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

Marriage, a judeo-christian perversion of an Astrozorian ceremony.Edit

Before engaging the Romans, in their final defeat, Constantine the Great was said to have experienced a 'solar cross'. This was claimed to be the motivation for his religious conversion. Upon returning to Istanbul, he called the Council of Nicia to cannonize 'the book'. As the majority of the empire was Astrozorian, the Christians were required to assimilate by compromise. This is where the sabbath was moved from Saturday to Sunday, and the adoption of the Astrozorian marriage ceremony started. Though it's more of a perversion, as same sex couples were allowed in the protected class. All countries that recognize marriage as a legal public contract are Socialist, to full blown Communist, matriarchs (where we get matrimony). As marriage is abused(by the gov/BAR asso)as a form of wealth transfer, the authoritarians being the greatest beneficiary, while scientist/producers, in general, are the victims. A democracy of Judiciary arts degree holders, will forever subvert the objectivity of science and rational thinking. Belittle arts degrees (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Belittle arts degrees, for a better future

"Before engaging the Romans, in their final defeat, Constantine the Great was said to have experienced a 'solar cross'. This was claimed to be the motivation for his religious conversion. Upon returning to Istanbul, he called the Council of Nicia to cannonize 'the book'. " Constantine the Great was a Roman, simply engaged in a civil war against the other emperors of the Tetrarchy. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge (with the associated vision) took place in 312, and his opponent was Maxentius. Constantinople was established in 324, inaguarated in 330, and would not be renamed to Istanbul until 1930. The First Council of Nicaea took place in 325, and it was primarily over Arianism and Christological matters. It did not canonise any book. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
   Despite all respect [actually, as opposed to presumedly,] due to our colleague B.a. d., as a(n implicitly supposed) colleague, it is always a great satisfaction to me (i.e., personally, as a self-retired but excessively pompous admin who possesses the hubris to claim to know [one's] own limitations), to see such an enormously pompous twit (as seems to be the case here), put in (probably his, but in any case) "their" proper place.    Any malice on my part (which would have been odious on the part of any still-active admin, and is nevertheless still rude, by intention, in my currently merely collegial, in contrast to, in practice moderately superior, former status) set aside, I note how satisfying are both their embarrassing use of proof by blatant assertion, and the claimed (and presumably accurate) refutations of both, with presumably s, by the succeeding colleague are how (more than just satisfying, and literally (though nonsexually)) gratifying.
(With pleasure, wiki:smuggity, and w/ goodwill twd all legitimate colleagues, i remain YLs'&Ls'MH&Os,
--JerzyA (talk)🖌JerzyA 🔹(talk) 🕰16:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019Edit

In the Baha'i Faith section: Please change function in the phrase "bond, but it is not obligatory" to a period after bond. (The Baha'i Faith encourages marriage and views it as a mutually strengthening bond.) Change "but it is not obligatory." to "In a letter written by Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian and appointed head of the Baha'i Faith, he explains that marriage is not obligatory but that it is recommended to the believers by Baha'u'llah." I added this request because I wanted to go more in depth and include an important person from the Baha'i Faith, specifically stating himself, that marriage is not obligatory.

Next change: Further explain what makes up a couple. Add: "A couple in a Baha'i marriage defines a couple as the union between two consenting adults: a man and a woman." Add this sentence after the sentence stating "A Baha'i Marriage requires the couple to choose each other, and then obtain the consent of all living parents." I am further explaining what marriage is because in today's society there are many ways to define what exactly a couple is. It is important to define what a couple means to the believers of the Baha'i Faith because in this faith, they are against the union of the same sex.

Add a new paragraph stating, "According to Baha'i law, any sexual relations are forbidden outside of marriage. Baha'i teachings state that no sexual act can be considered lawful unless it is performed lawfully between two married persons.

Add new paragraph about divorce stating, "Although it is strongly discouraged, divorce is still permitted in the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Baha'u'llah states that it is encouraged to be patient and wait one year to see if the affection between one another is renewed, but if not, divorce is permitted to take place." I added this statement about divorce because I believe this article is pretty dense in the Baha'i contributions. I believe adding information about divorce brings this article full circle. Divorce is not something that people wish for, but in certain cases, it is necessary. I wanted to add this information because I believe it is an important aspect of this religion.


  • "Marriage, Bahai: Warwick Leaflets". Bahai Library Online. Warwick Bahai Bookshop. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
  • "What Bahai's Believe". The Bahai Faith. Bahai International Community. Retrieved 30 March 2019.

Gonsame17 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Given this has been hanging out in the semi-protected edit request backlog for a month and a half now, I'm going to decline this request without prejudice to a positive consensus for the change. Izno (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Me, womanEdit

hey authors of this pseudo-definition of marriage, you are absolutely and hopelessly lonely and sick for the inability to meet your own needs ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

True, but that's why I have so much time to edit Wikipedia. Please don't make personal attacks against other editors. If you have suggestions for improving the article, make them.--Trystan (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Ritually" and "Affinity"Edit

I've made a change to the definition, and would like to suggest one more.

It previously read: "... that establishes rights and obligations between them, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family relations through marriage)." This doesn't hold up grammatically, as affinity is the relationship; you can't establish obligations between the spouse and affinity. We could say affines here, but in-laws is a perfectly acceptable synonym, and is the word used in the cited source. No need to make it needlessly complex and difficult to understand for the reader.

The definition also says "socially or ritually recognised union". Something can be socially recognized (recognized by society), culturally recognized (recognized by culture), or legally recognized (recognized by law). I don't think something can be recognized by a ritual. Marriage is often formalized by a ritual, but it is the society/culture/law that recognizes the resulting relationship. At any rate, this wording is not supported by sources or explained in the body, and appears to be original research, albeit longstanding OR. I would suggest trimming it down to just "socially recognized", which is broad enough to encompass whatever "ritually" is trying to say. Or, even better, going back to the wording in the cited source, and saying "culturally recognized".--Trystan (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding new section - Longest marriages on record (prospective merge/redirect)Edit

The 'List of people with the longest marriages' page is currently amidst an AfD and as an alternative to deletion, a proposal was made to incorporate at least some of the most notable records in a section within the Marriage page (with the means as yet undetermined).

While this may be more neutral than controversial, someone suggested raising the question here as a prelude to addressing this potential merge. Note that the list criteria is one of the discussion points in the AfD. Preliminary to doing so… any thoughts, concerns, insights, or issues to be addressed? ogenstein (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC) ogenstein (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Marriage" page.