Talk:Marriage/Archive 1

message: "the most sacred form of Marriage is found among the Hindus"
is obviously biased. ( Maiaminna 2006-03-31 11:07:34 )
: Maiaminna, I agree that the sentence you quote is POV and you were right to delete it. Unfortunately, you also deleted the following sentence, which was about polyandry and polygyny, was there before the sentence about Hindus, and I think belongs in the article.  I reverted back to an earlier version, which keeps the Hindu sentence but only that sentence deleted. --Jdlh  | Talk 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I've largely rewritten this article in the sense that I have restructured it and thoroughly copyedited much (though not all) of it. I've eliminated a fair bit of repetition and introduced a lot of new headings. There is more work to do along these lines, but I've run out of energy for now. I have not changed any of the substantive claims made in the article as I found it, except where it had a couple of sentences that were clearly just editorial comments.
I hope that this has added to the logic and clarity of the text. With all the disagreements going on, the article was suffering in these ways - I found it difficult to follow my way through it.
I'll leave the substantive disagreements for others to work on. I hope this is now a better basis for further editing than we had. Apologies if I have inadvertently stepped on anyone's toes with any changes that I've made. Almost nothing is lost except repeated material, so please try to improve this version rather than reverting to an earlier version.
Metamagician3000 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewritten, sort of

message: The Criticism of Marriage section is rife with grammar errors, mostly sentence fragments.  It looks like it was written by an idiot.  I started to edit it, but without knowing what the fragment was intended to express, it's impossible to fix most of them.  I'm tempted to just cut out anything that's grammatically hopeless in this section. Vaxalon 13:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Marriage section rife with grammar errors

message: 70.180.50.167 continuously pasting what in my opinion is very unencylopediac and also more than a bit POV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage&diff=prev&oldid=15515050
Looking for backup to see if others agree with my interpretation. --John Kenneth Fisher 20:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:70.180.50.167
:Yeah, this is getting out of hand. I reverted em also, but e re-added the material a few minutes later. Maybe we should ask about page protection? Maybe e'll just go away though. Jeeves 00:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 70.180.50.167 adding non-encyclopediac info, also POV.

message: This article has received a lot of attention and edits, which is good. Unfortunately, it's also been a topic where everyone thinks they're an expert, and the article reads a bit too much like a debate rather than an encyclopedia article. Please remember to aim for verifiability and to cite your sources. Don't spend too much time on well-known definitions and viewpoints. (I see this as a problem in the introduction and first few sections of this article.) This article should present the history, geographical variation, and philosophy of marriage, and the various debates, although relevant, should have secondary importance. In my opinion, the August 2003 version contained some good seed text for a history section - I would like to bring it back. Having said all this, I still encourage you to be bold with your edits. (Which is something I'm not doing today for lack of time.)--Yannick 23:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome, newcomers

message: I hope I'm not rocking the boat. I'm no expert on marriage, as my wife would be sure to mention (avidly!). So I'll just stop for the day.
My aim was to balance and neutralize what looked like rhetoric favoring the gay rights POV of marriage. If I've gone to far, please chastise me; I'm actually rather easily teachable. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncle Ed wades in

message: To the person who keeps changing "marriage is usually (but not always) between a man and a woman" to something else; note as discussed on this page that marriage is sometimes between a man and several women; between a woman and several men; or between people of the same sex (and it doesn't say so, but it is also sometimes between two children, more historically than now). It is incorrect to say that it is always between a man and a woman, and this is an encyclopedia, so if you want to discuss some of the issues in an NPOV (neutral point of view) manner, you're welcome to.  Elf | Talk 19:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage between a man and a woman

message: It might be interesting to include some information regarding theories about the origin of marriage, and analogues it has in non-human animals. --NeuronExMachina 08:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that "marriage" has any anologues in non-human animals. Marriage is a human social construct (although some may also argue for "divine"). The "analogues" between humans and non-human animals would be various relationships between sexual partners, parents and offspring, etc. but not "marriage".
Mmmm..is it stretching the point to consider animals which mate for life as being in a relationship that is analogous to marriage?  I'm not tied to eitehr interpretation, but if it isn't too anthropomorphic, it may provide a natural history precedent for marriage.  
BTW I for one would greatly appreciate if some knowledgable person COULD flesh in the history/evolution of marriage.  That is specifically what I was looking for and was greatly surprised to see there is little or no info on that topic, although I did find this text in the topic "courtly love":
The courtly love tradition was non-Christian, providing an alternative to the love of God and the Church, placing salvation in the love of your lady (or man). Marriage had recently been declared a sacrament of the Church, at the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, and within Christian marriage, the only purpose was procreation with any sex beyond that purpose seen as non-pious. The ideal state of a Christian was celibacy, even in marriage.
--209.242.154.132 22:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin of marriage 

message: Marriage is a process which two individuals use in order to form a contract that legally binds their assets for legal, logistical, and governmental purposes (e.g., taxes.) While the social aspect of marriage can vary in meaning, an officially sanctioned marriage is merely a contract devoid of romantics and morality. From that perspective, I am not troubled by supporting homosexual marriage. There lacks a reason why a class of people, determined by sexuality, should be restricted from entering into a marriage contract. Nobody benefits from that restriction. Adraeus 01:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adraeus' view on marriage 

message: I've added a paragraph that talks about divorce in Islam and included references to specific verses in Qur'an that describe the process to be followed.
There was also a point in there that Islam allows marriage up to 4 wives. I changed that slightly to say that polygamy is only allowed under specific circunstances and that the default and generally promoted view is of monogamy, as explained in the Qur'an.Karim S 04:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  expanded a little 

message: Any print sources for the numerous factual claims, or to facilitate further research?  I can add some, but they won't match the material exactly. Deirdre Golash 00:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Print sources?

message: Marriage has been described  as a "socially sanctioned union", implying that any sort of selfless relationship can be called marriage if a given society approves of it.
:"socially sanctioned union" is too vague to be useful.  And there's no reason to describe marriage as a "selfless" relationship -- it serves the interests of both parties.
 -Deirdre Golash 22:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted

message: This article states:
"Globally, societies that sanction polygamy as a form of marriage are far less common than those that do not and monogamy is overwhelmingly most widely practiced"
but the article on polygamy states that:
"Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. "
Which is correct?
Filur 11:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I changed the linking to the template so this page doesn't show up on the list of articels that are contradictory. Sum total addition besides this comment was "tl|". 68.39.174.238 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency of monogamy 

message: Hey, just look what this guy writes here:
"Marriage Marriage means many different things according to the time and place of the culture and people involved. What for some people are obvious assumptions are for others unthinkable. No-one is correct, there are simply different forms of marriage. It is the right of no culture to impose it's own ideas of marriage on other cultures, and the right of no sub-culture or religion to control marriage taboos within their own culture. So some believe in multiple marriage partners, some believe in having only straight marriages, some believe in certain age restrictions. None are right, all are different.
Governments should allow their people access to all forms of marriage according to peoples' wishes but this is impossible. In order for legal contracts to have legal value, they must abide by certain known specifications. So in the West we have a particular type of marriage that is legal; other forms are illegal. What this does is alienate and standardize marriage, codifying traditions into unchanging legal codes and making them stagnant as society changes. What is worse is that in modern legalized culture, the illegalisation of forms of marriage not recognized by one set of institutionalized norms causes other unrecognized forms to become taboo, wrong and looked down upon.
A problem of modern cultures therefore is that we become biased towards our own form of marriage and come to consider any other form "wrong", "stupid", "silly", etc. (...)
And even within cultures, marriage means different things to different people. So apart from looking at a few forms of marriage outside of traditional Western ones, I also talk a bit about some internal differences in the West of how people think marriage should be."
Boy, if one was to make a text to show what SHOULD NOT be in a Wikipedia article, this is the best example. First of all, BUDDY (whoever you are), NO WRITING IN THE FIRST PERSON IN A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. The articles of this encyclopedia should be written in a NPOV (=NO POINT OF VIEW) style. Therefore no "should", no "must", no definitive sentences about matters that are still discussed or controversial.
Also, for your information, here we try to create a neutral source of information. A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. This is an academic project, not a political magazine. Therefore no "It is the right of no culture to..."
You are also violating the NPOV policy by taking the part of the liberal (I'd say extreme liberal) point of view ("What this does is alienate and standardize marriage, codifying traditions into unchanging legal codes and making them stagnant as society changes.")
Finally and most importantly (and most annoying I must say), WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT BELONG TO THE WESTERN CULTURE! ("in the West we have") It belongs to all humanity and all cultures, being an open project. People from all over the world (scholars or otherwise) contribute to this encyclopedia, bearing in mind the quest for truth and the will to write taking no part in a dispute.
I URGE ANYONE WHO SUPERVISES THIS ARTICLE TO REMOVE THE WHOLE SECTION IMMEDIATELY, SO THAT WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT LOSE ITS POPULARITY IN THE EYES OF THE ONES WHO READ THIS ARTICLE IN SEARCH OF INFORMATION AND FIND HERE INSTEAD A POLITICAL PLEA. (which is very badly written in my opinion)
I agree. Additionally, it would be nice to see some kinda of history section in this article.
ObsidianOP 16:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible bias 

message: Flirting is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: In the "Rare phenomena" section, it says
Some parts of India follow a custom in which the groom is required to marry with an auspicious plant called Tulsi before a second marriage to overcome inauspicious predictions about the health of the husband. However, the relationship is not consummated ....
I don't understand this. Does the groom actually marry a plant, or does he marry a woman with some kind of plant present? It says "not consumated" ... so, he doesn't have sex with the plant? Someone please clarify this. Also might want to note that the plant is evidently a type of basil. — Nowhither 15:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marrying a plant? 

message: "A system of somewhat serial monogamy has de facto emerged."
:wouldnt that be serial polygamy?  — Omegatron 23:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
::Nope.  It's one monogamous relationship after another, which may be effective polygamy, but serial monogamy, add link in article. Nereocystis 00:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  serial monogamy 

message: Derby, I appreciate your efforts to be balanced, but I think you're missing the relevant facts. Look at your recent compromise attempt:
:Although same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures, marriages between same-sex partners were rare or nonexistent in most of those cultures.
"Same-sex unions" have not been recorded only in the history of "a number of cultures"; they have been recorded in virtually EVERY culture. But that is not relevant. The point is that such unions HAVE NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED MARRIAGE. This is the only relevant point. Homosexual unions are as old as mankind, but homosexual "marriage" is of twentieth-century origin. I understand that the "same-sex marriage' article suggests otherwise, but its claims are just that: unsubstantiated suppositions and redefinitions of any homosexual union as a "marriage". In the way that "marriage" is defined in THIS article, homosexual marriage is completely and utterly a recent development.
In other words, the difference between your compromise and what I originally wrote is that what I wrote is factually correct, while what you wrote is a circumlocution of the facts.
I understand that some people might be upset at the open statement that same-sex marriage is a twentieth-century invention. Some people might also be upset at the statement that the earth orbits the sun. Wikipedia should present the facts, not a politically-correct, scrubbed version of the facts. If anyone can find historical evidence of homosexual marriage (as opposed merely to homosexual unions), that point will carry. Until then, please restore the factual, unadulterated version.
:Thanks for this further explanation of why you prefer your wording.  I think I can understand where you're coming from better now.  However, I still disagree.  It's POV to specifically point out that the modern view of same-sex unions is significantly different from older views, but not point out that the same is true for heterosexual marriages.  It is POV to include your wording without also pointing out that, for instance, "The institution of marriage as a partnership freely entered into by equals is very new, and has little historical precedent.  Traditionally, marriage was an exchange of property (the woman) from one owner (her father) to another (her husband)."  Derby's wording is no more circumlocutious than your talk of "affinial ties". --Icarus 07:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Same-sex marriage "compromise"

message: Between 2005-12-04 07:35:59 and  2005-12-04 07:43:59, User:Drkamran added a section 21 F's for a Happy Marriage to the Marriage article.  I think this is interesting content, and deserves to be posted somewhere, but I don't think it's appropriate for this article. Here are my concerns, based on the Five Pillars of Wikipedia:
* This section is primary source material.  A Wikipedia guideline is Don't include copies of primary sources because that is :Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  Primary source material should be somewhere else (perhaps Wikisource?)
* This section is someone's point of view about marriage. Wikipedia uses the Neutral point of view. 
* it may be appropriate to link from Marriage article to this content, under the heading of "commentary about marriage"
For now, I've put a POV-section tag on this section only.  I've also put a note in User talk:Drkamran. This user appears to be new, though, so I don't know if they will see the message.  I'm reluctant to delete the content outright just yet, I'd like to encourage Drkamran to find a better home for the material.  Other comments? --Jdlh  | Talk 16:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drkamran's "21 F's for a Happy Marriage" 

message: The Links section seems to have got to the length where everybody and his dog adds their own.  I am pruning the list per my understanding of WP:EL:
* Listen to advice from brides and wedding professionals about wedding planning
vanispamcruftvertisement
* Crimes of Marriage - A Site dedicated to the problems in peoples marriages. 
Apparently a blog or forum style of thing; not an obvious authority
* Funny Marriage Advice - Ouchmytoe - A Blog on Marriage & the problems it brings
No blogs please!
* Don't Marry - A dissenting opinion on the social convention of marriage in Western society. 
Lots of strong personal opinion, no evident authority
* The Alternatives to Marriage Project  Advocating for equality and fairness for unmarried people
Looks like an interesting but very minor organisation
* Muslim Marriage Information 
from "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider".  Can we say "spam", children?
* The American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC)
belongs in divorce if anywhere
* Jewish Matrimony and Personals - Jewish Matrimony and Personals
I think that "Jewsih matrimony and personals" speaks for itself, but in any case if it belongs anywhere it's in Jewish view of marriage
* Muslim Matrimonial - Rights of Spouses in Islam
spam for Islamic marriage service
* Types of Hindu Marriages
This might be a good one, but might not; it's not obvious spam but it is not really about marriage per se.
* Marriage in Islam - Hadith, Marriage Conditions and Etiquettes of Muslim Marriage  
Second instance of spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider" 
* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Survey
404
* Muslim Matrimonial Service
Third instance of spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider"
* Marriage (Nikah) in Islam
I was hopeful about this, but it turns out to be a blog
* Muslim marriage and Advice
Or rather, more spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider"
* Christian Marriage Resources at Growthtrac
A Christian ministry of no obvious authority.  If it's genuinely significant, link to an article on it in WIkipedia.
* Conditions of Muslim Marriage
And another spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider"
* The Day Miss Todd Became Mrs. Lincoln
Delightful essay, well researched by the looks of it, might well have a place in the article on Abraham Lincoln but not about the practice and institution of marriage per se.
* Laws and Customs of the Jewish Wedding chabad.org
Apparently authoritative, but I would suggest it belongs in Jewish view of marriage
* Treatise on Common Law Marriage
Not an obvious authority, looks like a POV anti-religious-establishment site with a strongly US perspective.
I am happy to acknowledge I might be wrong on some of these.  But not all of them, I think, especially the multiple spam for "the number 1 muslim marriage service provider". - Just zis  Guy, you know? [[T]/[[C] AfD? 12:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Marriage is kind of natural, just not all in the man's best interest, more for a family kind of thing, which is kind of necessary. 141.202.248.11 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Objective Male take on marriage 

message: The article text originally said that Elton John was married in Australia.  Since Elton John is quite publically out as a gay man, just tied the knot in a civil union in the UK with his longtime parther, and there's nothing in his bio here about an earlier marraige to a woman, I'm guessing this is wrong.  I removed it. --Jfruh 01:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elton John??? 

message: Those links are irrelevant. Please, stop adding them. --tasc 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  marriage as a man and a woman together 

message: In the "Marriage restrictions" section, it says:
One example is South Korea. Even today, it is generally considered taboo for a man to marry a woman if they both have the same last name. A large percentage of the total South Korean population have the surname "Kim" (an estimated 20%; rendering 20% of the Korean population ineligible for marriage).
The fact that 20% of the population has the same name, does not mean that 20% of the population is ineligible for marriage. All the Kims could marry other people not named Kim, still leaving the other 60% of the population able to marry who ever they want.
Or am I missing something?  CoachMcGuirk 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem may be more closely related to language. What the author probably meant was that these individuals have a "mating pool" decreased by 20% because of this restriction. Unless someone can think of a better way to word this, we can just remove that last comment. Andrewjuren 08:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage Restrictions - Math Error? 

message: Can anyone be more specific with this notice: , or am I missing the limited scope? It appears to me that the article reflects a large number of cultures and societies. Andrewjuren 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|limitedgeographicscope}} 

message: Recently the BBC had a day of Wagner's Ring Cycle. Someone asked the question whether any of the relationships in the Ring were actually illegal or inadvisable.
(see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio3/F3944341?thread=2750740 Item 4).
One response was Item 24, which said:
"In most modern societies this is not legally possible. Having children is technically possible.
There are biological reasons why it's not a particularly good idea as it leads to a filtering out of some beneficial genes, and the so-called inbreeding can lead to problems in later generations. For similar reasons parent-children relations are not generally permitted.
There can also be social problems with relations between siblings, or parents and their children, and someone will no doubt tell of grand parent- grand children relationships.
In most societies the closest family relationships which are permitted are between cousins. I'm not sure if Uncle - nephew/niece or Aunt - nephew/niece relations are permitted.
There have been cases where some form of relationship between people legally related but not biologically related have been allowed in some societies. For example, could I marry my Aunt, who is not biologically related to me? I don't know the answer. My daughter could probably not marry most of my uncles because of the biological connections, but I'm really not sure.
Also, there might be social factors which would make such marriages beneficial, even if no physical relation came into the equation. What happens (hypothetically) if my daughter chooses to look after her uncle, who is ill, and then for reasons of inheritance they decided to try to marry? Would that be possible? [99% of this is hypothetical ...!!!]"
Are there any legal experts out there who know whether there are any vertical relationships which are allowed - e.g Uncle - niece etc., and whether any restrictions only apply to people with an obvious genetic connection, as suggested in this response?
David Martland 07:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage Restrictions - close relations, incest? 

message: This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law  - -  Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal needed 

message: This page needs a history of marriage section and nothing I read seemed like it. Where/When/Why did marriage originate? How has it evolved? Who participated in early marriages? It just seems like this page doesn't answer those questions and that's what I came here looking for.
----
I agree.  I came here looking for the origin of marriage, in what I would think would be some form of ceremony or 'official' bonding union declared linking two people together.  I am hoping, and expecting, that there is a date provided, well before Christ or even any religous marriage was originated.
:I'm afraid the info about the origin of marriage would be a stunt and a half, considering that the oldest records we've got treat marriage as an established part of society -- I will add a comment to that effect.  Goldfritha 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And someone went and qualified it with the claim that it is known in nearly every society.  Anyone got any references to back that up?  The person making the change got the comment truncated. Goldfritha 00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Marriage

message: have removed the following paragraph to the talk page as it is misleading. (3, 4, 5, 6) 
 
Most opinion polls in the United States indicate a majority oppose same-sex marriage [3][4]. Some polls report that a majority support civil unions[5], but other polls state majority favoring no legal recognition of homosexual couples[6].
[3] and [4] are two individual opinion polls and do not indicate what "most" opinion polls find. in [3], the "majority" is 51% to 39%, in [4] it is 50% to 37%. [6] says 27% approve same sex marriage, 29% approve civil unions and 40% favor no legal recognition - i.e. approval of legal recognition trumps disapproval 27+29=56% to 40%. Doldrums 11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted paragraph

message: Feminism and masculism are the same. Shouldn't it be once section? JayW 19:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the masculinist section be in divorce? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with marriage, despite its opening sentence. --Kmsiever 02:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminist and masculist concerns as two different sections

message: Marriage occurs in nearly every society, but there are exceptions.  As per my additions to the article under the section "Unique practices": One society that traditionally did without marriage entirely was that of the Na of Yunnan province in southern China. According to anthropologist Cia Hua, sexual liaisons among the Na took place in the form of "visits" initiated by either men or women, each of whom might have two or three partners each at any given time (and as many as two hundred throughout a lifetime). The nonexistence of fathers in the Na family unit was consistent with their practice of matrilineality and matrilocality, in which siblings and their offspring lived with their maternal relatives. In recent years, the Chinese state has encouraged the Na to acculturate to the monogamous marriage norms of greater China. Such programs have included land grants to monogamous Na families, conscription (in the 1970s, couples were rounded up in villages ten or twenty at a time and issued marriage licenses), legislation declaring frequent sexual partners married and outlawing "visits", and the withholding of food rations from children who could not identify their fathers. Many of these measures were relaxed in favor of educational approaches after Deng Xiaoping came into power in 1981. (This is from Geertz, Clifford. "The Visit," The New York Review of Books, October 18, 2001, pp. 27-30.)--Birdmessenger 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, here's the ethnography that Geertz is reviewing in the article.--Birdmessenger 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifying the statement that marriage occurs in every society 

message: Why is the picture of an 'Example of an American marriage license' a gay marriage license?  While the article mentions the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples in San Francisco (now null and void), this is hardly a typical example.  It should be replaced.
*Because it is apparently the only public domain or GFDL image currently uploaded. Deltabeignet 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture  of 'Example of an American marriage license' ? 

message: I added a new close relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove the template because of the large legal template, I'm okay with that. (Kelly 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close Relationships template