Open main menu



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 (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

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, →traditionally evolutionarily← one male and one female, for the purpose of sanctifying a new family and preparing a home for when the procreation of children occurs. → The marriage ceremony is called a wedding.
→There is a strong connection between the ideas of marriage and family, and many or most who enter marriage are anticipated to start a family. Because there are social and legal sanctions for families, belonging to a family unit is coveted, and accommodations for non-standard families has in recent years become a key issue in politics, affecting the status and definition of "family" and "marriage."
→When consecrated within a religion, marriage is sometimes referred to as a covenant in the sight of God.
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.
(→ indicates late insert - user:Inowen)

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)

The point is that not all points of view are valid. And the popular support for gay marriage is due to the legal imbalance of social protections afforded married heterosexuals versus homosexuals. If the economics were different and people weren't left out in the rain, there would be less support. So "marriage" is in this way defined differently from its main meaning of a family covenant, as instead a package of social protections. There lacks a term for the kind of bond that homosexuals have ("long-term partner" was often used), so the word "marriage" became borrowed. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: as 'interesting' as your assertions are, do you have any reliable sources to back up the claims you make? This seems to be yet another attempt to use wikipedia as a soapbox for your preconceived beliefs. Alssa1 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alssa1: What is the thing which you disagree with most; is it the connection between marriage and family? Its in the UDHR and ICCPR for example:

Definitions of the right to marriage and family. The right to marriage and family is enshrined in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right is enshrined in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. ..

emphasis mine -Inowen (nlfte) 21:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: I'm referring to your last comment, you know the one that begins with "The point is that not all points of view are valid...". You make a series of assertions in that comment, do you have some reliable sources to back up each one? Alssa1 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Many of us in the real world know too many same-sex couples raising children and too many sex-mingling couples choosing not to for us to accept the idea that family-building is intrinsic in male/female pairings or absent in other combinations. Perhaps there is some other place besides Wikipedia for you to go make your points; they seem to be gaining no traction here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So those of us who don't agree with your big gay agenda 'don't live in the real world' and we are welcome to go somewhere else? Is that the substance of your words? -Inowen (nlfte) 08:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018Edit

Change "Christians often[quantify] marry for religious reasons, ranging from following the biblical injunction for a "man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one",[Gen. 2:24][222] to accessing the Divine grace of the Roman Catholic Sacrament.[223]" to "Of the many reasons for Christians to marry, the religious ones are wide in variety, ranging from following the biblical injunction for a "man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one",[Gen. 2:24][222] to accessing the Divine grace of the Roman Catholic Sacrament.[223] Elie Hague (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not done. This is just wordier (bordering on ungrammatical) without actually adding anything substantive. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
She's quoting the Bible and you're saying its not "substantive." Dear Wikipedia, the pro-atheism bias has got to stop. -Inowen (nlfte) 07:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how to explain this to you, @Inowen:, if you can't plainly read it, but the text that Elie Hague requests be changed already includes the exact same Bible verse. --Equivamp - talk 02:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Marriage" page.