Talk:Marriage/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Still problematic lede

We still have the problem in the lede that I complained about a year and a half ago: it's too vague. Adoption also creates kinship, after all (which again is what I said a year and a half ago). Can we come up with a lede that actually describes marriage? Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that other things can create kinship doesn't mean that marriage doesn't. The lead doesn't say this is the exclusive way to create kinship. Can you please enumerate your points or suggestions on how to improve the lead. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would reread what I said, I used the word "also"; you are inventing an objection I didn't make. It seems pointless to enumerate my points when there is but one, which I have already listed: the lede really says nothing of substance about what marriage is. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what you're suggesting we do to improve the lead. You can't just say its vague, then use and example that someone else explains to you is not vague in the manner you claim and then say ... "I don't need to explain further just fix it." Please help me understand what you think the problem is. Marriage may create kinship in a very wide variety of ways, so I don't think we can get much more specific than that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking up his previous statement of objection, it was "Saying that "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship" is too general; that would make adoption a form of marriage." That's not the case, as we're not saying that marriage is any social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. We are explaining what marriage is, not what qualifies for the term\. If I say "Orange CountyMOSB is a county district in southern California", that does not make Los Angeles County Orange County; if I say that "A cheesesteak is a sandwich of beef and cheese on a roll", that does not make a cheeseburger a cheese steak. The concept of marriage is (as the discussions here will show) pretty darned flexible, and we also needn't assume that the reader doesn't know English. If you have some alternate wording that delineates more clearly but obeys the call in WP:MOSBEGIN for a concise definition, it'd be good to see it. What one finds looking at most individual dictionary definitions is that they exclude forms of marriage that this article is designed to include (which they may include in a later definition), making them far more problematic for this article than something that fails to specifically exclude some other form of kinship creation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Marriage and anthropological theory

It seems that some of the problems with defining marriage stems from editors having different points of departure. Here are some views from different anthropological schools taken form an anthropological textbook. It particularly talks about how the western individual concept of marriage is different from the kinship based concept prevalent in many other societies:

• "Structuralist theory of kinship regards marriage in traditional societies as a form of group-based reciprocity, where the exchange concerns the ‘super-gift’, that is women. Later studies, not least those carried out by female anthropologists, have shown that this is a dubious generalisation. It is not necessarily the case that men exchange women; often, the power relations between the genders may be more equitable. A central point in Lévi-Strauss’s theory of kinship is never the less that marriage in traditional societies is group-based, and that it can be understood as a form of long-term reciprocity. Affi nality creates stable alliances. When distinct kin groups (clans, moieties or other units that compose society) systematically exchange women, all of society becomes integrated through deep and long-lived commitments. In certain cases, one waits an entire generation before ‘the gift’ is reciprocated in the shape of another woman. In societies which practise transmission of bridewealth, it may occur that men work for their parents-in-law to fulfi l their obligations virtually for the rest of their lives. Put differently, by marrying a particular woman, the man and his lineage commit themselves to working for the affi nal family for years to come. This was the case among the Kachin, the Burmese highlanders studied by Edmund Leach. Their marriage system meant that the lineages who became wife-givers (mayu) were higher-ranking than the lineages who received wives (dama), and this relationship was confirmed in that the bridewealth had to be ‘paid’ over many years. Men thus had a lower rank than their parents-in-law, expressed through their enduring debt relationship." (Hylland Eriksen: What is Anthropology pp 108-109 )
• "The concept of marriage, too, has been subjected to criticism along the same lines as Schneider’s critique of the concept of kinship. Edmund Leach, like Rodney Needham after him, claimed that it was impossible to make a list of criteria defi ning marriage which would be acceptable everywhere. As a conclusion, they claimed that marriage does not exist as a cross-culturally valid category; the bond between a man and woman who have children together varies so much in content that it cannot be designated with the same term everywhere." (Hylland Eriksen p 113)
• "The argument against arranged marriage is that marriage is supposed to be based on free choice and true love. But how freely chosen are the marriages of the majority in western societies? All research indicates that people marry within their social class and their cultural milieu, and that powerful informal norms regulate the relationship between the spouses. A difference is that arranged marriages involve entire kin groups woven together through ties of reciprocity, while ‘love’ or freely chosen marriages only involve two individuals." (Hylland Eriksen p. 162)

·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes editors have different points of departure but I'm well aware of the anthropological literature myself and I'm unsure how these quotes are going to help. Can you make suggestions for improving the article based upon the anthropological literature? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mehr

Hello,

I do not know how to edit things on Wikipedia but I just wanted to let you know that your section on "mehr" does not appear to be correct. Mehr in Islam is considered a gift that is payable to the wife beginning at the time of her marriage, unless she chooses to designate part or all of the payment as "deferred." Mehr payable beginning at marriage is called "prompt" Mehr and may be demanded by the wife at any time. If the husband refuses to pay it she may refuse to engage in marital relations with him. By contrast, "deferred" Mehr is not payable until death or divorce. This article also conflates Mehr with alimony. Islam does not recognize alimony for a wife past the period of Iddat (unless the husband and wife had a pre-existing agreement about it) although her ex-husband must provide "maintenance" (child support) to their minor children. Mehr is also NOT the wife's share in the husband's estate. It is true that unpaid Mehr becomes a debt at the death of the husband which must be paid out of his estate. However, Mehr is not an inheritance share. It must be paid to the wife out of the estate BEFORE the remainder of the estate can be distributed to the Islamic heirs. When the rest of the estate is distributed to the heirs, the wife, as one of the Islamic heirs, will be entitled to a share of the estate whether or not she has already received her deferred Mehr from the estate.

If you would like to see a very good summary on the topic of Mehr, go to: http://www.zawaj.com/payments-to-and-from-the-bride-in-islamic-law-and-tradition/

(58.65.152.230 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Marraige in Islam

I don't know who did write this section, but I sure that he/she is not very aware of marriege in Islam, becuase what is written uder shia Islam is just the same of what happens in Sunna Islam, so I do suggest putting them under one subtitle Islam, because now this makes confusion for non-muslims and non-religous muslims.

Thank you very much

92.98.55.191 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Salam

Hanlon & White reference needs fixed

Nowhere does the original reference appear. Only "IBID" types referring to "Hanlon & White". Can someone who knows the reference fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosslink (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two SSM sections are not needed

<<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)>

Marriage doesn't have to be religious. SSM deserves to be on this article. IJA (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

<<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)>

Pyromania--because there's substantial, sourced information enough on the topic to have an entire article fork on the relationshp between religion and SSM. The two sentences that remain are the standard way of summarizing such a content fork. Removing it orphans the article Religious arguments about same-sex marriage entirely. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Joe above. It's two different sections on two different facets of the topic. Dayewalker (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Pyromania's view. There is a difference between the history of same-sex marriage and coverage of the tension that exists in many parts of the world on religious views. More importantly, the article "marriage" has already forked signficant content on both subjects into separate articles Same-sex marriage and Religious arguments about same-sex marriage, and it is entirely inappropriate to remove the connections with those content forks. After those forks, what's left here does not in any way seem disproportionate with the amount of sourced material we have. Removing the section under religion specifically delinks the substanial content built under the content fork. Were the disputed section enormous, I'd see the point for cutting it down, but it's two sentences, which is entirely in-line with the typical sort of summary given to "see also" content forks. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I do agree with some of Pyromania's views of ways the article could be constructively expanded (perhaps Jainism, etc.), nothing I said above should be taken otherwise. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Pyro has broken the 3-revert rule and likely will soon be blocked has been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As has one of his socks, it appears. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There's a new SPI, which hopefully can be used to "sweep", since it's obviously the same guy, but he might have more socks (in addition also to his known IP, 167.206.79.227‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is already on a year-long sabbatical). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This user doesn't have any socks. They are a sock, of the prolific sockmaster Brucejenner (talk · contribs). Nothing more to really do so, since this user is banned, I'm going to redact all their edits to this page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Does this mean that a "sweep" by the checkuser is pointless at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, the CU should be endorsed, this guy has a habit of making sleeper accounts. It would be worth it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

SSM v. Interracial, Polygamous, Kin Marriage

The poster above raises the issue of same-sex marriage having its own subsection under 'Marriage and religion.' The poster isn't right about there being two sections: there are actually more, since 'Marriage restrictions' includes same-sex marriage and 'Contemporary views' is mostly about same-sex marriage. Now compare that to interracial marriage. There is only one section on interracial marriage, the one under marriage restrictions that talks about US miscegenation laws. But interracial marriage is a vast topic representing 1 in 7 marriages in the US. (And it's been an issue for a long time. Look at Othello.) Polygamy is mentioned only in a few scattered sentences despite being a larger controversy than same-sex marriage in most Muslim societies, where same-sex marriage is mostly not an issue. Close-kin marriage gets a paragraph in the US section and maybe two other sentences elsewhere, despite >10% of all marriages being between relatives, with the same-sex proportion obviously being far less.

Judging by representation in the world, it seems like SSM has too much weight. The only question is whether "controversy" is explicitly a factor in assigning weight. But considering the situation outside the West, even if all weight is assigned based on controversy alone, I still think these other restrictions deserve greater weight. To make one concrete proposal, let's either add subsections on other restrictions to 'Marriage and religion', OR remove same-sex marriage as its own subsection.

I can add these subsections if there is some agreement on this. —Othniel Kenaz 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to see the addition of great, sourced material, particuarly about historical and non-Western marriage practices. Polygamy in various forms (Muslim, early Christian, LDS) is a fascinating topic in particular, and had a broad impact on the cultures it was common in. (I'm less sure there's a lot to say about close-kin marriages, but heck, if there're reliable sources out there that discuss it, great!) --j⚛e decker^talk 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC) PS: the article is protected right now, once you have something together, I believe you should be able to ask that it be added by an admin using the "editprotected" template. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a mistake to weight things primarily by their representation in the populace, because they do not carry that weight in the discussion. In much of the world through much of history, marriage between races was not a different thing than marriage within a race, and to separate that out would be like separating out marriages in which the man is 2-10 inches taller than the woman, which would likely make up an even larger portion of the populace. SSM, on the other hand, is a different thing almost everywhere - either forbidden, or categorized separately, and where it's not categorized separately legally its often part of an active issue. It's the edge case, and edges are important when depicting things.

That is not to say that there isn't room for adding discussion of other matters where a difference is really made, and certainly in reflecting on kin marriage we could discuss the range of it being illegal, taboo, or part of a strong tradition in various societies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

NatGertler: I agree. The reason I picked on polygamy is that I do think there's a lot to say about it's practice and cultural influence that can be sourced, both in historic times and more modern ones as well, I guess. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In the United States I do think interracial marriage has been an extremely important topic and a limiting case that has evolved over time. It's hard to generalize, though. There are definitely contexts where caste or religion make more sense as separating factors. But in those cases you could start talking about inter-caste marriage or interfaith marriage as more appropriate topics.

I think on interracial marriage one reason it is very important in the United States is the legacy of slavery. It now occurs to me that one other subject that definitely ought to be mentioned is slave marriage. (Yes, another marriage. Don't puke.) Slaves made up much of the world for most of recorded history. In some cultures they could marry free people, while in other cultures they could not. We don't even have a page about slave marriage, so I won't make any new sections, but it is important. —Othniel Kenaz 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, observing the USA from Australia, it's obvious that interracial marriage is a bigger issue there than here. Being a global article, it would be wrong for this article to concentrate on the United States, but it could be valid to develop some sort of comparison section, comparing practices and attitudes around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll submit to the admins small subsections on polygamy and close-kin marriage today or tomorrow. On interracial marriage, I don't know if religion is all that relevant given that no religion I've heard of forbids it. (Although Judaism has opposed interfaith marriage and in Israel that has sometimes been similar to racism. I don't think I could make a section out of just that, though.) —Othniel Kenaz 21:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to reenter this obliquely because I had a link that set of a spam filter here, but if you Google "sin of interracial marriage", the top link should take you to a 1982 speech on that from the founder and then-head of the Worldwide Church of God (which has since reorganized and may no longer have that view, although spin-off churches do). So yes, there have been and continue to be religions that bar interracial marriage; where you have calls to "white purity", you are likely to have some church rising to meet the demand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Othniel Kenaz, 14 July 2010

{{editprotected}} Hello. After discussion on the talk page I believe there is consensus to add subsections under Marriage and religion after its last subsection. I have therefore made the following.

Polygamy

Further information: [[:Polygamy]]

Religious groups have differing views on the legitimacy of polygyny, or the practice of a man taking more than one wife. Most Christian groups prohibit it and condemnations can be found from very early Christian leaders. But polygamy is allowed in Islam and also Confucianism, though in most areas today it is uncommon. Religious law on polygamy has evolved over time in religions like Judaism and Hinduism.

Close-kin marriage

Further information: [[:Cousin marriage]] and [[:Affinity (canon law)]]

Religion has commonly weighed in on the matter of which relatives, if any, are allowed to marry. Relations may be by consanguinity or affinity, meaning by blood or by marriage. On the marriage of cousins, Catholic policy has evolved from initial acceptance, through a long period of general prohibition, to the modern-day requirement for a dispensation. Islam has always allowed it, while Hindu strictures vary widely.

—Othniel Kenaz 18:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Could the other editors involved with this article please confirm that there is agreement to add the wording above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Disabled request as there has been no response. Please reactivate when you have a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ezphilosophy, 16 July 2010

{{editprotected}} In the last paragraph under the section Modern Customs, it seems that "man" and "woman" should be plural. Also, it is bit comma-heavy. Ezphilosophy (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed. It looks like it was written by someone who does not speak English natively, or else is a bad typist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, but it's still not very good. If you can do better, please state the exact wording you would like! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No need for UU picture---move it to "Religious arguments about SSM"

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>

Fresh off your block, you picked up where you left off. You're about an inch or two away from an indefinite block. How badly do you want to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>

Addition of Heterosexual couples is unneutral. You are removing the only Homosexual wedding image, is this neutral? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—Othniel Kenaz 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)>

Brucejenner (talk · contribs) You are banned, the only thing that you are doing is extend your conviction. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from your own opinion, you have provided no reasoning to remove this image. I see no reason to remove it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Malapropism needs correction

subtopic Sex and procreation ........ second paragraph On the other hand, marriage is not a prerequisite for having children.......In the United States, the highest judicial body ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that procreation within marriage could be abridged by artificial insemination.

It seems clear to me that the word "contraception" vice "insemnation" is required.

Would someone who is knowledgable of editing make the change, please.

71.235.145.26 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)mesterquest@yahoo.com

"contraception" vice "insemnation"??? What is that supposed to mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IP poster is correct in noting that Griswold was not about insemination but about contraception, and that the sentence didn't make sense as it stood. I have removed the sentence, as it did not belong with that paragraph - paragraph was about unmarried people having kids, and Griswold is about married people not having kids. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The item was originally entered on July 19, 2009 (so it just had its anniversary), and was basically correct at that time, albeit worded a little oddly.[1] That was clarified by another editor on the 20th, and I would say it was worded correctly.[2] It was then modified on August 17, 2009, by X-factor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to include the incorrect comment about insemination, and I think it had remained that way in the subsequent 11 months.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now added back the version that appears to be factually correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's factually correct... but it's still not relevant to the partagraph, which is about children outside of wedlock. It should be moved or deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ZeepAl, 7 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The following statement is opinionated and should be removed. One can not state that there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and then follow that by the comment it is believed. The only statement of fact within the sentence is regarding the Theodosian Code. The statement references same-sex unions not marriage. If it is to be retained, at a minimum it should be placed under the definition of same-sex unions and not marriage.

There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[43] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[43] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[44] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex marriage in ancient Rome[45] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[46]

ZeepAl (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Every statement, including the first and second sentence, is followed by a reliable source and is from a neutral point of view. Stickee (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Request changes in section 9.4 Hinduism. Last line says " Hindu widows cannot remarry." This is factually wrong.

" The Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act 1856 empowers a Hindu widow to remarry. Though traditionally widow remarriages were frowned upon and are still considered taboo in many parts of India, the society is changing and the incidence of widow remarriage is on a rise."

125.22.37.66 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Pooja

<http://www.lawisgreek.com/widow-remarriage-under-hindu-laws/> <lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report81.pdf>

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OED definition

Unproductive discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Marriage as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (Compact) - the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. Don't tell me this is just western.82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Rots 'o ruk, 82 with getting an accurate and NPOV definition of marriage into the lede of this article. The gay lobby of Wikipedia will never allow it. There is a politically correct position in Wikipedia and neither the OED nor Merriam-Webster nor the American Heritage dictionary is that politically correct position. Sorry, you will just have to accept that marriage has nothing to do with men and women. 71.169.191.87 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I will not have to accept anything of the sort: a married man is a husband, a married women is a wife. Marriage is union of opposites (ie. man and women). Even when the term marriage is used in other contexts for instance as the describing the combination of two or more different elements (her music is a marriage of funk, jazz and hip-hop) no one uses the term marriage in other contexts to describe a combination of the same. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC) "The American Heritage Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's have all added same-sex unions to their definitions of marriage." As such, the dictionary argument isn't on your side. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I tried to warn you that you're not dealing with an honest bunch. I dunno about "Black's Law Dictionary", but the other three have for their primary definition explicit language for marriage joining "husband and wife". Then they try to claim that the dictionary is on their side. Like the dictionary, both "traditional" and same-sex marriage should be in the article. and like the dictionary, the primary definition of the topic in the lede should be as it is in the dictionary. That is the NPOV way. Otherwise you are substituting your own judgment of the definition of marriage over the consistent and unambiguous definition in well-established usage as shown in the dictionaries of the English language. Nat, you are not an honest player. You try to bend the facts to fit your own worldview. 71.169.191.87 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC) If you wish to make scurrilous accusations about my honesty, please take it to my talk page instead of here. As for a topic having to match the first definition in the disctionary, this is not a dictionary. If you'll review the Talk archives here, you see that the lede was developed with a lot of discussion looking at a lot of sources, including strong sociology sources. If you look at other articles, you will find plenty that are not grounded in the first definition in the dictionary.... and the same will be true of any good encyclopedia. In this case, wehave an article that covers the larger concept of marriage, including mixed-sex and same-sex, exclusive and non-exclusive. Also, one cannot assume that dictionaries are listing definitions in the order of primary current use; as noted here, "Dictionaries may either list meanings in the historical order in which they appeared, or may list meanings in order of popularity and most common use." --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks 71, but I try to assume honestly until dishonesty starts to show. The first and most widely recognised definition (before that of same sex - where it is included) in every dictionary I have checked whether printed or online states it to be between a man and a women or between persons of opposite sex - never is the word individuals used. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) That's the most common form, sure. Although if you subtract out the divorces, the playing field might start to level a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Subtract out the divorces? which - those between married (man and woman) couples or those between same-sex couples, or both? How would that "start to level the playing field a bit" - which playing field? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 50 percent of male-female marriages end in divorce. Maybe the Christian fascists should try to work on that problem first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Christian fascists? Are you saying men and women only get married if they are christians? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Are you saying Christians don't get divorced? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No, of course i am not. It's just your tone turned very aggresive (using language like fascist) when I asked which divorces you meant - two very high profile same-sex civil unions in the media over the recent years both split up within a number of years. So have many high profile traditional marriages. No one is saying traditional marriages don't end in divorce. What we are discussing is not divorce rates but the primary definition of marriage as found in the majority of dictionaries.82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I am trying to understand you, are you saying that marriage between a man and a women is uniquely christian. Chinese traditional marriage is also between a man and woman though differing some respects from western traditional marriage. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Folks, if you want to talk about editing this article, do it here - but if you want to try to figure out each other's insults, take it to your talk pages, okay? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Here's my suggestion then for editing, try following the language and order of the dictionaries. Cheers 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Gay marriage is marriage, so accept it and deal. CTJF83 chat 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No. There is no dictionary with the term "gay marriage" in it in all the ones I have checked. Marriage is still defined primarily, as most widely recognised as between a man and woman. Where some dictionaries have included "same sex" within their definition, they state it is merely like that of traditional marriage (not the same as). They also do not state how it is "like" traditional marriage. Same-sex partnerships have very little in common with traditional marriages - no union of opposite genders, no possibility of there being children (except through adoption) - these are two fundamental characteristics of marriage. It might be said that for some heterosexual couples there is sometimes no possibility of children - this is however due to health reasons (infertility for example). Normally if a heterosexual couple so chooses, they can have children. Marriage cannot be disjoined from the possibility of family. Right. It's just "marriage". You're wanting to foist a particular view upon this article. There is a lot more to marriage than cranking out children. P.S. Sign your posts, please. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Actually "cranking out children" (as you crudely put it) is seen by many cultural anthropologists as the aspect of marriage which is common to marriage across cultures. "Marriage, like all cultural institutions, evolves; and it may look very different in different cultures. But the institution's common denominator across time and cultures has been its dedication to the offices of reproduction. The great 20th century cultural anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowsky stated that while marriage is as old as human life, it has never been primarily a romantic, or even an economic, bond. It has been principally an arrangement for bearing children."(Dana Mack) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Merriam-Webster definition Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage Merriam-Webster's Advanced Learner's Dictionary definition mar·riage Pronounced: /ˈmerɪʤ/Listen to audio Function: noun Inflected forms: plural mar·riag·es Meaning: 1 a : the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife [count] ▪ It was his second marriage. ▪ They have a very happy marriage. ▪ Her first two marriages ended in divorce. [noncount] ▪ She has old-fashioned ideas about marriage. ▪ the institution of marriage ▪ He proposed marriage to his girlfriend. [=asked his girlfriend to marry him] ▪ couples living together before marriage ▪ They were joined in marriage [=they were married] last year. ▪ They are related by marriage. [=they are related because one of them is married to a family member of the other] —see also arranged marriage, civil marriage, marriage of convenience, mixed marriage b : a similar relationship between people of the same sex [count] ▪ a same-sex marriage [noncount] ▪ opponents/supporters of same-sex marriage ▪ gay marriage 2 [count] : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other ▪ Many friends and relatives were present at their marriage. ▪ a priest who has performed many marriages 3 [singular] : a close union of or between two things ▪ a marriage of sweet and spicy flavors ▪ a marriage of science and art ▪ a marriage between form and function http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/marriage Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English definition mar‧riage 1 [uncountable and countable] the relationship between two people who are married, or the state of being marriedCOLLOCATIONS happy/unhappy marriage mixed marriage (=between people of different races or religions) arranged marriage (=your parents choose the person who you marry) loveless marriage a marriage breaks down (=it ends because of disagreements) the breakdown/break-up of your marriage (=the end of your marriage) sex before marriage/outside marriage be born outside marriage (=be born when your parents are not married) propose marriage formal (=ask someone to marry you) consummate a marriage (=make your marriage complete by having sex) annul a marriage formal (=a court or church leader officially ends a marriage) She has three daughters from a previous marriage. One in three marriages ends in divorce. marriage to his marriage to Marilyn Monroe marriage between In Denmark they have legalized marriage between gay couples. They have a very happy marriage. children of mixed marriages Women were often forced into arranged marriages. She felt trapped in a loveless marriage. She moved to London after the break-up of her marriage. My parents disapprove of sex before marriage. More than half of all births in the region are outside marriage. 2 [countable] the ceremony in which two people get married [= wedding]: The marriage took place at St Bartholomew's church. 3 by marriage if you are related to someone by marriage, they are married to someone in your family, or you are married to someone in theirs: her cousin by marriage http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/marriage No matter how you look at the issue, by many respected dictionaries and by the dozens countries all over the world supported fact is that marriage involves two people. And there is no reason to hold this fact back from the Wikipedia users/readers. Resolved. Settled. Like it or not. Articles have to be editted in WP:NPOV fashion. --Destinero (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No. It is not resolved/settled like it or not( Destinero's words). That sounds very familiar. For one user to say something which is still a matter of debate and discussion is resolved/settled "like it or not" is not the way things are done on Wikipedia. It smacks of someone overestimating the amount of clout they have here. This is still very much under discussion, and most definitely is not resolved or settled. You have misrepresented what the debate is fundamentally about - it is about allowing a place within the opening paragraph for the primary definition of marriage as understood in most dictionaries the world over. I see also that Destinero has several complaints about edit waring on his talk page. Probably due to having to constantly defend this article against Christian fascists. P.S. Sign your posts, please. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I'm starting to smell User:Brucejenner here. CTJF83 chat 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC) The IP is not in the range of IP's mentioned in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner/Archive, although that doesn't prove anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Who is brucejenner? If someone has or is trying to link me to another user who has been banned, I will be reporting it.82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Brucejenner is a Christian fascist who is banned. If you're not him, you've got nothing to worry about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You are right I have got nothing to worry about in that regard, but someone was attempting to link my IP to that username a short time ago. I would be interested (not worried about) what was going on then?82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC) They were commenting on what looked to them like a pattern. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of prominent 20th century theologian Karl Barth on marriage?

Unproductive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Were this creature only like him, a repetition...his solitariness would not be eliminated, for such a creature would not confront him as another but he would merely recognise himself in it" (Karl Barth) I do not have any of Barth's writings, and I am quoting him here from a another book, the ellipsis is not my own, but the complete quote is surely worth searching out and including in the article. Could someone do this. I think it comes from his book The Doctrine of Creation Vol. 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Maybe the first step would be to translate that quote into English, as it makes absolutely no sense as written. P.S. Sign your posts, please. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Makes no sense to you maybe, but you cannot say it makes absolutely no sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk • contribs) 17:24, August 14, 2010 Karl Barth isn't seen primarily as an expert of marriage, or as someone with some particular input on the global view of marriage (while he comments on many things, his specialty is on the relationship between a divine being and humans), so I don't see why one would expect to find him here. He might be a source for the Christian view of marriage article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Karl Barth is not a notable expert on marriage and per WP:UNDUE will not be included in the entry. Case closed, move on.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Cased closed? yet another example of a single editor unknowledgable on the subject acting like a member of a judiciary. Barth's views on marriage are quite relevant to this article within the section on christian marriage. The quote is plain english - the reason it may be unclear to some (though surely not to all) is that as I pointed out it is incomplete - which is why I asked if someone could reference the fuller context of it. One has no right here to dismiss Barth as not being an expert on marriage. Anthropology and Sociology do not have a monopoly on the subject - though they both have valid insights to contribute. The christian understanding of marriage is theological first. Please stop confusing not being notable with I haven't heard of him. No editor here is knowledgable on every subject - those with a smidgin of humility are quick to ask first than assume themselves to be experts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk • contribs) 17:24, August 14, 2010 After you sign your post, perhaps you could try and explain to this poor ignorant soul just what it is that quote is supposed to mean. Take it word by word if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Reading and comprehending is your responsibility. Take it word by word if necessary :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk • contribs) 18:00, August 14, 2010 "Were this creature" - what creature? "only like him," - who is "him"? "a repetition..." - repetition of what? "his solitariness" - whose solitariness? "would not be eliminated, for such a creature" - what creature? "would not confront him" - who is "him"? "as another but he would merely recognise himself in it" - who is "he" and "himself"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, and it is your responsibility to post verbiage that makes sense... and it is your responsibility to sign your posts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Ok joking aside, as I asked earlier the complete quote and context (which I do not have available) would improve intelligibility. But even without it I can grasp a partial meaning. Barth is refering to the christian account of creation and the creation of Adam and Eve. When I have already asked for someone to expand the quote, I do not see why you are jumping in so early and saying it doesn't make sense. We are waiting (and it might take weeks) for someone who has the material to reference it more fully. ok? Can you give it more than a few hours? :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk • contribs) 18:11, August 14, 2010 What's stopping you from signing your posts? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC) If that guy believes there really was an "Adam and Eve", literally, he's not of much use as a source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No mention was made of whether he believes in a literal Adam and Eve. But again you are bringing your biases/agendas/ideological position to bear on what you regard as a good source. Wikipedia does not disregard sources on that basis.82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC) So, describe why his views should have so much weight in the matter, vs. those of Dr. Phil, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You seem to be misunderstanding - his views currently have been given no weight in the article - he is not referenced at all, yet he is a well known and influencial 20th century theologian, who has written commentary on the book of Genesis (within which and from which are found the theological underpinnings of the christian understanding of marriage). What I am asking is that he be given reference within the section on the christian understanding of marriage, not within the lede. So you asking me why he should be given "so much weight" is really that you think I am giving him more (or requesting he be given more) weight, than I actually am. Why should he not be mentioned within the section on the christian understanding of marriage?82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) What I'm asking is, what's so special about his particular views on the Christian view of marriage, vs. say, those of the Pope? I don't see any quotes from the Pope in there, unless I missed something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) There are references to the catechism of the roman-catholic church. If a relevant statement from a pope needs to be included that can be done. I haven't had time to weigh up the whole article. As the article is incomplete at present there is no point using the absense of quotes from the Pope, to argue that another writer on the subject is not worth including, or referencing. There is much room for improvement in the article overall 82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I say again, what's so special about that one guy? Other than the likelihood that you agree with him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Actually no I don't agree with Karl Barth in everything, there is much I would disagree with. I don't know everything he wrote. His theological writings however have been significant and influencial in the 20th century, and if figures such as Martin Luther and John Calvin can be rightly noted on this page then I think Karl Barth should be to. Thats as far as I am discussing it with you at present. DMSBel (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Who, besides you, says that this character's opinions are any more important than those of Billy Graham, the Pope, or Dr. Phil? I have asked you this several times, and you won't give a proper answer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Serious question about lede and the sexuality issue

Unproductive discussion. 'Discussing' what you think other editors' 'agendas' are is nothing but disruptive. Discuss content, not editors.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Didn't the lede used to specify that most marriage are between individuals of opposite sex, and or that most marriages were monogamous? No matter how broadly we use this term nowadays, I believe the current lede is not explicit enough about the most common form of marriage. I'm a proponent of gay marriage as a legal institution, and I recognize that the entry should include all forms of marriage, but I do think that it is informative to point out what the most common form of marriage is in practice. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC) This article uses the broadest definition of marriage to cover a range of different histories and societies with their own marital customs. To declare that "most marriages" are rightfully heterosexual and monogamous in the first sentence is betraying a bias toward an ideal of 1950s Europe and North America. Quigley (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I think the two of you may be using the term "lede" differently; I presumed Griswaldo meant somewhere in the section before the Table of Contents rather than the first sentence. In the before-the-TOC sense, I think there's room to say something to the effect that almost every known society has had some form of marriage between a man and a woman, that in some societies those arrangements are exclusive while in other cases one spouse or the other may have multiple spouses, and than in a small but growing number of cultures, same-sex couples are also included. However, I'd be very careful about claiming a majority for "monogamy"; it may well be true that most men have had solely one wife at a time but not true that they have had exclusively one wife at a time, in that there may have been no societal imperative excluding them from having a second one, they just never found the gal, or the money, or whatever. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Hey, believe it or not, I am also a proponent of legal equality of same-sex marriage. I live in Vermont and was happy with both the civil-union legislation of a decade ago and the more current law legally establishing same-sex marriage in this state. Personally, I wish the government would get out of the marriage business and, for the purposes of power of attorney, next-of-kin rights, and taxes, would legally define civil unions for either homo or hetero marriages. That said, even though I am a strong supporter of the legal equality of gay and straight marriage (whether government uses the word "marriage" or not), I am not in favor of using Wikipedia as a soapbox in promoting such social movement. Wikipedia should only reflect social movements, not drive them. When the battle is won, and Meriam-Webster and OED change their primary definitions to remove concept of husband/wife from marriage, then the lede should reflect that. But what the article is doing and has done for years (I've been here since 2006 and I am not Brucejenner) is being a change agent. Even if the change that this change agent is acting for is a change I am in favor of, such is clearly contrary to the 2nd pillar of Wikipedia. The lede does not reflect the primary definition of marriage, as commonly understood by 99% of the population and as reflected in the most widely used and accepted dictionaries of the English language, because the folks with rainbow barnstars do not like the given definition of marriage. They want to change the given definition of marriage and they want to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for that change. 71.169.191.87 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Sure - that is all most members of the LGBT lobby on here use wikipedia as - a change agent. They are not interested in wikipedia as an encyclopedia - I have known this ever since I began to take an interest in wikipedia. That it is being abused in this way, in this article, should not be tolerated. As regard to "when the battle is won" - wikipedia is not part of that "battleground" as 71 points out, even though some members want to use it in that way. The majority of people do not use the full version of most dictionaries and the editors will not commit space in compact formats to more than the primary definition in use and perhaps (as in the OED Compact - which is still weighs in at over 1200 pages) a reference to use of the word in contexts like a marriage of different genres in music. So the day will never come. And neither am I brucejenner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Try conservapedia. They'll welcome you with open tentacles, and they're not nearly so concerned about reliable sources. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You are concerned with reliable sources? I think not, you are here to troll. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, I'm concerned with single-purpose accounts pushing their agendas here, no matter which side of the political fence they're on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Good.82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Listen, you have no idea how many contributions I have made to WP, both with a named account (and I won't reveal its identity) and as an IP. Since this political-correctness is sooo intolerant, when I chime in on this article (and other contentious articles), I no longer do so with my named account and I never will again. There are other articles that are similar. Tomorrow or the next day the ISP will assign me a different IP and I'll use that. Sometimes I will identify myself with a previously used IP (for continuity of discussion) and sometimes I will not. Bugs, what you should be concerned about are editors with a clear and proud agenda that they push onto Wikipedia and they consistently get away with it. A rainbow barnstar is as much a partisan badge of honor as a Donkey Barnstar or Elephant Barnstar or an Obama "O" barnstar. Editors giving and receiving the rainbow barnstar: are clearly pushing an agenda in this article as well as in other articles (Homophobia is an example). 71.169.191.87 (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC) And you listen, you can't just judge people by barnstars given. Your contribution history doesn't give you that right, so stop this disruptive idea that you can paint anyone that disagrees with you as being unable to post here.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I am not judging on the basis of barnstars given or received, I am judging on the basis of neutrality of edits made and on edits reverted. Then I am making an association. The LGBT lobby here at Wikipedia is largely (not everyone, but the group as a whole) the most intolerant, politically-correct partisan group here. Maybe 2nd most (the editing cabal at Intelligent design are also very intolerant and often dishonest and also very PC). The shame is that this PC-ness and intolerance of NPOV definitions is accepted at WP and that these editors' personal, pet definitions are allowed to replace those in the dictionary. The non-neutral POV is manifest. Oh, and Daedalus, labeling a legitimate content issue that we use the dictionary for a definition instead of a personally pleasing definition we made up as "disruptive idea" is evidence of the degree of your neutrality and objectiveness. 71.169.191.87 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) First of all, way to completely misconstrue the facts. My labeling of your post as 'a disruptive idea' is that your idea that those of the LGBT community can't edit in a neutral manner is disruptive POV pushing. In fact, you're starting to sound like a particular banned user, Brucejenner (talk · contribs), how had an obsession that all those of the LGBT are pushing some kind of agenda. If you want to argue a point, go ahead, but do not attack others here just because of something like a barnstar. Whatever your history, there is nothing that justifies acting like those of the LGBT can't edit in a neutral way, unless you're trying to be disruptive.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Lets drop the "you sound like brucejenner" nonsense. I take 71.169.191.87 at his word when he says he is not that user. OK?82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC) If they drop the 'agenda' nonsense, then we will.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Don't be so childish, and who is the "we" you mention. There is an agenda - its obvious for anyone with eyes to see. Many users are aware of it and 71.169.191.87 is correct. Neither does he act like he has some power of judicial fiat to end discussions - which is the height of intolerance on here.82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) When right-wingers can't totally get their way, they cry "liberal bias!" Go to conservapedia. I guarantee you there's no liberal bias there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC) "there is no liberal bias there" you said. So are you saying there is liberal bias here?82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No, I'm saying that the right-wingers can't always get their way here, like they can in convservapedia. Regarding Bruce Jenner, after awhile the right-wing-agenda pushers all start to look alike, and that accounts for the eyebrow-raising. The issue with marriage is what the judge said in the California case - that the right-wingers are trying to impose a specific spiritual view of marriage upon the law, and that's not appropriate. Marriage has two components - legal and spiritual. Religionists need to stick with the spiritual and get their grubby little mitts out of the legal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC) First "christian fascists" now "right-wingers". I am finding this discussion rather unpleasant currently due to the name-calling by one user in particular. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Note to the IP's: I have not called the IP's any names. I'm talking in general terms. And I've challenged the liberals as well, in other articles. Wikipedia strives to keep things reasonably balanced. I've seen cases where liberals claimed that conservatives were taking over here. Obviously, it can't be both ways. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Please be sensible in the degree of indentation you use. There is no need for using such language either generally or directed at particular users. I realise you have not used the terms directly at anyone but using them generally in the way you do is not helpful to the discussion either 82.18.164.15 (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You really do sound like Brucejenner. Now, arguing that there is an agenda, that other users POV push, is nothing but disruptive. Do not comment on other users in this way, just discuss the content. I urge you to stop, continuing in this manner will simply make you look like either a meatpuppet, or a sock(by way of an anonymity site) of Brucejenner. And I'm sure you know what happens to socks of banned users.— Dædαlus Contribs 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No one knows who which user you are refering to Daedalus. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You couldn't be more wrong. Nearly every editor on this page is more than familiar with this banned user(and I have indeed linked the account several times), as this is one of the articles he commonly hit.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Someone wanna do the paperwork on reporting the IP? CTJF83 chat 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC) It ok you go ahead, but make sure you do not slander or defame anyone.82.18.164.15 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC) And be very careful if you are thinking of accusing an IP of being a banned user. You could be wrong 82.18.164.15 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC) How is it possible to "defame" and anonymous IP user? And if an SPI is posted and a clerk accepts it, then there is reasonable suspicion to go forward with an investigation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Ok go ahead - though if you are refering to my IP I can tell you now the result of any investigation.DMSBel (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a modern English dictionary; it is an encyclopedia. Therefore, it is not proscriptive, it is descriptive. And it describes all types of marriages throughout history, including Chinese and Hindu marriages—which, guess what, were not always monogamous or love marriages. The dictionary has a specific purpose, which is to define what people speaking a certain language in a certain place mean when they say something. And for Anglo-Saxon society in the modern era, when people say "marriage" in colloquial conversation, incidentally they are probably referring to a marriage between a man and a woman, because of heterosexuals' sheer numbers, but that doesn't preclude the population's understanding of other types of marriages. There are a lot of articles whose titles and contents defy common usage. The Wikipedia article for China does not refer to the People's Republic of China, but if it were bound by the first dictionary definition, it should. There are other policies at play, such as NPOV. Quigley (talk) 17 23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I propose we ignore this and the above thread, and ignore BJ. CTJF83 chat 20:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC) diagree with the proposal - some issues need to be resolved first - then it can be closed.82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Regarding my earlier comment to you Daedalus about no one knowing who you are refering to, I did not mean no-one knows about brucejenner, however I only came across the username tonight, so I don't know much about him except he has been banned. Now when I said no-one know who you are refering to I meant with regard to which IP address you where accusing of being brucejenner - me(82) or 71. My IP was linked temporarily with the username brucejenner earlier tonight - I would like to know who did that?82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I will sign in so people can see my username82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC) This is 82.18.164.15 DMSBel (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Both of you. You were both going on and on about how there is supposedly a 'homosexual agenda'. This argument of 'agendas' is something BJ is known well for. For you and 71 to come here, and start claiming people have an agenda here just because they are gay or what not, is wrong, and disruptive.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I haven't claimed anyone who is "gay" has an agenda simply because of their sexual-orientation. But there is a strange difficulty with describing marriage in the lede as it is most commonly understood - being the formal union of a man and a woman - Saying that doesn't nullify anything else in the article about marriage within particular cultures, because every culture has some notion of marriage as between a man and woman. DMSBel (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, you have.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No, he (or she) didn't. DMSBel (as 82.18.164.15) is pointing out that the editors here have an agenda, but has said nothing about anyone being gay let alone that it is because of such sexual orientation that they have an agenda. You guys think that you can be so nakedly disingenuous and no one will notice? 71.169.191.87 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC) You can pretend to be two different people all you like, just remember it's against policy. The fact that you two never edit at the same time just shows you're socking. That aside, no one is 'pointing out' anything. They're posting their opinion that people here have an agenda, which is in itself disruptive. So instead of assuming you know things that you clearly do not, discuss content, not editors. That's what a claim is, an accusation without proof, so unless you want to continue being disruptive, I suggest you abandon your crusade of accusing people of having any kind of agenda.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Are you saying it is not possible for anyone editing Wikipedia to have an agenda (or a POV)? That would demonstrably false. Why for instance are wikipedia articles or parts of them flagged for being POV at times? Arguably everyone has a POV and sometimes even if trying to write in a neutral manner their POV can be detected by other editors - an honest editor will acknowledge any POV and will agree to amendments to what they have written, if those amendments genuinely improve the article. Now consider whether or not every culture that there has ever been has not some notion of marriage between a man and woman. Is this POV? If you say yes? How is it POV? Is it not a simple statement of fact? I am asking questions not making assertions. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter what it is. Discussing whether you think other people have agendas is nothing but disruptive, and is not geared towards improving the encyclopedia. If you want to discuss content, then discuss content, don't make remarks about other editors.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I have been discussing content since I came to this page! How can one improve a page unless POV content is discussed?82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)\ This is not discussing content.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive terms

Unproductive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Man - descriptive of a person of the masculine gender and male sex Woman - descriptive of a person of the feminine gender and female sex Marriage - most commonly understood to be a formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't dare suggest we include the above in the article, if we want to be politically correct.82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Are you just gonna drag this out till you get your way or what? SERIOUSLY! CTJF83 chat 02:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Do you disagree with something here?82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Just your disruptive, POV pushing. Who (registered users) agree with what you want to do? CTJF83 chat 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Just ignore the IP.Griswaldo (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Now that the accusation of "POV pushing" comes from CTFJ83, he/she is told to "ignore the IP". Daedalus will have something to say about you accusing editors of "POV pushing", as he was death on it earlier.82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Man - descriptive of a person of the masculine gender and male sex Woman - descriptive of a person of the feminine gender and female sex Marriage - most commonly understood to be a formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Could we have a productive discussion about the above. Thanks 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In defense of "individuals"

Discussion Closed due to there being no contributions for several months, and more recent discussion now taking place futher down this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see Intersexuality for details. Some editors may wish to deny that marriage applies to the types of individuals described there, but of course if they wish to do so they must provide reliable sources. (sdsds - talk) 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC) <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)> As the article notes, every major dictionary includes an acknowledgment of same-sex marriage. We don't have any anthropological sources that postdate the modern adoption of gay marriage, but even the ones prior altered their definitions to account for same-sex (though not homosexual) practices such as that of the Nuer. That very strongly supports adopting an inclusive description of marriage for the lede.--Trystan (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Likewise, just because certain religious people feel that their self-righteous egos are being offended by anthropological history that doesn't give them the right to impose their ideals and morality onto common sense and factual evidence. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)> You won't get anywhere talking like that. This is Wikipedia, not the US.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There are two reasons it makes sense: 1.The standard definition, for 6,000 years, is between a man and a woman. Why change this just because in very recent history, there are same sex marriages in only a handful of jurisdictions? 31 times ballot measures have been introduced to support gay marriage. All 31 went down in defeat. <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)> <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)> You do not have consensus for the edit you just made, so I have reverted you. Indeed, consensus is the complete opposite. You can't just post your opinion on the talk page and claim that means consensus. It doesn't work that way. Do not do that again.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC) For much of the last 6,000 years marriage was only recognized between people of the same tribe, race and faith - and only when it was approved by the elders of the families of both partners. Presumably we don't have to add those restrictions - and the virginity restriction - to the definition of marriage, do we? --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC) <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user Brucejenner (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)> Yes, we do, for the reasons said above. Three other editors commented against such a change, Historyguy, sdsds, Trystan.. In fact, there was a similar discussion regarding this in the past. Go look through the archives. Consensus is against your change. Secondly, you cannot use a lack of response here as consensus. You must give people time to reply.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I do. Several countries use the word to describe relationships that involve same-sex relationships, as part of their law, which would count as WP:RS, as would the Bible, which uses the word marriage to refer in some cases to polygamous marriage, e.g., Genesis 4:19. It's not our job to tell people what words *should* mean, it's our job to describe ideas, and I believe that the "individuals" phrasing encompasses the greatest number of common usages of the word. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC) On balance I also agree that, in light of the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in some states and countries, we can no longer simply define marriage as between a "man and woman," because that would violate WP:NPOV by specifically ruling out a (now significant) view on this issue. Using "individuals" is a purposely ambiguous action that leaves either position possible.Khin2718 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC) It does occur to me as an aside, however, that we might want to think about whether "gender restrictions" are actually restrictions under all significant viewpoints, since many people might view those restrictions as just being part of the definition. Khin2718 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Though something may be "part of the definition", it is, then, the definition that imposes the restriction. In many states in the US, marriage is indeed defined specifically to be between a man and woman. But it is a restrictive definition, and even those who feel that same-sex unions do not fit the definition of marriage should agree that their state imposes "gender restrictions" on marriage, by defining it thusly in their state constitution, or some other method. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 05:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Being members of the same tribe, race and faith was also once part of the definition of marriage. This article is rightly not bound by outdated historical traditions of particular religions. --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The point is not to decide whether a restriction exists, but only if there's a significant segment of the world that doesn't view this as a restriction. (See WP:NPOV.) It seems quite possible that this segment does exist and is fairly large. If so, they should be included on the restrictions page, along with those like yourself who differ. —Khin2718 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (replying to pat) I guess I must have missed when the bible became law in the US. Doesn't your bible also say slavery is ok, women are property, and people who work on Sunday are put to death? You can't pick and choose what parts you want to believe in and what parts you ignore. CTJF83 chat 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Would anyone object if I changed "individuals" to "two individuals"? In the case of polygamy the relationship is still pairwise, since pairs of people are still married: the only difference is that one person can have many pairwise relationships. -Khin2718 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC) To do so would be to overlook a number of forms of group marriage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Western marriage for centuries has clearly been evolving away from coercive, hierarchical, polygamous and arranged marriage towards a voluntary relationship between two consenting adults. This needs acknowledging - but we should not ignore the fact that marriage has taken very different forms in our own history and can be found in very different forms in other societies. --Tediouspedant (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Polygamous doe snot fit in that list. The trend has been toward more open Polyamorous relationships, not away. Yes, consenting adults, but not specifically two, even though that is predominantly the case. Atom (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) "Individuals" sounds sterile, vague, and is not the common definition. Man and woman is the consensus mainstream definition. I think there are some people who want to include "individuals" as some recognition of these gay marriages,or perhaps some other reason. Gay marriage is only a recent fad and not accepted in many places. Andywatkins1888 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I support the current use of "individuals" in the lead. The word marriage is commonly used, even by those who disapprove gay marriage and group marriage, in those sentences, "individuals" is the most inclusive term to cover the various ways the concept is described. The current "individuals" text is also more accurately describes marriages including intersexed people, and in some cases transgendered folks. (Different states often come to different conclusions about whether a transgendered person is male or female.) Finally, "man" and "woman" conflates sex with gender in societies that recognize or have recognized a third gender, such as the Hijra (South_Asia). --Joe Decker (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC) "Individuals" covers all the bases. To call same-sex marriage a "recent fad" displays ignorance of the topic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I can't really agree with the "covering all bases" argument for the use of "individuals" in the first sentence of the definition of marriage. The word is NOT commonly used to describe either gay unions or group unions outside of the limited municipalities where such unions are recognized. The majority of definitions of marriage are specific to the union of a man and a woman. Both plural marriage and same-sex marriage are better addressed in specific subsections of the definition - ie history, marriage law and controversies - rather than the introductory paragraph. I agree the word has not previously been commonly used. As en.Wikipedia is predominantly Christian influenced, and so the most common view has been that it is two individuals, and that they are opposite sex there is no term that has been commonly used to describe what is relatively new and recent. More "legal" same sex marriages have occurred within the last ten years, making a new term appropriate. The trend is towards larger numbers of group and polyamorous "marriages". The problem there is that since group marriage is not legally recognized, many people will fight tooth and nail to deny that they are any form of marriage until it is once again legal. (not likely in our lifetime.) So, I see the word "individuals" being a good fit, even though it is not what has conventionally been used. Atom (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) How do you deduce that en.wikipedia is "predominantly Christian influenced". Such a remark simply cannot be permitted to go unquestioned.82.18.164.15 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Still think (or willing to assume) you're dealing with an honest bunch of editors? 71.169.191.87 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC) My method is to ask questions. Anyone then reading the talk page will see how those questions are answered, or not. Obviously the talk pages on wikipedia are read by many more people than those who contribute to the discussion (and it would be fair to assume that a good number of those are fairly intelligent and can see what is going on)- it is therefore all I can do to simply ask pertinent questions, and not let unsubstaniated, inaccurate or untrue, remarks go unchallenged. Wikipedia is not generally regarded as close to being an authoritative source, even though people use it, most don't put a lot of weight on it.82.18.164.15 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC) The editor you are replying to made that comment four months ago, and hasn't contributed to this talk page since. If you feel it would be productive (ie, would lead to a better article), you could try leaving a message on his or her talk page.--Trystan (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)| I suggest then that this part of the talk page be archived, as there has been no further contributions made here, and it is practically impossible to follow with so many comments removed, nothing has really come from it, and to keep it open now is only to invite discussion when several of the editors are no longer here to reply. Also the matter of the lede is being discussed further down, with more recent contributions. Having the same thing discussed in different sections by different editors, some of whom have been away for months is not going to help things. The talk page needs tidying up, and archiving. I would do this but I am not sure how to, so could we archive this section?82.18.164.15 (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Anyone disagree? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate sentence

This sentence does not belong here. There are other places for value judgements. "John Witte, Professor of Law and director of the Law and Religion Program at Emory University, warns that contemporary liberal attitudes toward marriage ultimately will produce a family that is "haphazardly bound together in the common pursuit of selfish ends."[37]" Helen Webberley helenw@bigpond.net.au 27/6/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.202.174 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was inappropriate for its section and has been removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Where would be the best place in the article to put this statement. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong here at all. Conservapedia or a personal blog might be the best place if you want to publish value judgements by random pundits.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But there is already a criticism section in the article refering to marriage - which contains value judgements on marriage itself. Should there not therefore be a section for criticism of contempory views on marriage, and a response to the critique of marriage.? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't cotain any such valiue judgment actually. It merely says that people have made value judgments. The value judgments themselves are described in the article criticism of marriage.I think the criticism section is largely irrelevant - it should be written in to the history section describing the varying and changing views of marriage. John Witte's view should of course also be mentioned - but there is no need to attribute it to any one person - it would make more sense to put it into a historical context and attribute it to a particular cultural trend in the 20th century and source it to a work that makes general sociological observations about changing views on marriage.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I take it then you are not refering to John Witte, Professor of Law and director of the Law and Religion Program at Emory University as a random pundit?82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean "no need to attribute it to any one person"?82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it makes more sense to put Dr Wittes (and other random pundits ) opinions into a larger historical perspective instead of quoting their particular personal views. Dr. Wittes opinion is for example shared by a large number of conservative Americans and Europeans - that is interesting, Dr. Witte's personal opinions about marriage are not. And yes my statement of him being a random pundit is a value judgment - and that is why I made it here in the talk page not the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop using this term "random pundits", it implies some sort of media pundit. If his views have been quoted in a media article by a pundit, that is one thing, however it is not at all clear from what you are saying that you don't regard him in the same way. Einstein could be quoted in a newspaper article by a "random pundit". The term is extremely derogatory, and it should not be a reflection on who is quoted, if they are quoted by an article writer who is not well known.82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)