Talk:Marriage/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Boswell

Nkras, please explain why you removed the reference to the work of John Boswell. Your comment says only, "(rm Boswell as single source with no additional citations noted.)" If a single source isn't enough, maybe we should blank this article and start over, requiring every sentence to have more than one source citation! Sdsds 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bowsell appears to have posited his own unique view of history. I am not convinced that it is valid and not a pushing of his research for POV. Nkras 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In an article like this one, every source is a POV source - we are describing something culturally defined. Boswell's is a minority view of course and shouldn't be presented as academic consensus, but it's certainly notable - a rare crossover between academe and notice in the popular press.
Also, I hope I'm not restarting a quarrel (I haven't been keeping up), but why does "traditional marriage" redirect here? It seems like most people searching for "traditional marriage" would be looking for the movement.
Plus, when did "transfer of property" get cut from the lead? The only three actual words I contributed to the article, and they've been replaced with much vaguer formulations. DanB†DanD 04:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Traditional marriage redirects here because there was no Traditional marriage movement article when Traditional marriage was deleted. The history of the Traditional_marriage article shows how many administrators it took just to get where we are now.
I too would like an emphasis on property restored to the lead. Heck, I can even cite Boswell on this: The social institution of hetero-sexual marriage [...] has been in most premodern societies a property arrangement. p.32. (Boswell, John (1994). Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Villard. ISBN 0679432280.) Then again, I'd also like to see the lead mention romantic love. Oh, and it would also be nice if it mentioned that the union is usually expected to be at least somewhat permanent. Sdsds 08:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can quote a lot more people than Boswell on transfer of property as a function of marriage! DanB†DanD 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Nkras, did you remove the Boswell citation again? Please read Historical revisionism (negationism). For that matter, try reading Holocaust denial. Sdsds 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from the planet Zog

Or, at least, from someone who has not been involved with this debate, and came here via the RfC. I think the lead as it stands right now is in very good shape, NPOV-wise, explanation-wise, potential alien-readership wise, and everything. It makes very clear that marriage may semantically be used to refer to many different types of unions, but that many people believe that only one such union should be allowed to actually occur. This is just fine-the term "murder" has a clear linguistic meaning, even though I imagine most are of the opinion that it should never be allowed. For such a contentious topic, I think an excellent job has been done. Seraphimblade 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tax brackets, marriage and children

Most societies/countries give married couples a more favourable tax bracket than single individuals and non-married couples (which are usually treated by the tax code as two single persons).

The rationale behind this *might* be / *might* have been that "marrying" and "having children" were considered to be synonyms (i.e. if you married you'd also soon have children, because if you were married you'd invariably have sex and before birth control that invariably led to children).

Because children are an economic burden (i.e. they cost money to raise, everything from diapers to university tuition). Another rationale might have been to encourage individuals to marry and subsequently have children.

However, today, this connection is no longer a "given" in most western societies, i.e. married couples without children are just as common as non-married couples with children. The tax code clearly favours marriage over children.

Might be an interesting addition to the article. I started by mentioning the more favourable tax code treatment of married couples in the article. --Soylentyellow 10:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

as i have said, there is not always favorable taxation for married couples. if the tax rates are such that the tax a married couple pays is exactly twice (or less) of that of a single person making half of the income, then married couples will never pay more, and with income averaging, will often pay less than their combined tax paid as two single persons. however, that is clearly not the case in the U.S. (the tax for married filing jointly is more than double the tax on half the income for the single taxpayer class) and i suspect other places. but if spouses make roughly the same pay to start with, income averaging doesn't do much to help. certainly the most common case in the U.S. is that spouses do not make roughly the same income (stay at home mom or part-time employed mom or full-time mom and unemployed/underemployed dad, etc.) so most married couples do better tax-wise as married than if they were not. but not all. r b-j 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the lead - the path of several small sentences

Perhaps we could reach better agreement on the lead sentence if it were broken up into smaller sentences. For example:

A marriage is a particlar type of socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of people. Most frequently, a marriage involves one man and one woman. People marry to: form a family unit, legitimize sexual relations and procreation, educate and develop offspring, gain social or economic stability, security, or companionship, or for various combinations of these purposes.

It's possible we could then all agree on the first sentence. All the controversy could then be in the second or third sentence. Wouldn't that be a nice improvement? Sdsds 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what consensus?

You've still got an RfC up about the 31 Dec "consensus", so... The "consensus" wording sacrificed accuracy in the name of political correctness by giving undue weight to the tiny proportion of SSM. Use of sex-neutral terms for the description of marriage is misleading if you don't qualify it immediately with the overwhelming predominance of intra-sexual (I think that's right--in export a transfer to a subsidiary in known as an "intercompany", not "intracompany", transfer...) marriage. Anyway, the current wording omits the whole ugly "people" cul-de-sac (sorry, Sdsds) and is less misleading (though I would guess "most often between one man and one or more women" would be most accurate...but certainly won't act w/o a cite) , and the RfC is about ancient history... so does anyone object to deleting it? Andyvphil 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edited template

rm RfC on Talk, mv verify, rm neutrality and disputed.

[edit] The first line of this article is still disputed

The first line of this article is still disputed one editor has made it obvious that he will use his three reverts a day to ensure that this line remains. [1] In addition, he actively recruits others to help with this campaign. Just because many editors have tired of childish games doesn’t mean that they believe the article is balanced. [2]

Riferimento, state who you are writing about, then prove your assertions. Nkras 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
i think he's talking about me because of a recent post here where i had to let the SSM-friendly POV stand for a half day because i knew i was sitting on 3 reverts and was not in the mood for admin abuse. Riferimento, if it is me that you're writing about, you should know that it is not just "one editor". Nkras above here is clearly farther to the right than i am. (which shouldn't be hard - Hillary Clinton is farther to the right than me - 4 years ago i was doing volunteer work for Howard Dean who was considered pretty gay-friendly. Vermont was the first U.S. state to have civil unions signed into law.)
none of us are lexographers, but some of us are behaving as such. this is a single-word subject and in a case like this where there is significant disagreement about what the subject word means, we have to go to an outside authority that neither side controls. to not do that is to grant one side POV rights over the other side. if your belief is that the principle meaning of "marriage" has no conotation of a heterosexual union, i have to say "sorry, your side has, for the time-being, not yet won that battle." no standard English language dictionary fails to state in its primary definition of marriage as a union of or the state of being husband and wife. that's the primary definition and the anglosphere has not changed sufficiently for the OED, Merriam-Webster, or American Heritage to change it.
however, all three list, as a secondary or tertiary definition, same-sex marriage. for that reason, plus the fact that a few, but notable jurisdictions and religious faiths have recognized SSM, it must be addressed to some extent in this very article and, because of the dictionary definition, it has to have some mention in the lead. but it's not the primary definition. perhaps in 10 or 20 or 50 years, the usage in English will evolve to include SSM in nearly everyone's mind and that will reflected in the standard dictionaries of the English language. but we're not there yet and to use Wikipedia to help push the world along in the direction of any group's preference is contrary to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about (the 2nd pillar).
BTW, if none of the dictionaries had "husband" and "wife" in the primary definition, i would be fighting on your side. also if there was disparity in these 3 main dictionaries, there would also be a legitimate issue regarding which dictionary definition is chosen to represent the lead sentence. then a definition that is reflective of the inconsistent representation in the dictionaries would be appropriate. but all 3 dictionaries agree.
WP:WINAD: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. a definition that was taylored to meet with the approval of a vast minority is simply not a "good definition". this vast minority is going to have to either put up with a definition of marriage they don't like until it is changed in the dictionaries or take their complaint to the lexographers and editorial staff of those dictionaries (or take it to the streets).
you still have offered nothing to disclaim that you're being anything other than a POV warrior here. r b-j 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

Apparently there is a dispute regarding the accuracy of the first sentence. Sdsds 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

whatever gave you that idea Sdsds?  :-) r b-j 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
dunno, I haven't noticed any issues with the first sentence. It reads, "a marriage is a traditional Latvian desert best enjoyed with ice cream". That seems accurate to me... WJBscribe 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Corrected to read "A marriage is a traditional Russian desert best enjoyed with iced yogurt." Nkras 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
STOP your POV edits! It's Latvian. And your grandchildren will be ashamed that you said otherwise. Kept your yogurt edit. Corrected spelling of dessert. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It's Period dependent. Are you referring to the Czarist, Soviet, or post-Soviet era? Nkras 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, appearances deceived me. An editor whose good faith I assume now indicates there is no dispute regarding the first line. Sdsds 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

i have a question: how is it that "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union, most frequently of one woman and one man" has different salient meaning than the present "Most marriages are socially, religiously, or legally recognized unions of one woman and one man"? i don't get it. what other article starts, with its very first sentence: "Most widgets are ..." rather than "A widget is ..."? it seems to me that such a sentence starting with "Most" are most appropriate after the subject has been introduced and is already the topic of discourse. also, why not stick more closely to the dictionary wording that uses "husband and wife"? i don't care, but to defend this lead sentence, we may have to stick more closely to the verbatim dictionary definition (or some synthesis of the three major English language dictionaries referenced). and one more thing, there is nothing wrong or POV with saying "woman" or "wife" before "man" or "husband" and does lend itself to sounding less paternalistic or patriarchial.
i just thought i'd bring this up. it's a minor thing. but deleting the references to spouses of each gender and replacing it with the ungendered "individuals" is a POV edit intended to benefit the SSM POV. r b-j 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Most" is one word fewer than "most frequently." Shorter sentences are better, since fewer words present fewer opportunities for dispute.
Most good Wikipedia articles start with a non-controversial definition. This article cannot start that way, because all current definitions of marriage are controversial. Seeking to save this article by finding an uncontroversial definition, or by finding a more "authoratative" dictionary, won't help. We can, however, still find another good way to start this article. Finding non-controversial sentences that use the term marriage and its deriviates (like married and marital) is an excellent way to start. IMNSHO. Sdsds 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
i don't see how it's less controversial, since the meaning is essentially the same. i also don't have a problem with this shared meaning. it's about usage here. shorter sentences, in and of themselves, are not necessarily better. the way that sentence begins is not common usage for the very first sentence, it has a conotation that the conversation has already started and we're talking about "marriage" and you're adding a note that "most marriages are...". do you understand what i'm saying? when does anyone begin a lecture or discourse of a subject with that usage? i don't get the economy. save one word? and i don't get how it is any less controversial. r b-j 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Enlightening reading: Mediated reference theory and Sense and reference. Sdsds 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
i'll take a look. dunno how it helps. r b-j 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
i got around to the enlightening reading and still don't get it (the two references seem to be non sequitur). the meaning is the same, but the usage of language is not good for the beginning of anything. it is, essentially a sentence from out of the middle of a written document, placed at the very beginning. r b-j 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Nkras, I thought we had established that marriage is not what you want it be. Marriage is what people refer to as marriage. You agreed. Why are you back at this? -- Ec5618 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ec is essentially correct. that marriage is whatever people mean when they refer to it. and different people mean different things, but, until there is some compelling evidence that negates the current English language dictionaries, all but a vast minority of people mean some relationship between a "husband and wife". this is all the more reason why the lead should stick very closely to the dictionary definition in which all three cited have "husband and/or wife" in the primary definition and all three have SSM as a secondary definition. this is reflected in a sense in the intro, but could be reflected more clearly by sticking closer to the language of the dictionaries. and doing it that way also immunizes the article from POV bias from any direction. r b-j 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Two sets of questions:-
  • r b-j, did you see a significant difference betweeen "most frequently" and "primarily"? I did. The frequency (i.e. the relative rate of the occurance) of a thing is quite different than the "primacy" of that thing. Did you notice I flat out reverted some of another editor's "primacy" assertions? Do you see why this question is relavant to the one you ask, about why "most" is perhaps less controversial than "most frequently"?
there is a difference in meaning, but both words are accurate. i am not the one sticking them in (originally) but i thought, as a small concession to the SSM POV, that one or the other could go in otherwize someone might criticize that the article infers that all marriages are between a "husband and wife". i see no salient difference in meaning between "most" and "most frequently". but the lead that started with "Most marriages" was simply not good usage. r b-j 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When we seek a good "definition" for the lead of Marriage, are we seeking something that helps the reader understand the "sense(s)" or the "reference(s)" of the term? Might it be possible that we can best serve the reader by showing them sentences that use the term in ways that every (reasonable) contributor agrees are "correct" uses?
Sdsds 05:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I agree with you about this version sounding as if it starts in the middle. Have you really never heard a lecturer begin this way? It is I think a common rhetorical technique, albeit one that is not entirely encyclopedic. Sdsds 05:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
we're not here to do rhetoric. where here to describe in an encyclopediac fashion, what marriage is and how it is understood and practiced in the world. r b-j 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Male husbands and female wives - How sure are you?

I'm just a bit curious: how certain are each of you who contribute to this discussion that everyone who refers to themselves as the "husband" of someone else is biologically male? How certain are you that everyone who refers to themselves as the "wife" of someone else is biologically female? How certain are you about the biological sex of each person you personally know whom you describe as someone else's husband or wife? Not to get too graphic, but have you looked at their genitals? Examined their DNA? Or are you making some assumptions? Have you all at least skimmed Passing (gender), or some equivalent source of information? Sdsds 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please forgive me if this seems obnoxious, but while I'm on my suggested reading crusade, may I commend to your attention Humpty Dumptyism and Connotation (semiotics)? Sdsds 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know the Moon exists? Nkras 11:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Verifiable sources. The moon verifiably exists. -- Ec5618 12:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? Nkras 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Because I've seen the moon, of course. And it's quite reliably sourced. In terms of the earlier question, while in many of the same-sex pairings I've seen the two refer to each other just as "partners", I have seen cases where one partner identifies as the "husband" and the other as the "wife". (And in at least a few of these cases, trust me-you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference without a very thorough physical examination.) Of course, whether this can be sourced or not is another story, but it does happen. I'll see what I can find in terms of sources.Seraphimblade 12:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
personally, i think that this touches on sophistry. How certain [am I] that everyone who refers to themselves as the "wife" of someone else is biologically female? if you allow for no exception, i would answer "not at all certain". in fact, i would feel pretty confident that some male somewhere in the world, at some time in history, called himself (or herself) someone's wife. stranger things have happened. still not the point. just because somthing like this happens in the vast minority of cases does not mean we grant it equal weight in the lead (which would be WP:Undue weight). this is the kind of thing you could do with practically any article and it would become cumbersome (and unrepresentative) to be itemizing all of the zillion exceptions to the accurate generalization done in the lead describing what whatever widget is the subject of the article. r b-j 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the lack of good data about the actual number of "exceptions to the rule", does the addition of a single word like "most" really give the viewpoint WP:Undue weight? (Of course giving it two words - like "most frequently" - would certainly be over-the-top! ;-) Sdsds 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
it's not over the top! it's what "most" means. how do you possibly come to the conclusion that "most frequently" is over the top?! it's conservative. "vast majority" is probably at least as accurate and closer to the top than "most frequently". how can "most frequently" be over-the-top and "most" is not? Sdsds, you're hardly making any sense. r b-j 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the present first sentence. I think one man and one woman as the common form of marriage should be there. And that the terms husband and wife should be explained after. I don't think there's a problem with saying that in their marital roles men are known as husbands and women as wives. (If a qualifying word must be inserted I suggest generally or widely) The exceptions are very minor and even same-sex couples use the terms. WJBscribe 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the essay known as WP:NOTLEX, wikipedia knows that the husband means male because its sources say so. husband similarly, wife. Wikipedia lives and dies by the sources it cites. MPS 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
MPS, feel free to point to NOTLEX, but please stop saying you 'agree' with it. You wrote it, naturally you agree with it. -- Ec5618 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
well, i agree with it, too. this shit is sophistry and it is here only because there is a small component of the population that is evidently over-represented here that simply cannot accept the meanings of words like "marriage", "husband", "wife" and continues to dis-ingenuously press their question of "do those words really mean what they mean?" it's shit like this (that this small component of the population insists does not stink) that motivates me to undiplomatically toss WP:AGF out the window. people are clearly trying to use Wikipedia as their soapbox to move social evolution along in a direction that they advocate. this is clearly against what WP is meant to be and they should get their own website to do that. r b-j 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
r b-j, you might have realized - if you were paying attention - that some well-meaning editors of wikipedia feel dictionaries are not always valuable sources. Would you consult a dictionary to determine if Zenit-3SL rockets were reliable launch vehicles? Reliability is of primary importance for rockets, but to make your determination wouldn't you rather rely on something more up-to-date, like http://www.sea-launch.com/news_releases/nr_070201.html ? Maybe the truth about wives all having the same gender is a little like the truth about the reliability of rockets, i.e. it is something that has changed with the passage of time. Sdsds 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
when an article about a single word that is in common use, where it becomes contentious about what this article is going to say about this commonly used single word subject particularly the lead which does serve the role of definition, and some editors what to replace the "harmful" dictionary definition with one of their own POV, i become dubious of the well-meaning of such editors in terms of meaning well for what Wikipedia is supposed to be. r b-j 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] husbands and wives redux

Would this article be a good place for a comparative etymology of "husband" and "wife"? I think it's interesting, because they have somewhat different origins. DanB†DanD 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The redirects of husband and wife to marriage are ticking bombs. Defusing them somehow, without detonating them, would be a great service. Sdsds 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to Be Bold and did it. Even i couldnt help but chuckle that the words "husband" and "wife" are not mentioned in "marriage" until half the page down.... I love to say what the word actually means (etymologically) and think the articles should only!! mention the position in a marriage. The whole ssm/polygamy debate will sooner or later get there, i fear, but i tried to get around that. Help please--FlammingoParliament 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh-oh, there goes that pendulum again!

To categorically define marriage as between a man and a woman goes beyond POV to simple inaccuracy. Wikipedia can't just pretend that Canada and Reform Judaism don't exist! DanB†DanD 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To define marriage primarily as anything besides being between a man and a woman is POV and inaccurate. Ssm is mentioned in the lead as an exception. So there's no problem, right? Nkras 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. See primacy. Its use gives your POV undue weight. Sdsds 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It gives the primary definition and the exception to the rule the correct weight. It would be a fallacy to give both the same weight. Nkras 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
lol, Nkras doesn't know the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. Dictionaries are structured to give a list of defintions, and with the lack of any other good ordering mechanism, they generally list the "primary" definition first. An encyclopedia provides for a discussion and explanation of a topic. As such, encyclopedic entries give broad, all-encompassing defintions at the beginning and explain details, such as when certain usages of terms apply, further down. HalfDome 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
an old and ineffective argument. from WP:WINAD: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic.
a definition that has been taylored to meet with the (perchance politically correct) POV of any particular interest group is not a "good definition". particularly when there is contention about it. r b-j 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
For your own edification, Ssm is mentioned within the lead. It does not belong with the primary description of marriage, that being the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. Nkras 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of a man and woman as husband and wife." That's as comprehensive as it gets. Credit to r b-j. Nkras 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

no, it's not as comprehensive as it gets, but it is representative of the vast majority of instances (leaving out SSM and polygamy) and it is more concise than the clumsy language we've been looking at. i took it out of one of the dictionary definitions and pasted it in after the word "union". r b-j 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Exceptions needn't be listed in the lead, but it's just self-contradictory to give an exclusively heterosexual definition and then go on to mention SSM in the body of the article.
However, it's also misleading to speak as if heterosexual marriage is simply the most common form of marriage. It's not just a question of frequency, heterosexuality is a normative standard in most contexts. I can't think of a succint an unbiased way to express this. Anyone?
Meanwhile, we still need a ref for religious marriage.
DanB†DanD 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Heterosexual marriage is the most common form of marriage. Nkras 05:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I...know?
DanB†DanD 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel the best is to have the top paragraph say "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union. Most commonly, marriage occurs between a man, called the husband, and a woman, called the wife.", or similar. End of paragraph. This is factual, emphasizes that this is definitely most common without bizarrely trying to deny the existence of several nations and religions, and by putting the exceptions into the second paragraph, keeps them clear and acknowledged while still pointing out just how dominant the one man/one woman form of marriage is. It's not what I would like, but it seems a fair compromise to me while being, most importantly, accurate. Current as I write this is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage&oldid=105017145 , which is far from perfect (that "marriages with..." line is a bit awkward grammatically) but gives the idea of what I mean. --John Kenneth Fisher 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
there is no denial, bizarre or not, of the existence of several nations and religions. there isn't even a denial, bizarre or not, of the existence of SSM. JohnKF, your argument is what they call strawman and it is a forensic fallacy. the issue is, what is the most NPOV lead definition and what is due weight? also the clumsy wording has no excuse either. r b-j 05:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of a man and woman as husband and wife" doesn't deny the existance of SSM? really? REALLY? Wow. We're... we're on totally different planes of existance here I think. Wait... Really? Wow. --John Kenneth Fisher 05:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
you're not reading the (entire) article or even the (entire) lead. are you? r b-j 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
By that logic, we can start the "Food" article with "Food is something we eat that comes from animals." and as long as we later mention "oh, and there's lettuce too" that's okay. --John Kenneth Fisher 05:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
no, by that logic, "Food" is what the dictionary says it is. same with "Marriage". (and it's not like excluding vegetables from the set of food and mentioning it later, more like excluding seasonings or candy and mentioning it later.) try to avoid the strawmen. r b-j 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I note that r b-j reverted my attempt to add a "most common" qualifier to "marriage is a man and woman period", I was told that I needed to read the article and that I was raising strawmen. Then, moments later, r b-j added "most frequently" as a qualifier. heh, okay. Dude, if somehow "most frequently" makes you feel that your edit "wins" over the strawman-raising "most common"... whatever gets you through the night man, whatever gets you through the night. --John Kenneth Fisher 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
listen John, try hitting the (cur) button by your name in the article history page. there are a lot more differences between versions. you were reverting a lot more than just the clumsy language up at top. even though i didn't come up with it, i had supported this "most frequently" (which is less subjective than "most common", frequency is something that can be measured, what is common or "in common" to people's experience is more observational than measureable - small potatoes). the strawman reference had to do with your arguements made here and in the edit summary. i didn't just fall off the turnip truck. r b-j 06:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Except of course that your initial accusation that I was raising a strawman, and later the "(entire) article" crack, was posted as a followup to my response to nkras's "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of a man and woman as husband and wife." suggestion/comment. Wherein I said I prefered "most commonly" and moving ssm out of the first paragraph, and went into my thoughts. Which you called a strawman. Which, by the way, I posted 45 minutes earlier than the random edit you linked to . Timestamps are a bitch. And yes, you reiterated it later, I see when the discussed change was one of several I entered, but don't change your story as to what that 'strawman' line up above was referring to: its right there for all to see. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
i have no idea what you're talking about here but i can itemize the strawmen you tossed up that i was refering too. seems to fall on deaf ears anyway. r b-j 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] religiously recognized?

I just had a look at the first line's cited dicdefs, and they emphasize the legal aspect of marriage, while not mentioning religion at all. (I can't access the OED site, but my copy of the compact edition at home doesn't mention either religion or law in the main definition.)

Of course, a sacramental view of marriage is an essential part of the definition, but our references do not at the moment support this.

[edited to add: okay, well, rbj's change removes the inconsistency, but introduces the problem that religious marriage is now not mentioned in the lead, which I think is obviously a problematic omission.]

DanB†DanD 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't expect the edit will last. but it's the only one that is devoid of any particular editor's POV. Halfdome can lol all he wants. (not very persuasive.) r b-j 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Masquerade?

Some unappreciative vandal, masquerading as a decent-hearted editor, wrote: "let's take out the Marriage and Love stub (and reference) until we can figure out what to say." Perhaps that decent-hearted editor, upon seeing what was done in their name, will put that material back? Sdsds 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

i think love has something to do with marriage and i see no reason why "expression of love" be it erotic love, familial love, or romantic love cannot go in the list of reasons for why people get married. it was clumsy language. r b-j 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully support edits which replace language that seems clumsy with language that seems less so. I find it difficult to support edits which delete text that includes relevant citations of reliable sources, replacing it with nothing of value. Sdsds 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please elaborate on 'Undue Weight'

Nkras, please elaborate why you repeatedly insist that the accurate "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union, most frequently of a man and woman as husband and wife." is "undue weight" to same-sex marraige because it barely and in a roundabout way acknowledges that it does, occasionally, exist, and that "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of a man and woman as husband and wife." is not undue weight to opposite-sex marriage despite insisting that is the One True Way and the only kind? The fact that later in the article we explain "well, not really" does not make it okay to start the reader off with an untruth. You've reverted to that over and over without rationalizing that here, beyind "it just is, cause I say so." Thanks in advance.--John Kenneth Fisher 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It has to be acknowledged that a homosexual marriage has only been possible for a few years now, and only in Western countries (Unfortunatly, neither dates for the legislation nor an overview of the countries that accept ssm or civil union. I like the distinction of http://m-w.com/dictionary/marriage:
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
BRITANNICA is much more liberal, though still not emphasizing ssm:
a legally and socially sanctioned union between one or more husbands and one or more wives that accords status to their offspring and is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners.FlammingoParliament 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay... and good points and references in there... but it doesn't really address my point up above of the inaccuracy of the first sentence saying "marriage is a man and woman, period" rather than "most commonly/often/frequently/whatever a man and woman". (on a side note, the article in either scenario has the "in recent years" and "since 2001" sentences which do address your point of it being newly returned. (religous same-sex unions/marraiges did actually exist several hundred years ago, but yes, they were pretty much off the world stage for quite a while, so it's accurate enough, IMO.) --John Kenneth Fisher 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] love in definition

Although I agree that "union" is vague (marriage is a Teamsters chapter??) defining marriage by love won't work. Of course, a loveless marriage is perfectly legal and often religiously acceptable. In many ways the idea that a love-match is the ideal form of marriage is an artifact of nineteenth-century romanticism--so it's a pretty modern idea. DanB†DanD 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, women aren't as widely considered to be property anymore. A woman can now make her own money, own her own property, and see to her own welfare, while in centuries past (and probably still in some areas of the world today) laws and customs dictated that a woman had no rights to own money or property, which necessitated that a woman must financially attach herself to a man to avoid becoming homeless and destitute.
While I agree that love need not be present for a marriage to legally take place, isn't there a better way to describe it than by falling back on a circular set of terms like "husband and wife"? Joie de Vivre 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Husband and wife refers to the words used here on this planet. Nkras 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've changed "marriage is a... union of x and y" to "marriage is a committment between"... because, as User:DanB_DanD said, marriage isn't Teamsters (... or culinary arts, or chemistry...) Joie de Vivre 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with this article - it very much needs additional editorial viewpoints! I'm curious if you considered using "marriage is a covenant between"? Would it have the same effect for you? If so, I suspect other editors would be more comfortable with it. They will have heard the term covenant used by their minister or rabbi, so it will seem less frightening than that oh-so-modern "committment" term! Of course it might have other connotations, e.g. Covenant marriage. ( Words can mean so many different things.) Sdsds 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome for the help. About the wording: I think "covenant" has an unnecessarily archaic feel to it. I think that the word "committment" is better than "covenant", because not everyone involved in a marriage is religious. For example, in the US, two atheists can become legally married, and there need not be any religious leader or religious tradition involved in the proceedings. Regardless of what emotional associations people may make with the word "committment", I think "covenant" is inappropriate. Marriage is a contractual relationship, so the terms "committment" or perhaps "agreement" would work, though I prefer the sound of the former. Thoughts?Joie de Vivre 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with "commitment". Covenant is archaic and does have different legal meaning, (per sdsds), and agreement to my ears doesn't sufficiently emphasize the 'seriousness' of the agreement, if that makes sense. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Covenant is not exclusively a religious term and it is not archaic. Although it is my experience most people misuse it within the religious community believing that it is synonymous to contract. A marriage is a covenant because it is both more than contract and more than a commitment.--Riferimento 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In many cases it is, but in some cases, it isn't. It is possible to marry for the sole purpose of bequeathing property to someone else. It is possible to marry because you wish to save on your taxes and protect your assets. It is possible to marry because you are a 16-year-old-girl who is being made to become the wife of some 60-year-old religious patriarch. The "covenant" definition of romantic, man-woman peer marriage is centric to Judeo-Christian and other such mores, it doesn't convey the full scope of the term. Joie de Vivre 00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Covenant does not imply love or Judeo-Christian values. I believe you have a misunderstanding of the word. The word is most often used in connection with real estate transaction. [[3]]--Riferimento 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proposed definition which defers controversy to subsequent sections

When we keep changing the first sentence of this article, we look like fools. How about something like this?

Marriage refers to certain human relationships. For a relationship to be a marriage the participants must have certain characteristics (see "Restrictions"), the participants must have certain reasons for marrying (see "Purposes"), and the marriage must be recognized in at least one of several ways (see "Recognition").

Would it stand a chance of being stable? Sdsds 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words, IMHO. Pretty ghastly. Joie de Vivre 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well intended, but I doubt it would survive, and I do agree with Joie de Vivre. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by MPS

The edits made just now by MPS do not align with any of the customs I have come to regard as usual here at Wikipedia. I do not agree that every paragraph must be decorated with a bullet, nor that all of the lead paragraphs must be relegated to the body of the article, save for one short, erroneously-cited sentence. Input is welcome; check the edit history. Joie de Vivre 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I again hope you will feel your help is welcome and valued, despite the editorial practices which - although common here - might seem outlandishly bizarre in the more civilized parts of Wikipedia. FWIW, I am a repeat proponent of the "one sentence lead" concept, albeit never that sentence. But then again, I would never have thought to combine it with a first subsection comprised entirely of a bullet-list, either!
Thanks for your perserverance, despite the strange "cooperation" with which your efforts have been met. Sdsds 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I came here responding to an RfC, but don't see the subheading in the talk page anywhere. If this RfC is still open, please provide the necessary format for such comments. Having said that, the lead sentence is wrong as it gives primacy to two person marriages. There are many examples of multiple person marriages around the world (such as multiple wives..multiple husbands also exist though they are rarer). Remember, Wikipedia has a global scope, it is not sufficient to define a term in such a way that it does not factor in this global diversity.-75.179.159.240 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it group Marriage is extremely rare. The examples you give are not group marriage what they are polygamy. One person has multiple wives or one person has multiple husbands, but each wife (or husband) is not married to the other wife or husband.
If what you are saying was true then Islam would permit same-sex marriage. Additional all Christians would recognize that Rachel and Leah in addition to being married to Jacob would have been married to each other (a same-sex marriage). I do think that we need to spell-out the difference between group marriage and polygamy because you are not the first person to make the assertion that marriages between more than two people are common.--Riferimento 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"The examples you give are not group marriage what they are polygamy." Yes and no. Social scientists look at relationships from a number of different perspectives. One of them is looking at institutions and another is looking at social relationships. Humans are complex beings and culture is probably the most complex of human inventions, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that institutional categories and social relationships overlap. Marriage institutionalizes social relationships. In other words, the fact that it is polygamy does not exclude it from being marriage. Now, as for being rare, it -is- rare (though I believe it still exists in Africa, the Middle East (I believe Islam - or at least some forms of it - still supports polygamy), certain parts of Asia (as I recall, the only case study of polyandry I've read about is in the Himalayas - the Tuvan people I *think*, but its been awhile since I've read any on it), and South America. Still, the fact that it is rare is not license to pretend it doesn't exist. It would be inaccurate for this article to define marriage as exclusively between two people.-75.179.159.240 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Permit me to clarify my objection. The article states, "Marriage refers to a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between two people.[1][2] The social, religious, or legal purpose of the relationship can vary widely. Some marriages include more than two people"

The article, I believe, should state "Marriage refers to a socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship[1][2]. The social, religious, or legal purpose of the relationship can vary widely. The overwhelming majority of modern marriages are between two people." -75.179.159.240 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course polygamy is marriage that is not the point. Please read the Polygamy article particularly the section on group marriage. One man/women can be married to more than one spouse, but at each wedding only one spouse is married to one spouse. To imply that polygamy is group marriage is incorrect.--Riferimento 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"but at each wedding only one spouse is married to one spouse" I've never seen any source which states that in all forms of polygamy, a particular wedding ceremony is only between two people.-75.179.159.240 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
To assume something exist because you have not read of its non-existence seems faulty. It would seem to me that if three people were married e.g. one man and two women and the man died if it were a group marriage the two women would still be married. This would be an example of same-sex marriage. I believe that the lack of this argument ever being offered is at least circumstantial evidence that group marriage is so rare that we can not state it without detailed explanation and support for its existence. Kaingang --Riferimento 18:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
To assume that something exists because you haven't read of its existence seems even more faulty. To assume that something must be true in all cultures because "it would seem to me" (that is, because that's what makes sense in your culture) is what those of us who have studied anthropology call "culture-bound ideas". Again, the point I am raising is not whether group marriage is rare, just that it does exist and, so, we cannot write the article as if it does not.-75.179.159.240 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Since I conceded my point and struck my reply, I assume that you last comment is a request for formal apology for questioning you. I am sorry--Riferimento 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Instead, let's just drop it. You don't owe me any apology, you're just trying to write the best article you can - something which should be encouraged. I'll strikeout my last comment and, hopefully, we can just move on. Cool? -75.179.159.240 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleter or merge section?

The marriage as a social construct section is very short, unsourced and seems to be pointless. Can we merge it with another section somewhere? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to delete it. I think it will be more efficient than waiting. If anyone has a problem I am sure they will revert it.--Riferimento 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it that you don't understand what it says, that you disagree with what it says, or that you feel what it says isn't relevant to someone reading an article about marriage? Sdsds 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The first and the last. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sdsds, Without citation it borders on original research. Maybe I don’t understand it? Could you expand the section and provide some citations?--Riferimento 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prenups

There's nothing in here about pre and post nuptial agreements. Also, do we need a section on marriage in popular culture? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

What's the NPOV dispute about? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one to explain the dispute because I do not think it is valid. But, as I understand it there are those who believe that unless the first line contains the word husband and wife or man and women undue weight is given to all other marriages. The reason we need the tag is because the first line of this article has not in the last three months (maybe longer) ever been stable for a week. It is my opinion that removing the tag without a week of stability would not alert readers to the fact that what they are reading is not a consensus and is liable to change multiple times in a day.--Riferimento 22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, same-sex marriages, group marriage and polgamy are statistically uinsignificant compared to heterosexual monogamous marriage, so the sentence should reflect that. What about something like "Marriage is socially, religiously, or legally recognized relationship between two or more people, most typically between a man and a woman." Seems to cover it all to me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that the two main advocates of the one man and a woman version are presently blocked (one indefinitely) answers may not be forthcoming quickly. I agree that your version above gives due weight to the common form of marriages. WJBscribe 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, I was the one who reported Nkras to WP:AN/I. New version below. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the tag. For the past several days, the article has been bouncing back and forth between a lead that denies the existence of same-sex marriage altogether, and a lead in which same-sex marriage (and, now, the group marriage practices of a specific tiny ethnic group) are given undue weight. Neither version is at all good! At the moment the definition has become so vague that it could refer to a relationship of any kind -- parents and children have a "legally, religiously, or socially recognized relationship" so according to the article's lead are apparently married! DanB†DanD 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Dan, you make a very good point. Could offer a solution? The problem so far is that there are so many different types of marriage with so many exceptions that when ever specificity has been tried other editors have objected that western society is given undue weight.--Riferimento 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What about ""Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized sexual relationship between two or more people, most typically between a man and a woman."? That defines it a bit more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This is my latest try? Marriages is a relationship in which two or more individuals not related by blood covenant with each other to have sexual relations, formally declare romantic love, and share property in perpetuity.--Riferimento 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I much prefer Dev920's, as "the phrasing is awkward for many readers (though not actually incorrect), and the reasons are just a small subset of the many reasons people marry. As for Dev's, I'm not fond of "most typically", but admittedly I can't quite put my finger on why. I'd prefer "most frequently", but minor quibbles aside, this is essentially the phrasing I've personally been pushing for, so you won't get any substantial arguments from me.--John Kenneth Fisher 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that the question of who is to be considered a blood relation is not so clear. Some cultures consider as blood relatives people whom other cultures wouldn't even have a name for.-75.179.159.240 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Marriage the condition that makes an individual a spouse, or the institution the creates this condition. I like this version it is based on the OED definition.--Riferimento 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Marriage is the condition that makes an individual a spouse. That's a great way to start! It isn't even controversial. (Is it?) But the reader will next ask, "How do I know if this condition applies in any particular case?" There are two wildly different kinds of answers. The easiest kind goes, "If some authority recognizes the marriage, that's good enough for me: it's a marriage!" The more difficult kind goes, "You know its a marriage because your faith tells you in a marriage certain conditions exist, and you or someone you trust has verified those conditions have been met." Those believing SSM=M are clearly in the first camp. Those holding the opposing opinion are in the second. I just can't compose a second sentence that gives approprate weight to eacho of these two views. Sdsds 02:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Marriage is not always a sexual relationship. But it is a committed relationship, where the participants promise to honor some commitment to each other. –Shoaler (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)