-church-weddings-for-gays-proposed.html to http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/52556-church-weddings-for-gays-proposed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005125238/http://www.ambs.edu/ljohns/H&MC.htm to http://www.ambs.edu/ljohns/H&MC.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the following paragraph from the Old Testament subsection because it reeked of OR and had no inline citations. That being said, I'm not at all convinced that it is factually inaccurate. So I'm pasting it here for easier retrieval if anyone can find good sources to support it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Christian views on marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515014220/http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content%2Fsexuality-spirituality-and-feminist-religion to http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content%2Fsexuality-spirituality-and-feminist-religion
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206132921/https://www.cbmw.org/core-beliefs/ to https://www.cbmw.org/core-beliefs/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515014730/http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content%2F2013-02-28-preparing-womens-history-month-arise-e-newsletter to http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content%2F2013-02-28-preparing-womens-history-month-arise-e-newsletter
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140626082957/http://cbmw.org/core-beliefs/ to http://cbmw.org/core-beliefs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112212330/http://goodshepherdinitiative.net/docs_pdf/cbmw-grudem-myth-mutual-submission.pdf to http://goodshepherdinitiative.net/docs_pdf/cbmw-grudem-myth-mutual-submission.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402114657/http://rethinkingvisionforum.org/2011/08/11/are-%E2%80%9Cthe-biblical-tenets-of-patriarchy%E2%80%9D-biblical-part-1/ to http://rethinkingvisionforum.org/2011/08/11/are-%E2%80%9Cthe-biblical-tenets-of-patriarchy%E2%80%9D-biblical-part-1/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120805222142/http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=3654 to http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=3654
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ambs.edu/ljohns/H%26MC.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: are you stating that bishop Gregory is an imbecile? For that is the implication of your edit summary. May I remind you that Sola Scriptura is heresy for the Eastern Orthodox churches? Also, the WP:BLOGS of alt-right loons do not pass for reliable sources inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbecile 

message: The section "Egalitarians" has 1550 words.
The section "Complementarians" has 736 words.
The section "Biblical patriarchy" has 676 words.
The introduction of these sections are trying to defend "egals" in context of the others.  
This entire section is clearly biased to support a single perspective.  This contradicts the idea of Wikipedia being a encyclopedia -- not advancing a particular viewpoint or agenda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.155.12.234 (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased toward Egalitarians 

message: The first sentence says:
"From the earliest days of the Christian faith, Christians have honored holy matrimony (as Christian marriages are referred to) as a divinely blessed, lifelong, monogamous union, between a man and a woman." [bold added here and below]
Later at [] we have: 
'Marriage was officially recognized as a sacrament at the 1184 Council of Verona. Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime." '
and
"The Catholic Church allowed marriages to take place inside churches only starting with the 16th century, beforehand religious marriages happened on the porch of the church."
So, it seems that for about half the time Christianity has existed marriage was not recognised as a sacrament, and the Church did not seem to be involved; and for another quarter of the time marriage was not allowed in the main part of the church building.
So for only one quarter of the time of Christianity's existence have marriages happened (or been allowed to happen) in a church.
So, from these those statements, the impression I get is that early Christianity was possibly actually opposed to marriage, or not interested in it. The is somewhat different to the impression given by the first sentence.
FrankSier (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous edit confuses "marriage" with "wedding". In the book of Hebrews, 4:6, we read "Let marriage be held in honor among all." The question about whether a wedding is held in a church building is a very different topic. Pete unseth (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence may be contradicted later in the text 

message: — Assignment last updated by Selfrink (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: JMC 440 Research Methods in Public Relations

message: The redirect Marriage, Moral and Canonical Aspect of has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Marriage, Moral and Canonical Aspect of]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Moral and Canonical Aspect of Marriage has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Moral and Canonical Aspect of Marriage]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: will my wife be special to me in heaven? Mathew22:30, Mathew16:19, Luke 20:29-38 73.2.43.169 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage in heaven and after death  

message: We've got Marriage in Hinduism and Marriage in Islam but Jewish views on marriage and Buddhist view of marriage, along with, of course, this article, Christian views on marriage. We don't even have a page on marriage within Daoism! 
Why is it of marriage for Buddhism but on for Jews and Christians? Why haven't Hindus and Muslims views on marriage, but rather contain marriage within themselves somehow?
I suggest changing the titles to something more consistent. My vote would go to Marriage in Christianity, etc. 
It's not that there's consistency across religions, either. There are pages in Islam as well as Islamic view of pages, for instance.
If there's not going to be consistency across religion or across concept, then what is there exactly? It looks like anarchy to me. 
Philologick (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This title is inconsistent with titles for other faiths 

message: I get that wikipedia has a strong left-wing bias and is anti-christian etc., but you could at least try not to actively mislead people, especially on pages that aren't part of your agenda. 2600:1700:BA02:36E0:15D0:BE0E:378A:5E3E (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace "not-trinitarian denominations" with "heretical denominations" 

message: bad, bad article 47.17.216.1 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  the religious bias of this article is appalling