Talk:Marriage/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Heteronormative

In the section on "power in marriage," the assumption is made that all marriages are comprised of heterosexual couples (ex., "the man had more say in decision making"). When discussing heterosexual marriage in this article, that should be specified. In addition, the only image of a same-sex couple is found in the "same-sex marriage section." I do not believe that same-sex couples should be entirely defined by their sexual orientation, as same-sex marriages are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages. Here is a picture from a Jewish wedding that may be included. --Robertbayer (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur CTJF83 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is stated these are historical marriages, which have been heterosexual, and the point is made that is changing. I agree this could be made more clear. Given that same-sex marriages have only been legal in some countries for a decade or less, and many countries do not recognize them, the historical weight towards heterosexual marriages is not only understandable, it is essentially unavoidable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Robert, I'm sure that image is copyright. Killer, you make a good point, but the same-sex section should be expanded a bit, and 2 gay pics couldn't hurt anything, 1 men and 1 lesbian pic would be good. CTJF83 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

While it would be nice to expand the gay and lesbian section, I think that it would also be nice if, where applicable, gay and lesbian couples could be integrated into the rest of the article. That is to say, I don't want gay and lesbian couples to be "ghetto-ized" for lack of a better word -- it would be more accurate to integrate wherever possible. --Robertbayer (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that better. CTJF83 15:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert, can you explain what you mean or better yet provide an example of how that would work? I'm not entirely clear on that. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What I had it mind is that rather than having the assumption that marriage is fundamentally heterosexual and that same-sex marriages are an aberration or somehow different, we should try not to distinguish between the two except where the two actually differ(ed). For example, in the "power in marriage" article, I think that there should be a recognition that the discussion there is exclusively about heterosexual relationships. Even better, it would be nice to have a discussion of power in gay relationships as well (there has actually been some interesting scholarship on "top" versus "bottom" identities and mimicry of power structures in heterosexual relationships in same-sex relationships). Other possibilities would be the inclusion of pictures of same-sex couples, without an emphasis on LOOK GUYS HEY IT'S A GAY COUPLE. Was that helpful? I haven't had a lot of sleep lately so make sure to let me know if I'm not being clear. --Robertbayer (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The "power in marriage" section covers a topic that has been covered by the sources currently used only in a heterosexual context. What I would suggest is finding a source on power dynamics in modern marriages that explicitly mentions same-sex marriages (I'm assuming without knowing that they do not follow some of the traditional patterns discussed in the section). Add something to the section based on those sources, about how these traditional power dynamics do not apply to same-sex marriages, or simply how same-sex marriages tend to be different. I do not think, however, that when covering topics that for obvious reasons relate only to heterosexual marriages we need to add a disclaimer every time saying -- "this only applies to heterosexual marriage." Usually that is understood. Same-sex marriage is for the most part very recent and demographically much less significant than opposite-sex marriage and those facts will be reflected in sources about marriage. Regarding the photo, do you have a section of the entry in mind that you think could use a photo of a same-sex couple or another aspect of a same-sex marriage. BTW, I think we have way too many photos of weddings in this entry. There is a separate entry for weddings. I think there should be more nuanced ways to depict "marriage" than simply depicting the marriage rite. Doing so might also mean less images of couples in the first place -- so less images of a man and a woman -- and more images of other aspects of marriage that do not need to depict the couple.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Combining of three sections "per talk page"

Where in the talk page was this decided? I'm not seeing consensus, discussion, or even the suggestion that this be done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to my explanation of the changes in the "Biased?" section above. (The sources are, in my opinion, more restrained than the original version of the section, avoiding overly broad statements and clearly distinguishing between arguments being advanced and facts being relied upon. I've just taken a pass at revising the section on that basis.) There was no consensus for the change, I was WP:BOLD. (The original version of the section I was editing did not have consensus to be added, nor did it need to). As you have reverted my edits, however, I am happy to discuss your problems with them.

The reason for combining the three sections was essentially that I felt the sourced content could be made concise enough that multiple sections were not needed. The sources didn't really support the clear distinction either, since the discussion of power imbalance, egalitarian relationships, and gender roles is fairly intertwined.--Trystan (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be more clear, the "Power in Marriage" section was added recently. It was immediately reverted, then readded by the original author, and again challenged by another editor in in the "Biased?" section above. I suggested working on a version that could gain consensus support on the talk page before the section was introduced into the article, while at the same time being bold and making some changes myself to what had already been boldly added by the original author. These changes have now been reverted, on the basis that they lacked consensus, to the original author's version (which also does not have anything approaching consensus, IMO).

Regardless, I am proposing the edits here. After reviewing the sources, I believe that the following version is well-supported by the sources given:

Power and gender roles

Feminist theory approaches opposite-sex marriage as an institution traditionally rooted in patriarchy that promotes male superiority and power over women. This power dynamic conceptualizes men as “the provider operating in the public sphere” and women as “the caregivers operating within the private sphere.” This is contrasted with a conception of egalitarian marriage in which power and labour are divided equally, and not according to gender roles.

The performance of dominant gender roles by men and submissive gender roles by women influence the power dynamic of a marriage. In some American households, women internalize gender role stereotypes and often assimilate into the role of “wife,” “mother,” and “caretaker” in conformity to societal norms and their male partner. bell hooks states “within the family structure, individuals learn to accept sexist oppression as “natural” and are primed to support other forms of oppression, including heterosexist domination.”

In the US, studies have shown that, despite egalitarian ideals being common, less than half of respondents viewed their opposite-sex relationships as equal in power, with unequal relationships being more commonly dominated by the male partner. Studies also show that married couples find the highest level of satisfaction in egalitarian relationships.

--Trystan (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I am actually up to date on all of that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good. I like to make sure everyone is on the same page at the expense of verbosity. :) I'm still a bit unclear as to why my edit was reverted, as you haven't raised any substantive objections to it.--Trystan (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I'll go ahead and introduce the updates into the article.--Trystan (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have objections, although you've already done it. They are as follows: You are not merely combining sections. You are removing content, along with the references supporting that content, which reduces both the weight as well as meaning of this addition. You have made no coherent case for the change that I see - you failed utterly to respond to my request for specific complaints, above (in the section Biased?). Your change has made the article less informative and valuable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I'm not quite sure how to respond. I think it's a bit uncalled for to dismiss the five specific points I made in response to your question in "Biased?" as utter failures without substantively addressing them. If they are unclear in some way, I would be happy to explain what I meant, or if you disagree with them on their merits, I would be happy to discuss them.

The five points above cover the majority of the changes I made. The only sourced content I got rid of were (1) the pay-gap article which did not deal with marriage, which I argued above is WP:SYNTH, and (2) the claim that "marriages legally placed women under the ownership of men," which is not found in the source cited. It does say that women are their husband's property in specific, named cultures, and that in Western Cultures "Historically, women have been viewed as men’s property," in the context of men having the right to assault their wives, which isn't as broad. There is definitely room to reintroduce that content in a revised form; I've always thought this article needed a section on Coverture.

I also removed several sentences from the paragraph on gender roles, on the grounds we don't need to recreate that article here, and it felt a bit redundant. I think the shorter version is clearer and conveys the same information more concisely.

As for not making a coherent case for the change, I would suggest that, for additions to an article that have been challenged by four editors and defended by one, the onus is on the person arguing in favour of their inclusion to make a case, not the other way around.--Trystan (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

The article says: In the 12th century[where?] women were obligated to take the name of their husbands. I don't believe that. As far as I know there were no surnames, at least registration bureaucracy, at the time; that Veronica the wife of Wolfgang the Miller is known as (guess what:) Veronica [wife of] Wolfgang the Miller's is no obligation but a matter of logical occurrence. If as she would she became a milleress, she would be known as Veronica [the] Milleress. (German in many dialects has preserved the feminine ending for women until even as late as now.) Again no obligation, but natural development. --91.34.251.64 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberal objection to non-traditional marriage

An editor has been repeatedly adding a section on "Liberal objection to non-traditional marriage", which is solely about the view of Richard Lutz, director of the Human Rights Coalition in Australia. This is an obscure organization (no Gnews hits for "Human Rights Coalition" Australia); Lutz is its founder and director and the meetings are held in his house, so his statement is essentially self-published. There is no sign that this speaks for any larger body of liberals; it's one guy's opinion, and thus doesn't rise to a level of significance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you NatGertler for pointing out problem with the source (I’m a little embarrassed). Have rectified problem with the second paragraph that provides two examples of mainstream liberal organizations that oppose same-sex, incestuous and polygamous marriages (whose combined membership is around 72 million), and a couple of liberal commentators critical of non-traditional marriages. What I like most about the original Australian source is that Mr Lutz makes the point that adults in same-sex, incestuous and polygamous relationships all assert the right to get married because they believe marriage is a private matter that is no longer linked to procreation. Fyrdbird (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a level of odd detail that did not go with the level of detail in the rest of the article, and where the sources you used to claim that the various folks agreed with Lutz were speaking solely of same-sex marriage. I see it has been deleted now. Please do not try to readd this section without first getting consensus here in Talk. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The section which continues to be edit-warred in-and-out of the article has several problems. The first major problem is the confusion about liberalism. Classic liberalism sounds a lot more like somewhere between American libertarianism and American conservativism, with Mr. Lutz re-iterating many of the arguments made by right-wing American commentary.

I think also that lumping 'same-sex, incestuous and polygamous relationships' (which the Lutz reference does and which was copied into this section) into one group violates WP:NPOV and is actually hostile and inflammatory.

The articles later cited make no mention of incest. The articles cited make no mention of President Obama at all. Since those claims aren't supported by the "new" references, I think they have no place in this section as they're unsupported.

Can't people just be nice, be objective and not try to push religio-political agendas? --InsufficientData (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback, much appreciated. Fyrdbird (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Honourable estate, instituted of God

This article is locked, and so cannot be edited, but the statement and definition that marriage is an honourable estate, instituted of God should be included. Rodchen (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That is an opinion or viewpoint, neither a universal one nor an uncontroverted fact. As such, it should not be put in the article as a factual statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So is it your opinion and viewpoint that marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship? That is like saying 'The declaration of independence is a paper written in 1776'. It is true, and I agree with it, but to define it as only that, actually makes it sort of false. Rodchen (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article on the United States Declaration of Independence, the opening sentence is a very direct descriptor of what the document is: "The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire." It doesn't offer an opinion of what a wicked-cool document it is, nor speculate on how the authors were inspired. If you wish to write essays on your theories of how God instituted the institution and your opinion of how honourable it is, there are plenty of places on the Internet where you could post it, places designed to encourage discussion, and I heartily encourage you to take advantage of them and join in the discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP's view is obviously a specific Christian one. There is a sub-section on Christian marriage, which already records particular Christian perspectives on marriage, so maybe, Rodchen, you need to suggest how that particular part of the article can be improved. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The article lead is not WP:NPOV

I cite from WP:NPOV:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

The lead of the article is not respecting this requirement, because it does not reflect heteronormativity as the majority view w.r.t. marriage. I do agree that the article must cover all cases, but the paper should reflect the current opinion status, reflected by elections, opinion polls, etc.

User:Dpotop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.93.50.72 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is just one example of common-but-not-universal restriction on marriage; covering that would also mean covering restrictions based on age, existing kinship, and extant marital status at the very least as well, and perhaps also race, caste, and religion. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but that is much additional burden into the intro. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is mixing small things with large ones, then saying that all are equal and none is worth mentioning. This means infringing on WP:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight, but you can often achieve it, for instance in this article. However, think about it: The resulting wikipedia article will not advance the LGBT rights movement, and at the same time will not be credible, nor encyclopedic. Is it really worth it? User:Dpotop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.130.39 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the view that "heteronormativity" is a big thing and things like marriage exclusivity (which is prevalent but not unanimous in cultures) and legal or cultural restrictions against child marriage (again prevalent, but not unanimous) are small things is not neutral. I made my comment seeking to avoid undue weight. (And may I suggest that you sign in and sign your messages using 4 tildes? It will avoid concerns that you are not the user you claim to be.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The lede is written from a NPOV. The inclusion of "opinion polls" would explicitly be a matter of POV since that is the expression of some people's opinions.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

dissolution of marriage in the intro

Currently, the intro includes In cultures that allow the dissolution of a marriage this is known as divorce. Of course, in varying cultures it is actually known as varying things, due to varying languages, and this is also not complete. I'd like to replace that with Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment. Comments? Concurrence? Complaints? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The original wording had always struck me as awkward. I support the change.--Trystan (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on Polygamy

This is relating to the edits made about the article. Don't know the exact rules of editing. I am a medical student and am studying the rules when time allows.

1. There is no resource discussing the epidemiology of polygamy, therefore its practice rates could not be quantativley identified.

2. Christianity did not allow polygamy.

3. A website about "women for women" is not a scientific or anthropological resource.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharohandy (talk • contribs) 06:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 2, I suggest you review the Polygamy in Christianity article; various forms of Christianity have (and some even continue to) allowed polygamy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the lack of sources on the extent of polygamy, and that a site "by women for women" is not a great source, though you might want to work out what you mean by Christianity not allowing polygamy, considering there are polygamous practices still condoned by certain christian schisms (it wouldn't help to suggest they aren't real Christians, by the way).137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about what we're objecting to; there's nothing inherent in a source being by women or for women which makes it unreliable. There are legitimate concerns about what the site isn't, we don't need to be concerned with the icky girliness of it all... --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is true, though whatever icky girliness is supposed to be I wasn't referencing this, but rather the principle that is implicit in the name- one of exclusivity. Imagine a site that purported to be "by whites for whites" being used as a source... It is simply the principle I was referencing, not the relation to gender.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see all sorts of sources with that sort of explicit or implicit exclusivity being used - sources by and for Catholics, or chess players, or so forth. Does such a thing imply a perspective? Of course. But neutrality is not a requirement of a source; reliability is, and one can be reliable with perspective. (And no, I'm not arguing that this source is reliable.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that my thoughts on the reliability of the source is now shaded by the fact that their main graphic is a selection of vibrators amongst books. "The Dinah Project is a sex education initiative for women of all ages and backgrounds, and their partners" so it seems they do include males, as long as they are the partners of women. The byline by women for women isn't by itself reason enough to discount the source as unreliable, though I suppose in this instance it was indicative of something fishy.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.217.181.54, 9 July 2011

Please change libido in the lede to libidinal to match the rest of the list, which is adjectives. 98.217.181.54 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Selection of marriage partner

I've been looking about in Wikipedia for some accounting of the phenomenon of women seeking marriageable partners by enrolling in university. I don't have sufficient citation content to either write an article or a section on this topic, but it is a significant social phenomenon. The reason why this came to mind is that I was looking for a "non-local" place to consider addition of content related to the following secondary source:

Koren, Marina (9 July 2011), "'Double Dels' becoming rarer", The News Journal, New Castle, Delaware, archived from the original on 10 July 2011, retrieved 10 July 2011 (Only the 1st page of the web article has been archived).

Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of polygamy

The discussion of polygamy is limited to polygamy and polygyny, but has no reference whatsoever to polyandry. Not only has polyandry been practiced, some cultures (such as the region of India near the Tibetan border) still practice it. I do not believe that the subject of plural marriages is adequately covered without some mention of this practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolsuelewis (talk • contribs) 07:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that there is no mention whatsover of polyandry. "In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry)." It may not be very deep, but there it is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding the page to CAT:SEXISM

I've reverted this [3]. I appreciate the argument that it has never been discussed leans the addition of the category in the direction of WP:BOLD. However I feel that whilst apparently one source lends weight to this, the second and third parts of WP:BRD are relevant in this instance. Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. See WP:FRINGE; having one source doesn't provide sufficient indication that this isn't a marginal view. AV3000 (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the discussion of feminist critiques of marriage as a sexist institution form a significant enough part of the article to warrant the category being added. As a description of the article's content, it is more clearly warranted than Demography of Philosophy of Love.--Trystan (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In the article's section Power and Gender Roles (I erroneously called it a subsubsection in my edit summary re-adding the category), the source by bell hooks is by an author who is herself notable (her name is linked to the Wikipedia article about her), and writes in a relevant field.

The section generally supports the categorization. Describing opposite-sex marriage as "traditionally rooted in patriarchy that promotes male superiority and power over women" is describing it as sexist, as is the case with "[t]he performance of dominant gender roles by men and submissive gender roles by women". That "less than half of respondents [in "studies" in the U.S.] viewed their opposite-sex relationships as equal in power, with unequal relationships being more commonly dominated by the male partner", is describing sexism.

Whether people use the word sexism is less important than whether what they describe fits the meaning of the word, and the Sexism category's lede defines sexism so as to include what this article says, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary (online ed.) ("(in later use) prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex", noun 2, as accessed Sep. 7, 2011).

The view is a significant minority view, thus reportable.

Additional sources can likely be found without a lot of effort, since the subject has had many discussions in print. I've just added two.

Law, theology, and folk custom typically gave women fewer advantages in marriage than they gave to men, and while that has changed to a degree in U.S. statute and case law in recent decades, globally that is less the case, where overall inequality under theology, under marriage law, and under custom rarely favors women and usually favors men, even as women, including feminist women, have continued to marry.

The inclusion of the view in the article is ground enough for categorizing accordingly, since "[e]ach article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." Since the category is not meant as a summary of an article but rather as a research aid, in this case for visitors to Wikipedia trying to find articles that have content on sexism, whether most readers of the article think marriage is sexist is not what matters, but whether readers of Wikipedia researching sexism can find the articles describing it does matter.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to have a section mentioning sexism, but it does not follow that category:Sexism should be added as categories are intended for 'defining characteristics' (which should be factual, not subjective). There's no point in adding everything vaguely related to 'sexism' to category:Sexism – we have 'what links here' for that. Occuli (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nontrivial content, while not the majority of the article, is sufficient for categorizing. Categories for an article's topic are not only for defining characteristics, but, under Wikipedia:Categorization ("[c]ategorize articles by characteristics of the topic"), for all characteristics of an article's topic.

Subjectivity is not a criterion, once the category is kept in existence.

What Links Here is not very useful to Wikipedia readers who are not advanced users, I'm not even clear how it would work for this purpose, and it's not a substitute for categorization. Categories are provided so a reader can see what articles have something in common that is of interest to a reader.

While searching works, search depends on a particular string, whereas categorization does not, as correspondence to a category's meaning is enough.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A leap from WP:CAT's "[c]ategorize articles by characteristics of the topic" to an assertion of "all characteristics of an article's topic" is incorrect per WP:DEFINING, and an assertion that "[s]ubjectivity is not a criterion" is incorrect per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. AV3000 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that subjectivity really comes into play here. According to WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, a category that requires subjective judgement is in itself invalid, and would be a candidate for deletion. That isn't the case with Category:Sexism. There is no subjectivity involved in classifying an article with a non-trivial discussion of sexism in that category.

Whether it is a defining characteristic or not is a different issue, I would lean towards saying it does meet the test set out - it could easily be mentioned in an expanded lede section that better summarized the entire article. A significant section of the article is about sexism.

Reviewing the criteria for categorization, I would reiterate my above suggestion that Category:Demography and Category:Philosophy of love be removed as categories, as they aren't adressed at all in the article, and therefore fail the test of being defining characteristics.--Trystan (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm changing my mind on the issue of defining for now: Maybe we shouldn't categorize this into sexism because of the article's need for more global content. I think sources will show that marriage is designed to foster and maintain genderal inequality against women in much of the world, enough to warrant coverage in the lede, warranting the categorization at that time.

A search within the discussion about the Sexism category for "subjectiv" yields no matches, so subjectivity was evidently not a concern for the category. Sources report something's sexism by either word or meaning, so the article can report that and then be categorized accordingly once the category is created and not deleted.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"[S]ources will show that marriage is designed to foster and maintain genderal inequality against women in much of the world ..." Designed by whom? Serious cross-cultural and historical scholarship on marriage does not, for the most part, simply accept the judgmental assumptions you appear to take for granted. Most human social groups, throughout history and across the globe, have not been shaped the post-Enlightenment understanding of human rights that is required to even understand what "sexism" is. I'm not saying that feminist critiques of the entire history of the institution of marriage don't have practical value today, where we actually do understand what "sexism" is, but they have little academic value in actually trying to comprehend that history. The category does not belong here. If you can spin off an entire entry from the relevant section of this one that revolves around feminist critiques of marriage inequality then add the category to that entry.Griswaldo (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• A discussion of how marriage has been seen by anthropologists to participate in the production of gender inequality is fine. The category is not, since that suggests a general stance that such a relation exists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, but gender inequality and sexism are not the same. The latter carries much stronger connotations and a judgmental assumption about the effects of inequality. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does carry that suggestion. Cat:Sexism isn't a collection of "things that are sexist", but rather of articles that are about sexism in some non-trivial way. I think the appropriate test is whether the sexism-related discussion in this article is significant enough to warrant the application of the category (essentially what WP:CAT suggests with the 'Could this be mentioned in the lede?' test.) Whether marriage as an institution is sexist or not is not a relevant or meaningful question in this context.--Trystan (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of the category I think it is clear that a general topic such as marriage does not belong in that category, which frankly does look like a collection of things that are sexist or which are of direct relevance to the topic of sexism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What the sources say depends on what the sources say, not on what it might be hoped they will or won't say. What I said is that rather than categorize now per the discussion it makes more sense to add content on point sufficient to justify inclusion in the lede and then to categorize accordingly. I hope there is not (stated above) an objection to doing the research.

In response to: "A discussion of how marriage has been seen by anthropologists to participate in the production of gender inequality is fine. The category is not, since that suggests a general stance that such a relation exists." This seems self-contradictory. If sources sufficiently show that marriage produces gender inequality or sexism, then the article can be categorized accordingly. Ditto for Misogyny.

We need not determine whether in our personal experiences of marriage (first- or second-hand or beyond) the institution is sexist. We're discussing what the sources say or whether research will uncover sourced content that is sufficient for the purpose.

That sexism is a judgment is not relevant, because if the category were inappropriate because it is judgmental then the category would not exist in Wikipedia. It does, therefore its judgmentalism is already accepted in Wikipedia.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexism as a concept existed before the word is known to have existed, as is true of most concepts embodied by English words (e.g., the color purple did not come into existence when the word purple did). What may have been described by a paragraph or a phrase or may never have been described in times past may not have had a one-word label until later, but that generally does not change the academic value of the modern discussion or label, including in this context.

I don't think critiques generally get their own articles. They're included in articles on the subjects of the critiques. So, if there is sufficient content that is a critique on marriage, it goes into the Marriage article, which then gets categorized according to that critique, assuming it meets the test of qualifying for the lede.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexism and color are so conceptually dissimilar that they cannot be meaningfully compared in the way you have. Sexism is a social construct, and it is conceptually modern, and not just modern in name only. Do I think sexism exists in modern Western society? Of course I do, but it is a pointless construct in other social contexts, historically and cross culturally. As I already pointed out above, it is also not the same as "gender inequality." Regarding topics, subtopics and Wikipedia entries you're simply wrong. There are all kinds of critiques that get their own entries. Regarding feminist critiques specifically have a look at Category:Feminism. There is ample material for an entry on feminist critiques of marriage. I would not hesitate to apply the sexism category to such an entry, but that doesn't mean it belongs to this one.Griswaldo (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A given behavior or belief that occurs both in a society that recognizes sexism and in a society that does not is considered by some people to be sexist only in one and not in the other (the same can be said across time). Not all sources agree with that perspective. For example, that a behavior is degrading of women in the West but not degrading, although identical and with the same political, economic, or sociological effect beyond degradation/nondegradation, in a non-Western society (or degrading today but not a thousand years ago) may be considered degrading of women in both societies (and times) by some sources and, likely, nondegrading of women in both societies (and times) by other sources. Both sets of sources are reportable.

An article is separate when its subject is notable. Ordinarily, a critique goes into the article that is about the subject that is the subject of the critique, either integrated with other content or as a separate section. Perhaps there's notability warranting an article on Criticism of Marriage, and only a see-also reference in the Marriage article. That's an interesting question and maybe someone has an answer.

A question was raised earlier: "[marriage d]esigned by whom?". Marriage is, among other things, a legal and religious institution. The relevant designers thus include the religious and legal designers, generally theologians and legislators, mostly from centuries ago added to by more recent (re)thinkers in the respective fields, some works likely restated by modern sources.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

Why are there two sub-sections that deal with this? is there any way to combine them or is there a specific reason they're separate?Ncboy2010 (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We have one section about SSM generally, primarily focusing on legal recognition, and a subsection of the Marriage and religion section that talks about religious views of SSM. We could combine the latter into the former, but I think the current organization makes more sense.--Trystan (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Request: I believe that this opening description of marriage should be revised back to it's original mean. This post has been influenced by the Gay marriage supporters. Personal Opinion: I have a few gay friends and I support their cause on equal rights. I do feel that they should not alienate the other 98% of the population by changing social media's like wiki. Like they say "He who controls the media controls the minds of thousands". Please lets be careful.

Current Version: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship

revised version: Marriage is a union or legal contract between a male and female that creates kinship

I have as much as voice as my gay/lesbian friends and co-workers.

Black.zeta (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

By "its original mean(ing)", do you mean the various forms of polygamy that some anthropologists think existed in many societies over many millennia, some of which seem to be recorded in the Bible? I'm pretty sure you don't. Marriage has existed in many forms for as part back as history takes us. There is no "original meaning" that can be singled out as being normal for all societies over all time. The lead is suitably broad in order to cover that range of variations. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done This should be addressed by discussion and consensus here, or through dispute resolution processes. IMHO the sentence would have to include both definitions, since both definitions have legal standing, as documented elsewhere in the article. --Lexein (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If the opening sentence has to cover all of the varying restrictions that are frequently but not consistently placed on entering into marriage by legal or social institutions - whether it be based on the gender, age, pre-existing marital status, religion, or consanguinity of the participants - then it becomes huge. Such restrictions are well covered in the article. This has been discussed extensively previously. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. No problem. --Lexein (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As the article's definition section demonstrates, anthropologists had abandoned "man + woman" definitions of marriage long before the advent of modern SSM.--Trystan (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

catholic view on marriage

Roman Catholicism no longer portrays procreation as the primary or only purpose of marriage (this article indicates the opposite)

Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti connubii beautifully expresses this great truth. He wrote:

Conjugal faith…blooms more freely, more beautifully, and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage….[This love] does not consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further, must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more in virtue, and above all that they grow in true love towards God and their neighbor….This mutual inward molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense…be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of children, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof

Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti connubii (1930), 23, 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.7.124 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Remarriage

As part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative, I am planning to create a separate page for remarriage (removing the current redirect to this page). I have enough information to add about remarriage (following divorce and widowhood respectively) that it seems to make more sense to create a separate page so that this one does not get too long. I will cover the topic primarily by summarizing related psychology and sociology research. If anyone is interested in contributing other aspects of remarriage let me know. Thanks! Jmenkin (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Link up other, more specific wiki pages on more specific information on marriage, for example: Marriage_in_the_United_States
~ender 2012-01-21 11:12:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.52.42 (talk)

Public

Marriages tend to be public and formal, so i think the lede should mention marriages are public and formal. Pass a Method talk 19:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The long tradition of marriage includes many that are not public (marriage used to be simply a matter of mutual agreement), and many that are not formal (formalization came later, and we continue to have things like "common-law marriages"). That they are often public and often formalized is not hidden from the introduction; it need not be in the opening sentence where we explain what marriage is.. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Improve request

Please improve the article World Marriage Day, which may be deleted very soon. Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology improve request

Please include under the etymology heading: Marriage comes from the Latin: matrimonium whose prefix is matri- meaning "motherhood" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.133.170 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you've confused "marriage", which comes from the Latin "maritatus", with "matrimony". If you have some source to the contrary, please point us to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add Non-sex Marriage to your definitions. It is simply marriage between two human beings, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation. See www.nonsexmarriage.org for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.168.14 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Checking the Google News archives, I see that this term gets zero hits. It does not appear to be a term used significantly in discussion, and should not be included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A Google Search for Non-sex marriage returns: About 98,300,000 results in (0.32 seconds)There is also an entire website devoted to this type of marriage. NatGertler is attempting to quash an opposing viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.168.14 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, a general Google search for the phrase "non-sex marriage" returns a claim of 205,000 matches... and then when you go to page through them, you find it's only thirteen unique hits. This is not a term in common use. That someone made a web page to try to promote the term does not mean that Wikipedia needs to promote it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

NatGertler is attempting to suppress a viewpoint that he does not share. NatGertler is a homophobe who has a play on words for the offensive 'God Hates Fags' slur on his homepage. Please help!!!!! Stop this oppression! Wiki is supposed to represent all viewpoints!!!!

If you wish to engage in personal attacks (and particularly ill-informed ones, to boot), kindly take them to my talk page - you'll find a link for it at the end of this message. If you want to engage in policy-based discussion about the editing of this article, that's what this page is here for. But no, it's not true that "Wiki is supposed to represent all viewpoints" - see WP:FRINGE]. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

NatGertler does not seem overtly homophobic, but he does not explain his interest in the topic either. The figs thing seems to be satire. It's dangerous to be ironic on the internet.81.178.145.170 (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To try to explain, editors do not have to give a resume before editing. We ask that postings on this page relate to article improvement. Suggesting that an editor list political/sexual opinions stretches well beyond "article improvement." Please confine yourself to the topic of article improvement.

Deviating from that agenda suggests that an editor has run out of objective material to discuss and therefore is resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.

Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

History

I realize that not all history can be placed here. Nevertheless, we seem to be missing ancient Jewish practices, upon which a number of religions are ostensibly based. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To rectify this I copied a historical subsection from Jewish views on marriage. It does not quite flow, but I hoped it was a start in generating some historical basis from which later Christian Europe derived some of it's values. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Challenge to the claim that marriage law has always been a subject of "major concern" in Christianity.

The claim under the discussion of Christianity and marriage that marriage law and theology have always been a major concern of Christianity is simply not true. Marriage was long considered a matter of minor importance to the church, to the point that marriages were not even blessed inside the church, but blessings were relegated to the church steps. It was not until the 12th c. that the Church began to consider marriage a sacrament, and not until the Council of Trent that marriage required the presence of a priest and two witnesses. Shepherdguy (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Shepherdguy

Very true, and even then the church's interest was mainly guided by the secular importance, the wealth, and the influence of the prospective partners.81.178.145.170 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The material we have today relates to nobility. But 99% of marriages did not involve nobility. Our knowledge of history comes mainly from the "upper classes." But most people were farmers/serfs until the late Middle Ages, then there were a few tradespeople, I suppose. Not a lot of wealth in most cases. Student7 (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly, it wasn't gender exclusive on that "Do not Commit Adultery" commandment part of the Old Testament Law. Also, it isn't true that men didn't have to be faithful in marriage. If so, King David got told off by God for having an affair with Bathsheba and then killing her husband Uriah to make sure nobody found out. He lost his son, who died 8 days after birth, and war fell upon his household, including the later Absalom rebellion, where also, sometime prior to the rebellion and attempted regicide and patricide and usurpation, Absalom's brother, or maybe it was half brother, raped his sister, or maybe it was step-sister, hard to recall in those day where polygamy was legal. Anyway, Absalom avenged his sister by killing his brother. Also, in Genesis, one of Jacob's daughters was raped and though Jacob was willing to allow the marriage, provided the men of the town were circumcised, Jacob's 10 kids, Benjamin was born later and in fact his mother died from the forced march they had to endure to go to safety. Anyway, Jacob's 10 kids murdered the men of the town, including the rapist and would-be-brother-in-law over the incident. Also, a woman, married, and perhaps a virgin as well, raped in a field by a man would be spared though the rapist would be executed. Also, a man of Midian and a women from Israel, or maybe it was a man from Israel and a women from Midian, though I think it's the former, anyway, they had an adulterous relationship and [B] both [/B] were speared in order to appease God.

Also, let's not forget that Jesus forgave the adulteress in the New Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.166.115 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

History of marriage

This really should be a separate article, rather than a redirect here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bible's title incorrectly lowercased in article

The Bible is shown in lower case throughout much of the article.

While an atheist, I still recognize that even if the Bible holds no merit for me, it is still the title of a book, and thus should be shown in capital letters. No style manual of English usage lower-cases the Bible's title, though that is sometimes done through error, or "political correctness" which is not correct.

The article should be edited to correct the miscapitalization of the title of the Bible. The word in this article specifically refers to the religious text, and not a general set of instructions (the bible of auto mechanics, for example). 76.0.9.41 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• You don't wanna fix it? BE BOLD. Welcome. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 02:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Group Marriages

"No country legally condones group marriages" shows bias. Suggest changing to "No country legally recognizes group marriages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.150.220 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To say "No country legally recognizes group marriages" sounds like countries neither recognize nor prohibit group marriage. In fact, it is widely prohibited. tahc ^chat 01:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, then maybe "permits" is more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.150.220 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Details in lead

Considering the inclusion of details about legal recognition in the lead, surely its reasonable if the detail is there because it is factual: almost all of the countries which have same-sex marriage, for example, are indeed developed countries. Using the word 'tend' surely means that the details are factual. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's something that belongs in the main body because it is a side detail. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems that I'm outnumbered here, so I guess I'm now arguing for its removal rather than against its inclusion. My case is that there are several exceptions, so a detailed and fair representation of the facts can only be made in the main body, that it is a side/extra detail and therefore shouldn't be in the lead and that it is unnecessary information which is not a summary of the main body, as a lead is supposed to be. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to reduce the length of the details with my latest edit. I agree with 'Knowz' that its reasonable to include the details if terms such as 'tend' or 'usually' are used as that would cover any exceptions. Going through the list of countries with same-sex marriage it is true that pretty much almost all of them are considered to be 'developed' countries one way or another. Would a shortened version such as the one I've attempted be agreeable to you, 'Crzyclarks'? --Scientiom (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Another reason not to include it in the lead, is that it is a purposeful attempt to make same-sex marriage look like the right thing because the developed countries have it, while polygamy is the domain of the poor/uneducated/backwards, etc. Although I think it's true, it's still biased and un-encyclopaedic. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that's opinion of course - such should be ignored when writing the article. So as long as the details in the lead are factual, then that's all which matters. --Scientiom (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They are factual, but choosing to put them in the lead is biased, as they don't belong there. The reasons I listed still stand. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The statements about "developed nations" don't look appropriate to the lead to me; it's a vague and fuzzy claim about the very current specifics of legalities; it is unsourced and biased (we don't have a working definition of "developed" here, and few enough countries have legalized SSM that there are varying other commonalities which might be found; we don't have a WP:RS indicating that that's the commonality that should be noted), and it is not represented in the body of the article, so it failed WP:LEAD ("Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Leaving just "...also allow same-sex marriage or polygamous marriage" may cause some readers to make wrong assumptions: For example a reader may get the impression that the countries with same-sex marriage are also the ones with polygamous marriage, whereas almost the complete opposite is true. Without context being provided for readers, there is much chance of a reader making an incorrect assumption. -Scientiom (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why it says "or" instead of "and". Crzyclarks (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"or" sure seems to work there for me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, "or" is great! Reasons against it so far have been poor. Can we get the discussion here going Scientiom and Knowzilla. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Scientiom; millions of years can be considered recent depending on the context. In this context, 7 years ago is very recent. I've done 3 reverts now so I'm hoping somebody else will revert that edit... Crzyclarks (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The two are very different concepts however, and there should be separate sentences for each - perhaps you'd like to suggest an alternative? --Scientiom (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you mean polygamy and same-sex marriage are two very different concepts, then you're right. That is the only possible reason for separating (at least that I've seen so far). However, the wording you want gives the wrong facts and the wrong impression. That polygamous marriage has not been legalised recently and same-sex marriage has only been legalised recently. Until a suitable wording can reflect that, then the current version is wrong and should return to the stable version. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As much as it is hard to define what 'recently' means, more than several years cannot possibly be considered to be recently. And again, as I said before: Putting both of those together may cause some readers to make wrong assumptions: For example a reader may get the impression that the countries with same-sex marriage are also the ones with polygamous marriage, whereas almost the complete opposite is true. Without context being provided for readers, there is much chance of a reader making an incorrect assumption. --Scientiom (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. At least a century, in the context of legalisation of same-sex marriage in human history can be considered recent. Again, when the word "or" is inserted, anybody with even a basic grasp of the English language knows "or" is the opposite of "and", so people reading the English Wikipedia will not get that impression. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Still, without context some readers may get a wrong impression - you refused to accept the details if both were to be in the same sentence, which has led to them needing to be kept separate. --Scientiom (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

They won't. I never did that. Go back to the stable version and then propose a new wording on the talk page that does not give the wrong impression or state things that are not true. I said above what they are. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Same sex marriage - appeal for better arguments

A number of statements have cropped up in various articles including this one that "more developed" countries allowed same-sex marriage. This may be accurate, but what should the accumulation of material goods have to do with same sex marriage?

Also "smarter people." Well, smarter people also commit white collar crime, probably caused the housing bubble, caused some important derivative companies to fail on Wall Street, etc. etc. "Smarter people" doesn't really seem to be a key either IMO.

I think the editors are (or should be) looking for "more humane laws", "better" judiciaries, "more liberal societies," etc. And no, I don't know how to define these npov, but there must be someone who has done a study somewhere. Correlating same-sex with more money seems fairly irrelevant; correlating it with "smarter people" might be more convincing but not without its faults. "More liberal legal system" would seem to correlate better IMO.Student7 (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In the sense it is being used here it means more than just wealthy: more educated, more advanced, more progressive, etc. --Scientiom (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sez who? You repeatedly try to insert your claims about developed countries without any sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's always been there, I didn't add it. >_> And 90%+ of the countries with SSM are indeed considered developed countries. --Scientiom (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the better question—rather than better arguments, do we or do we not have sources that discuss a correlation between attitudes toward SSM and wealth, intelligence, or any other factor? If sources haven't seen fit to discuss that correlation, it would be no more relevant than if several of the countries with it start with the same letter. If they do, we should take their lead on it. I would suspect there are plenty of sources that do discuss such a correlation, but that's really the deciding factor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Essaypedia

Dear colleagues wikipedians, involved in this discussion!

Description specified at the part of the article allocated for a definition generalizes, in some way, the notion of essential human relations - legal, social, sexual. But I have strong doubts whether this description is a definition of a known concept. And though the phrase "called spouses", recently added, provides a reference to the well-known term "marriage", this is, however, too few to argue that it was an attempt to formulate its definition.

Friends, I get the impression that the creation of the definition in this article is the last stage of its development, which is a violation of encyclopedic principle valid on the Wikipedia, ie: first put the term, then get its sourced definition, and finally place an extensive description, if available. Therefore, if you agree that I am right at this point, there's a suspicion of original research in the field of a definition - and from here it's a short road to breach the principle of a neutral point of view.

In addition to the above, I would also like to note the following: while reading the article can not help noticing that its writing style lies in adding content, in a peculiar manner and in any order, from a variety of cited sources. I do not want to go into a detailed discussion, at least not at this time, so as not to blur the essence of my speech.

That is an essay written article. An essay written about the essential human relationships, as I have mentioned above. An essay illustrating only one "point of view", namely: the subject is not able to be considered at different points of view. And in accordance with such a quasi-point of view, as if to excuse, gives a significant quasi-definition.

In my opinion the article does not meet the requirement of being encyclopedic which is a fundamental feature of Wikipedia very welcome from the first pillar. In other words, the assumption to be encyclopedic had lost here its importance, or yet otherwise a big fish, Encyclopedia, has been killed and in its place was brought to life Essaypedia. --Robsuper (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Robsuper, could you please be a bit more precise? I have no idea what exact changes you're advocating here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Seraphimblade, I thought that all came out from the event :)

What grace may be added to commonplace matters by the power of order and connection.

— The epigraph from Horace on the title page of the 18th century Encyclopédie

The article provides links, by use of 'Main article' or 'See also' templates, to many other Wikipedia articles related to the concept of marriage. This is an interesting trick, not infringing the rules of Wikipedia, which is used in this case, in my opinion, rather only to a previously assumed (or expected) generality of the content of the article, probably in order to achieve a desired neutral point of view (WP: NPOV).

Let's ask ourselves at this point an important question: Is that generality of its content and its versatility, even nice to the eye, the intention of the sources cited here? Or at least some of them, and if so which ones? I ask this, because Wikipedia's role, resulting in its rules, is seen as fairness and is assumed as neutral (intermediate between something and something, inert) transfer of information from reliable sources.

I think that in case of certain concepts - those that have extremely common and wide range of use by humans - we should not allow over-generalization (this is relative), or a synthesis of the aspects in one article. If exists commonly accepted fact - known and used by an absolute majority of the people (although this assumption is debatable) - that the definition of the concept already exists, and is supported by reliable sources, respectively important, then let us take this definition and assign it to that term, in the first step.

And only at the second stage let us consider, as for the "site of meaning", its other aspects. Along with such a pattern of procedure (see: encyclopedia), you may find that the existence of previously established neutrality of the article is, to say the least, inappropriate.

Furthermore, the definition now included in the article is a result of "original research in the topic of marriage". With such established treatment of marriage phenomena, seems natural current layout of this article - a layout that resembles rather article about an object in the geographic space, such as a town.

Personally, I think it is necessary here to put links to related articles in an encyclopedic way possible, which is modest, neutral, not overbearing, without a lengthy introductions and a dubious comments backed by borrowed footnotes.

Therefore I suggest to:

1. correct the definition to one that reflects a weighted system of reliable sources. For such reason, the definition of the Encyclopedia Britannica seems to be a suitable candidate. Great request at this point: please do not treat the achievements of anthropologists as the main interpretation for the definition of the concept.
2. give up attempting to obtain generality at "any price". This means a significant shortening of the article by removing some of the paragraphs, such as those that easily overlap content of the linked article, along with templates 'Main article', or 'See also'.
3. remove the parts about religious aspect. Here, I propose only links to related parties, their names are relevant to the content - no need for additional clarification on this page.
4. remove the parts about legal aspect - here I offer a very brief introduction and template 'Main Article' for Marriage law.
5. remove the section entitled 'History of marriage by culture'. This is subject for serious monograph. Overview of such an issue in a short encyclopedia article is really heroics job.

Latin: Facilius dixit quam fecit.

I know it's "easier said than done", and that what I outlined above is, I suppose, well known to a community involved in the development of this article. I would however demonstrate for some persons that perhaps too easily, enjoying freedom on Wikipedia's pages, take actions not supported by reliable sources and inadequate for the weight diagram of this concept. --Robsuper (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

"In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage." If they limit marriage to two person of the opposite sex, how can some of these allow polygamous marriage? Acoma Magic (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Whoever wrote that probably has English as a secondary language. Pass a Method talk 08:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Because polygynous marriage is (in at least some interpretations) not one marriage for more than two people, but simply the on-exclusivity of marriage -- a person is not limited to one marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This "gender binary" stuff is actually a disputed article in a series on transgenderism. Marriage: being re-defined on Wikipedia instead of just defining it for what it has always been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.121.57 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

There is a sentence in the introduction that I think could be slightly improved: "The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved."

The act of marriage also usually confers legal rights (in addition to obligations). Although, semantically, I'm not sure if these rights derive from the act of marriage, or if they are a secondary result of the formation of a family unit (that IS the result of the act of marriage). Perhaps this doesn't matter greatly.

I also am not clear on the use of the term "normative" in the sentence, because the lay definition doesn't seem to confer any added information: Establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, esp. of behavior: "negative sanctions to enforce normative behavior".

Changing the sentence to "The act of marriage usually results in the establishment of legal rights and obligations between the individuals involved." is the best I could do.

Cheers

70.179.21.51 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the Introduction, it states that marriage is a legal contract. This is not correct. Marriage is a legal status; but it is not a contract. In contract the terms of the agreement are legally enforceable. In marriage this is not the case.

I suggest that 'contract' be deleted and 'status' inserted.

Steve hayes (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The terms of marriage are legally enforceable. You can be forced to cover your spouses debts. You can be forced to support your spouse if you violate the contract. Here in the US, the fact that it is a civil contract is spelled out in just those words in some states' laws (here is Minnesota for example, and Missouri); and it's not just a US thing, here's a discussion of marriage as a contract in Ireland. Some dictionaries refer to it as a contract, here's a law dictionary discussing it as such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Not Done. Marriage is a contract. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 01:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the judgement of Fearon v Treanor, New York Court of Appeal 272 NY 268 (1936) 'There are, in effect, three parties to every marriage, the man, the woman and the state.... Marriage is not a contract within the meaning of the provision of the Federal Constitution which prohibits the impairment by the States of the obligation of contracts.The Domestic Relations Law provides in great detail when and how marriage may be entered into, how the relation may be dissolved, the grounds for divorce and annulment, the rights and liabilities of husband and wife, the age at which the relation may be entered into and the class of persons who are disqualified from marrying.' This clearly states that it is not a contract. And it is not. In a contract, a party may apply to a court to have the terms upheld or may be granted compensation. This cannot happen with marriage. One can also see that marriage is not a contract from the fact that parties to marriage have increasingly attempted to create contracts, and the courts, when, on divorce, presented with such contracts have been loathe to recognise them, preferring to uphold divorce law.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.198.217 (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, no, this does not say marriage is not a contract, merely that it is not a contract within the meanings of certain provisions; that does not mean that it is not a contract within the meanings of other provisions, or within some more general use of language. In fact, if you read Fearon more fully, you'll find: ""Marriage is considered a civil contract [...] It, certainly, does differ from ordinary common law contracts, by reason of its subject-matter and of the supervision which the state exercises over the marriage relation, which the contract institutes". So even if this were an article specific to U.S. law, which it is not, the Fearon ruling would be proof that, yes, applying the word "contract" is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, reading comprehension 101, no offense...it merely says that marriage is different than other contracts, in that the States can "impair the obligation" of a marriage contract (by divorce or annulment), not that it isn't one. – Teammm <sup>Let's Talk! :)</sup> 09:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, this article is "Marriage" for the entire world, not just the US or one state.Student7 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles in Wikipedia should be regarded as derived from (reliable sources) rather than as existing for (someone, something, or even "the entire world"). This is an important distinction that should be considered and used in practice. --Robsuper (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki

User:Wizikj changed the links to Polish language version. That was erroneous, since the article he inserted is rather controverial on Polish laguage project, has been twice selected for deletion recently and primarily deals only with the subject of one form of marriage: monogamous and heterosexual union. Historically, on Polish language wiki the article that deals with the term "Marriage" as a whole was and is Marriage (social institution). It would be wrong if we would follow suit and allow ourselfs to be drawn into the useless battle between 'right' and 'wrong' marriages. yours, --emanek (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The above statement amazes me: really talking about the battle? But who are the soldiers?
You are posting:

• "marriage as a whole" - show me a source that explicitly defines the term "marriage as a whole". Does this source is, in your opinion, the article marriage, or maybe pl:małżeństwo (instytucja społeczna)? I ask rhetorically.
• "article is rather controversial on Polish language project" - whether it is a community opinion or your own, fortified emotionally, personal assessment?
• "has been twice selected for deletion recently" - how do you know that it's they are right? Maybe you're a judge...

Some good advice: I think that you should look carefully beforehand at what you have to say in Wikipedia so as not to depreciate your own position on issues under consideration. --Robsuper (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• What amazes me is the tone and assumption that I am judge of editorial conflicts on Polish language project. No, the history of both articles talk pages speak for itself. What surprises me even more is that as an editor on that project you are rather well aware of it. The article (at the time of my original comments here) was described by it's authors as an article of a (i quote) 'a monogamous, heterosexual union'. Whether it has changed since - I do not know since I am not following changes on Polish project. Nor am I suggesting who was right or wrong in their conflict on this subject. However, I do know (and assume that you too) that a definition of a marriage in 2012 (as well as in the long history of such unions) is much wider than that of a 'monogamous, heterosexual union'. And my position on issues is rather constant - it is not what I like, but what is and could be sourced. Nonetheless, thank you for your comments and suggestions. Respectfully, --emanek (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Emanek, nice to talk to you again :) I would like to give you some facts about the contents of pl:małżeństwo (marriage) at the time when you placed here your original comment, dated May 17. Well, after checking the revision history, the term "monogamous, heterosexual union" cited by you does not appear in the definition of marriage. I suppose that you were then under a very evocative influence of this edit, also performed on May 17. This edit has introduced, wrongly, the term "marriage of persons of the opposite sex" in place of the term being defined, ie. "marriage" and was subsequently withdrawn on June 6, and so after 3 weeks of presence in Wikipedia. The mentioned article perhaps may not is as "verbose" as marriage but, IMO, honestly inform (in a manner of encyclopaedic, and with no undue comments) about various aspects of marriage, including the very contemporary ones. And so I can't agree with you as to the suggestion that it describes just "monogamous, heterosexual union" – in my opinion it is a wrong assertion, not having its reflection in the content of the said article. You write, moreover, that in 2012 the definition of marriage is "much wider". And I ask you: how do you understand the term "much wider" in the present context? Perhaps you want to tell me: "a marriage between people of the same sex." But whether for this reason you must set the definition of marriage as "union of people called spouses that creates kinship"? Maybe so. But looking at the prominent sources such a change is not yet noticeable. Therefore in Wikipedia, based strictly on reliable sources while maintaining an appropriate balance, we should apply such definition: "union of a man and a woman awaiting the birth of their own children." And just like you, I can say now: my position on these issues is rather stable - this is not what I like, but what is and could be sourced. Sincerely, --Robsuper (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Group marriages and the Caingang / Kaingang people

The "History of marriage by culture" section of this article includes

Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.<ref>"Group Marriage" (Document). Encyclopædia Britannica Online. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)</ref>

I was curious about that and clicked on "Caingang". There's no mention of group marriage in that article. There is Talk:Kaingang people#Murdock claims where an editor makes a good case that we need better supporting data. The Encyclopædia Britannica article only cites Murdock and also adds "even there the frequency was but 8 percent." --Marc Kupper|talk 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Polygynous marriage section

There's a section about same-sex marriage and another about group marriage. But polygynous marriage, that seems to be recognized in more countries than same-sex and group marrriages, doesn't have a section. I think one should be created. Considering the article is controversial and is semi-protected, I am discussing this here before making any changes to the article.--Cattus <sup>talk</sup> 11:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Prepubescent marriage in Iran

Sorry for what might seem a provocative heading, but that is exactly the subject, and I see it has already been removed from this article. The reason I raise it now is that a petition is doing the rounds on Facebook, and on investigating I find not only this article (which has already been called an 'unreliable' source by one editor here) [4], but also this article from International Business Times [5] which confirms that there is a push being made to legalize marriage to girls as young as nine in Iran. Should this perhaps be included in this article, or at least in Child marriage? I realize that the editor who previously tried to include this slightly misrepresented the situation by saying such marriages had already been legalized. Alfietucker (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As ugly as it may be, child marriage is not something new or different, it's part of the long history of marriage, and it isn't even a current situation in Iran, merely under discussion, so I find it hard to see that that current discussion of one region has a place in the larger marriage article. It would be more up to the editors at child marriage to judge its appropriateness there; another article that may (or may not, I've not looked that closely) be suited to include the information is Persian marriage. If there are multiple articles about the push, it may be appropriate to give the campaign its own article. To the extent that child marriage is discussed here, it should be discussed primarily as it exists in general, with specific callouts of individual jurisdictions limited to the extremes (first, youngest, whatever.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur that it should be law already rather than "under discussion." It seems to me that a general statement could be made under history: "Prepubescent marriage was allowed in the following countries/cultures, under the following circumstances prior to the 20th century (or whatever)." Some general statement.

But current prepubescent marriage must be illegal under some UN declaration or other. Anyway, IMO, current jurisdictions where it is legal should be named. Student7 (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference to section "History of marriage by culture" seems wrong

I read page 180 of "in evolution: a study in comparative ethics" (scanned copy at archive.org) and I don't see how the reference supports the statement: - "Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time." - The reference only describes some marriage rules in the time of Hammurabi. At best, it is only one example for a broad statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.116 (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note 77

Note 77 is insubstatial, the author to whom refered offers opinion, and no verifiable facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.120.61 (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Greek marriage is poorly described and may be wrong

The plays of Menander generally refer to a wedding ceremony and this site (http://www.richeast.org/htwm/greeks/marriage/marriage.html) says that a marriage took place over three days. This flies in the face of the statement on the page that there was not a formal wedding ceremony. The works of Robert Flaceliere further argue that marriage was a ceremonial activity in Ancient Greece (I can only get to some pages in the google version of the book, so I can't reliably cite the information as I see it without context). It seems that this section needs some significant improvement. I am not comfortable with my ability to word it well, however.

Bfishburne (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hanlon and White Change

The line in the article, "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[18] with a reference to Hanlon and White p. 116 is actually a quote from Duran Bell, "Defining Marriage and Legitimacy," Current Anthropology 1, no. 2 (April 1997): 239. I'm not sure about the other two references by Hanlon and White, but that particular attribution is wrong. Please fix it.

Supersj (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, why don't you fix it? Lova Falk talk 11:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the citation, as well as the other "Hanlon & White" citations, which are all from that Bell article.--Trystan (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Dawkins remark about disposition towards polygamy

In the Seal's Tale (q.v. The Ancestor's Tale), Dawkins came up with criteria to determine how polygamous/polyandrous a species is. For example, the male elephant seal grows to enormous size, compared to females. They fight for harems, killing females who accidentally get in the way, merely by falling on them, squashing them, during their fights. These seals are extremely polygamous. There are a number of other criteria, as well. The material is not footnoted in the Ancestor Tale article.

The material was placed here to indicate that there is a slight predisposition in humans towards polygamy. For example, the human male is slightly (5") taller than the female. He is more muscular.

Among other things, this suggests (without stating it) that the Tibetan practice of polyandry (for example) may have been forced on their society by circumstances but is counter-instinctive. Some societies have condoned harems at various times. This can be expected and is instinctive.

I don't know how to "clarify" this without wandering into OR. I don't have a copy of Dawkins' book handy, which might help. Nor am I sure what sort of clarification is desired. Student7 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the current wording is somewhat ambiguous. I wasn't sure if it was saying that a slight majority of cultures practice polygamy (it's much more), that a slight majority of marriages are polygamous (it's much less), or something else. From what you have written above, it sounds like Dawkins is saying that humans have a slight biological tendency towards polygamy?--Trystan (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That is accurate. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The current version is much clearer, thanks.--Trystan (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Relationship Between Marriage and Happiness

Because humans have been getting married for millennia, it is intuitive to believe that marriage yields many benefits, but there are also concrete, observable benefits. Married people are on average happier than those who are not married.(ref)Glenn, N. D. (1975). The contribution of marriage to the psychological well-being of males and females. Journal Of Marriage And The Family, 37(3), 594-600. doi:10.2307/350523>(endref) In his 1975 study, Glenn was responding to the theory that marriage as an institution negatively affected women and positively affected men. In his study, which contained over 2000 participants, Glenn found that approximately 53.4% of men and 65.3% of women rated their marriage as “very happy.” Only 11.7% of men and 12.6% of women rated their marriage as “less than very happy.” On average, happier marriages are linked with happier lives. Furthermore, one may imagine that you could have a happy marriage but also have an unhappy life. While possible, it is unlikely; married people report higher levels of everyday happiness than those who are not married.(ref)Glenn, N. D. (1975). The contribution of marriage to the psychological well-being of males and females. Journal Of Marriage And The Family, 37(3), 594-600. doi:10.2307/350523(endref) Glenn’s study was not perfect; it had issues with diversity and causation. Further studies have been conducted to alleviate these problems.

Glenn’s study was not diverse and only applied to Caucasians. Diener et. al. (2000) used a much broader set of data in an attempt to determine whether or not this relationship was visible across cultures. Diener et. al. used a total of 59,169 participants from 42 nations across the world. The study looked at subjective well-being (SWB) to determine happiness. SWB is a composite score created using the participant’s life satisfaction and emotional well-being scores. Overall, the study found that married people are happier than non-married people almost unanimously across cultures.(ref)Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 419-436. doi:10.1177/0022022100031004001>(endref)

Alois Stutzer and Bruno Frey (2006) attempted to determine causality in the relationship between marriage and happiness. They conducted a 17 year longitudinal study using information from over 15,000 participants compiled by the German Socio-Economic Panel. They found that marriage does have an effect on people’s happiness, but at the same time happy people are more likely to get married.(ref)Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Does marriage make people happy, or do happy people get married?. The Journal Of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 326-347. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.043>(endref) In other words, marriage may increase happiness, but naturally happier people tend to have a penchant for marriage.

Much speculation has occurred over why the relationship between marriage and happiness exists. One possible explanation is the abundance of quantifiable benefits to marriage. For instance, Argyle (2002) reports that marriage increases self-esteem between the couple, which could explain the link between happiness and marriage.(ref)Argyle, M. (2002). Causes and correlates of happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwarz(Eds.) Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 353-373). New York, NYUS: Russell Sage Foundation.(endref) Furthermore, married people tend to live healthier lives,(ref)Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 39-63. doi:10.1037/00332909.112.1.39(endref) and this also could account for the increased happiness among married couples.

Turpanpolax15 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how these studies reconcile with this one: "Researchers: Marriage doesn't make you happy".(ref)Researchers: Marriage doesn't make you happy(endref)

It seems to say, if it can be believed, (and coupled with studies reported in this article) that "happy people tend to get married."

It may also say that (unsurprisingly) that unhappy people get divorced! Student7 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. No consensus that the article needs this. Try a post on this talk to ask for more editor's opinions. Vacation<sup>nine</sup> 06:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)