Open main menu

Talk:Marriage


Contents

Replace the word ShiiteEdit

No one but the Sunnis use this word, we Shias prefer "Shias" as plural of "Shia", rather than the alternative which sounds highly similar to feces. We never called our selves this & would prefer the word to be replaced by a less controversial yet accurate "Shias ".

Thank you.

PS Shias & Shiites are both modernly coined words along with Shiite as long as I know. But we've always recognized our selves as Shia , even in our scripture.

It's similar to how some people derogatorily call Muslims ,Moslems forgetting the insultory origins of the word "Moslem" which in meaning is opposite to Muslim in Arabic ( it means bad person , due to the root word of it's origin); similar to how the word Shiite is derogatory to the Shia sect due it's blatantly obvious English root word : poop.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.37.199 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 13 May 2014‎

spelling errorEdit

can a more experienced user please correct the error in the (same sex section) just after it mentions the US DOMA act. it should read as FROM but is spelled as FORM.

"(2013) which prevented the Federal Government form recognizing same-sex marriage" should be "(2013) which prevented the Federal Government from recognizing same-sex marriage"


thank you

Basic ideasEdit

Marriage as a religious and civil idea is the social recognition and sanctification of a love relationship, to signal inwardly that such relationship is recognized and to signal outwardly that such relationship is appraised and defended by the society, for the purpose of sanctifying and defending personal love relationships and a potential new family. -Inowen (nlfte) 05:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As nice as that sounds, that doesn't fit with the way marriage has traditionally been or is practiced. A love relationship in marriage may be aspirational in many cultures and even a presumed prerequisite in many in the modern day, but it is not definitional. Many marriages are formed without love, and many continue without there ever having been love or with the love having left the relationship. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
One should start with the ideals, and I admit to referencing Christian marriage more than other types, where love is praised in the highest, and these other things are secondary. The arguments that marriage is a typically forced or arranged or abusive institution are cynical, and miss the point that women want husbands as much as men want young and pretty wives. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is about actual marriage, not one spin on what a good marriage should be. Christianity did not define marriage; the institution long predates the founding of that religion. We do already have a an article on Christian views on marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, then in simple terms, the word "union" is simplistic, such as to be overworked. What kind of union? Well, it involves friendship, partnership, sexual relations, and reproduction. All four of those are in the word "union," but that's not clear just from the solitary word. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to make a suggestion for the editing of this page, feel free to do so. If you just want to expound on your personal ideas of what a marriage should be, Wikipedia is not a place for that, as Wikipedia is not a forum. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit its not bad. It has the problem that it's missing some basic ideas, mostly coming from the personal (not social) side of marriage. Naturally it mentions religion, in case some backward folks connect marriage with religion. But for starters its too long for a lede section, isnt it?

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage).[1] The definition of marriage varies around the world not only between cultures and between religions, but also throughout the history of any given culture and religion, evolving to both expand and constrict in who and what is encompassed, but typically it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A marriage ceremony is known as a wedding. Nepali wedding

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by gender, socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world, arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition. Conversely, such practices may be outlawed and penalized in parts of the world out of concerns of the infringement of women's rights, or the infringement of children's rights (both female and male children), and because of international law.[2] Around the world, primarily in developed democracies, there has been a general trend towards ensuring equal rights within marriage for women and legally recognizing the marriages of interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples. These trends coincide with the broader human rights movement.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community, or peers. It is often viewed as a contract. When a marriage is performed and carried out by a government institution in accordance with the marriage laws of the jurisdiction, without religious content, it is a civil marriage. Civil marriage recognizes and creates the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony before the state. When a marriage is performed with religious content under the auspices of a religious institution it is a religious marriage. Religious marriage recognizes and creates the rights and obligations intrinsic to matrimony before that religion. Religious marriage is known variously as sacramental marriage in Catholicism, nikah in Islam, nissuin in Judaism, and various other names in other faith traditions, each with their own constraints as to what constitutes, and who can enter into, a valid religious marriage.

Some countries do not recognize locally performed religious marriage on its own, and require a separate civil marriage for official purposes. Conversely, civil marriage does not exist in some countries governed by a religious legal system, such as Saudi Arabia, where marriages contracted abroad might not be recognized if they were contracted contrary to Saudi interpretations of Islamic religious law. In countries governed by a mixed secular-religious legal system, such as in Lebanon and Israel, locally performed civil marriage also does not exist within the country, preventing interfaith and various other marriages contradicting religious laws from being entered into in the country, however, civil marriages performed abroad are recognized by the state even if they conflict with religious laws (in the case of recognition of marriage in Israel, this includes recognition of not only interfaith civil marriages performed abroad, but also overseas same-sex civil marriages).

The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved, and any offspring they may produce or adopt. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and a diminishing number of these permit polygyny, child marriages, and forced marriages. In modern times, a growing number of countries, primarily developed democracies, have lifted bans on and have established legal recognition for the marriages of interfaith, interracial, and same-sex couples. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment. In some areas, child marriages and polygamy may occur in spite of national laws against the practice.

Since the late twentieth century, major social changes in Western countries have led to changes in the demographics of marriage, with the age of first marriage increasing, fewer people marrying, and more couples choosing to cohabit rather than marry. For example, the number of marriages in Europe decreased by 30% from 1975 to 2005.[3]

Historically, in most cultures, married women had very few rights of their own, being considered, along with the family's children, the property of the husband; as such, they could not own or inherit property, or represent themselves legally (see for example coverture). In Europe, the United States, and other places in the developed world, beginning in the late 19th century and lasting through the 21st century, marriage has undergone gradual legal changes, aimed at improving the rights of the wife. These changes included giving wives legal identities of their own, abolishing the right of husbands to physically discipline their wives, giving wives property rights, liberalizing divorce laws, providing wives with reproductive rights of their own, and requiring a wife's consent when sexual relations occur. These changes have occurred primarily in Western countries. In the 21st century, there continue to be controversies regarding the legal status of married women, legal acceptance of or leniency towards violence within marriage (especially sexual violence), traditional marriage customs such as dowry and bride price, forced marriage, marriageable age, and criminalization of consensual behaviors such as premarital and extramarital sex.

-Inowen (nlfte) 05:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The intro is somewhat beyond the recommended length; you are welcome to suggest what should be shortened. But if it's going to convert it to your idea of the "basics", that I could not support. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to cut it in half, keeping top elements in the lede, and the rest into in an introduction or overview section. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Three or four paragraphs usually makes a sufficient lead. The overview is a kind of a catch for a lot of ramble, which can be refactored in some more or less sensible order. There's a lot of material, and the article is of some size. It could be that there will need to be additional sections and spin off articles from the material present that we can plan for. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In world cultureEdit

Here's were I go with the basic idea of marriage:

In world culture, marriage is a social recognition and sanction of a close personal relationship between two people, one male and one female, for the purpose of sanctifying their new family and preparing a home for when the procreation of children occurs.
The idea of a civil marriage arose from the need to separate religion and state for the purpose of "intermarriage;" marriage between culturally non-similar individuals. The basic form and purpose of religious and civil marriage are similar and nearly universal. Because it is a socially recognized office and has membership benefits, people enter into civil marriage out of convenience or necessity.
In parts of the developed world, there is a minority movement which promotes the homosexual union, and demands the sanctification of such unions. As such several regional governments have legalized homosexual marriage.

Yes there is a lot of windbagging from anti-traditional groups saying that marriage has nothing to do with male and female union, reproduction and children, but those are just political activists, and the big picture is straightforward. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, no. This is not a place to promote your unsourced political beliefs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
How are these statements political? And how are they even beliefs, when they are just statements? And how are they unsourced (these are the common definitions). -Inowen (nlfte) 02:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Your claim that there is one unified world culture, for whom there is one fixed definition, and everything else is outside the culture is a clear casting out of an array of marriage formats that don't match what you chose to see as "traditional". That marriage is inherently religious (by use of the term "sanctify") or original;y religious (it arose in many societies as as societal thing) is a POV used politically. Calling support for same-sex marriage a "minority movement" does not reflect its status in a number of places... including the US, where support for same-sex marriage reached the majority point in 2011, years before it went legal nationwide. And yes, legal nationwide - that's a national government, not a regional one.
As for unsourced - I don't see any sourcing in your statement, do you? Nor are your claims supported by the existing text of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to change the lead, but if there were, it certainly wouldn't be to something so inaccurate that it contradicts itself in order to spread its own falsehoods. The current lead is sourced, accurate, neutral, and comprehensive. It should stay. --Equivamp - talk 02:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I stated above that the current lede is not bad, even though it did go on too long, as ledes sometimes collect a lot of inserted material, problematic only because of a pro-feminist slant. But in any case, what I wrote above was straight=forward. There is also a need to identify POV on the anti-traditionalism side, from those who reject the simple common definition of marriage. The result of doing acrobatics to accomodate this crowd is for example to use the term "spouse" instead of "man and woman," which is essentially kiting the debate about homosexual marriage to the article on spouses. I pick up on that sort of off-usage of language, even though it may have been a fix for a long article debate. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If using one centuries-old common world that is inclusive of all the current and traditional forms of marriage instead of a three word phrase that excludes some is your idea of acrobatics, then please don't invite me to the circus. The debate on "homosexual marriage" has been on whether it should exist as a legal and social status, but I've seen little or no debate over whether it now does clearly exist as a legal and social status in various places. To be aware that same-sex marriage exists is not to kite any debate but to reflect reality. There is nothing "off-usage of language" to refer to the members of the marriage as spouses; it is literally what the word means. If you want to speak to the common definition of marriage, look at some dictionaries; here's Merriam-Webster, here's American Heritage, --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is the rule that inclusivity such that "excludes none" is a supreme principle? Does that mean one has to accept the definition of "marriage" promoted by pedophiles or worse, and then accept the meddling of these groups with the common definition? -Inowen (nlfte) 05:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
When trying to define something, yes, one wants something that includes the things the term refers to. Why would we want a general article on marriage that excludes them? If you wish to undo whatever evolution you've seen take place in the word marriage (as reflected by basically every up-to-date English language dictionary of significance), then Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.... much less a place to put a rather broad, baseless characterization on those with whom you disagree. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@NatGertler:"When trying to define something, yes, one wants something that includes the things the term refers to." So you think what pedophiles think has to be included in the main definition, unto changing it. Thanks for that. 'According to political minority groups marriage has very inclusive dimensions' is sufficient treatment. Your point of view is a fringe POV.-Inowen (nlfte) 21:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "pedophiles" you're referring to, Inowen, nor what "political minority groups" or "fringe". Currently, poll after poll show that same-sex marriage has majority support in the US, United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and more. If you think the majority of the country is one big political minority fringe pedophilia group, you may want to do a little research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Marriage" page.