Talk:Marriage

Sourcing and definitions

The problem with this article is a lack of sourcing and definition of its subject. "Marriage" is a word in the English language which can literally refer to some things, figuratively refer to others and be part of a phrase like "plural marriage" to refer to other things also. Other languages descibing other cultures can have one or more words that can be translated as "marriage" but cultural differences mean that the translation is never exact. For every claim in this article the question must be asked "Who says so?" WAS 4.250 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage Movement?

I have a question about whether folk on "both sides of the aisle" see a distinction between the "traditional marriage" concept and the "traditional marriage movement"? Do people even agree that the latter exists? (This would be similar to the distinction between "feminism" - a belief, and "the feminist movement" - a linked group of political actions. We would not need the "feminism" article to mention Gloria Steinham by name, but it would be remiss to leave out mention of her in an article on "the feminist movement".) I see "traditional marriage" as something that's been around a long time, and the "traditional marriage movement" as something relatively new. Would starting an article titled, "Traditional Marriage Movement" help keep Wikipedia information tidily in its proper place? Sdsds 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

no origianl research. MPS 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Traditional marriage movement would be a perfectly good title for the article--and would be a clear sign that you are not simply recreating the deleted one. However, I don't agree that either feminism or marriage can meaningfully be spoken of separately from how people practice them. Modern heterosexual marriage (egalitarian, love-based, cancelled at will by either party) really resembles marriages of two hundred years ago (hierarchical, property-based, inescapable except in extraordinary circumstances) in very little except including a man and a woman.

DanB†DanD 19:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A problem I have with the traditional marriage article is that it spans a broad array of traditions. One culture's traditional marriage is quite different to another's. Separate articles detailing specific traditional marriage arrangements. eg. What constitutes a traditional Church of England wedding, or a traditional Catholic marriage, or indeed a traditional Sikh wedding might be more appropriate. If all there is to say is about traditional marriage in general is that it is between a man and a woman- that is delt with here and doesn't need a separate article. Encyclopedic articles describing various marriage traditions seem to be the better way forward. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was just my point. However, googling "traditional marriage" or "traditional marriage movement" will lead you to lots of info about how the phrase has been made a buzzword for the anti-same-sex-marriage crowd. Like family values the phrase is notable in a political context beyond the simple meaning of the words. DanB†DanD 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage as a prerequisite for having children

One part of the section on 'Rights and obligations relating to marriage' reads, "Marriage has traditionally been a prerequisite for having children." We presume the original author knew about having children out of wedlock, but as phrased the statement is either false or meaningless. I tried to make a NPOV edit to fix this. It was reverted by WAS:

10:29, 5 January 2007 WAS 4.250 (Talk | contribs) (revert unsourced addition. please stop adding whatever you think and begin adding sourced claims. Thank you.)

WAS, I hope you share my desire to work together to make this article useful to Wikipedia users, and meet e.g. WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. I have tried another edit, this time including a source reference. Does this work better for you? Sdsds 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we just delete that entire paragraph? It reads:

Marriage has traditionally been a prerequisite for having children, which many believe serves as the building block of a community and society. Thus, marriage not only serves the interests of the two individuals, but also the interests of their children and the society of which they are a part. Marriage has never been a prerequisite for having children.

In just three sentences, this paragraph manages to violate WP:OR and contradict itself. --Media anthro 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the legitimacy of children has been an important part of the historical meaning of marriage. It's just badly phrased. DanB†DanD 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DanB_DanD makes an excellent point. Even for modern couples, one important motivation for marriage is so society will perceive the children of their union as being 'legitimate'. Is this aspect of marriage already covered elsewhere in the article? It would be a shame to lose coverage of it entirely. Sdsds 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe legitimation of children is mentioned quite a few times, though you could argue that no single paragraph deals with the particular idea that people get married to legitimate their offspring. There is, however, mention of children born "out of wedlock" and as "bastards".--Media anthro 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, we're not really going to cite a bio textbook and link to Amazon on the matter of people having kids without being married, are we? --Media anthro 13:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion above, Media anthro makes two excellent points. Namely, that the paragraph as it stands is internally inconsistent, and that citation of a basic bio textbook might be ... over-kill. But removing the citation would probably make sense only after the paragraph is internally consistent with the sentence to which it refers. Media anthro, would you be willing to rewrite the first phrase of the first sentence? (I hesitate to do that again myself because when I first tried, someone reverted my edit. Now that there is so much good cooperation working on this article, I would hate to become entangled in a revert-war. "It's hard to be brave when you're only a Very Small Animal.") Sdsds 22:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph that precedes the one under discussion reads:

Marriage sometimes establishes the legal father of a woman's child; establishes the legal mother of a man's child; gives the husband or his family control over the wife's sexual services, labor, and/or property; gives the wife or her family control over the husband's sexual services, labor, and/or property; establishes a joint fund of property for the benefit of children; establishes a relationship between the families of the husband and wife. No society does all of these; no one of these is universal (see Edmund Leach's article in "Marriage, Family, and Residence," edited by Paul Bohannan and John Middleton).

If it were up to me, I'd just delete the paragraph that follows and maybe insert a line in the one above describing marriage and "legitimate" offspring. It makes more sense to have it in this paragraph, in my opinion, because in keeping with the final sentence, it is not necessary to be born to married parents in all societies to be considered socially legitimate.--Media anthro 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can keep the ideas that (a) marriage can form a household and (b) that households can be the 'building blocks' of societies. From my personal POV, 'formation of a household' is closely linked but not identical to 'formation of a family' and is thus a motivation for marriage. (Do we agree that readers of this article should gain an improved understanding of the major reasons why people get married?) Sdsds 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations and procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; transfer of property; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations." the inconsistancy (or hypocrisy) of allowing the continuing inclusion of traditional properties of marriage such as "legitimizing sexual relations and procreation" yet specifically and adamently removing the other traditional property of marriage that is supported in the primary dictionary definition, is further evidence of naked POV pushing to remove "husband and wife" from the lead definition. if we are licensing ourselves to create an article about what we think marriage should mean rather than what if primarily means, then i agree with Sdsds. there is no reason why any language regarding "legitimizing sexual relations and procreation" should be included in the lead sentence if "husband and wife" are not. unless, of course, we want to continue to make this stuff up as we go along (which is, BTW, something User:Coelacan hypocritically or ignorantly accused me of doing). the evidence of the pro-gay-interest group POV in the article is still staring at every reader's face. r b-j 03:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyce

Hi Rbj! Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. The way we avoid accusations that we "make this stuff up as we go along" is by providing credible, verifiable source citations for our assertions.

which i have done multiple times (the dictionary definitions from 3 different, widespread, and authoritative English dictionaries) and yet the POV warriors still revert it, falsely labeling it as POV (when it is their deletion of cited and verifiable material that is the POV and also contrary to WP policy).

As editors, we can learn by reading the citations of other editors. Also, by looking at the context I could determine what you meant by "the other traditional property of marriage." But surely you understand there are many marriage traditions, some of them even older (thus more traditional) than the one to which you refer. And these aren't "marginal" cases either. There are 4 million members of the Minangkabau ethnic group in West Sumatra. They are real people, like Joyce, with real traditions. Let's not forget about them. Instead, let's all learn about how widely marriage traditions vary from place to place! Sdsds 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

still, widespread, virtually the world over, "marriage" means the union of a "husband" (or "husbands") to a "wife" (or "wives"). it is in an exceedingly small portion of the worlds population (less than 3% of the world population lives in such jurisdictions that recognize SSM) that same-sex marriage is recognized. i'm not advocating that we don't look at a wide variety of traditions. i am only saying we apply the NPOV dictionary definition in the lead in this contentious issue. otherwise, what is in the lead is something that someone made up and that someone else does not agree with. so the lead reflects the POV of whomever wrote it. but i am advocating letting the OED or Webster write it and then no-one was allowed to slip their POV into it. r b-j 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some sources

• Definition of "marriage" as a word and Summary of marriage by reliable encyclopedias
• Marriage in English common law tradition and current American law
• Marriage from an anthropological perspective
• An anthropological perspective of marriage from a political perspective
• An anthropological perspective of marriage from a mathematical perspective

WAS 4.250 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WAS, they don't get it and they won't get it (they choose not to get it), because they have decided that their POV is the truth (as in "truthiness"). they are POV warriors who don't think that their own shit stinks. r b-j 05:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Sentence, and "Recognition" Section

The second sentence currently reads, "Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony." It could be simpler: "Marriages are usually declared by a wedding ceremony." For simplicity sake can we make this replacement without controversy? Also, there is a section that discusses this in more detail. Would changing its title from "Recognition" to "Declaration and Recognition" draw any objection? Sdsds 08:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To everyone not providing sources for their edits: Find a reliable published source and quote it. You guys have got to stop with this original research. (Which does not mean researching the subject in reliable published sources!) Who says "Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony"? (We need names.) In what context? (Maybe they are only talking about the present.) Using what evidence? (None? Personal lifetime of study? A specific funded study? What?) Why should we believe them? (Do they have a bias? Are they an expert in this area?) Gee, what do the experts say about marriage? Do you care? Or do you want to just write down whatever seems right based on what you've been told by other nonexperts over the years? WAS 4.250 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of the need to cite sources! Please take a look at the edit made 08:06, 8 January 2007 and provide any additional feedback you feel might be useful. Also, let's consider rewording the sentence to read, "A ceremonial declaration of a marriage is a wedding" or "A wedding is a ceremonial declaration of a marriage." Would there be objections to either of these? Any preference between the two? Sdsds 16:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Marrage to Deceased People

It may be worth adding a paragraph about marrying people who have died. While in many cases this is not allowed, in particular in France I know that if one has permission from the President, one can marry a deceased person. The reasons are usually because the couple intended to marry, and were engaged, but some circumstance occurs that results in one of them dying. (I heard about this in an article, where a woman married a deceased man under permission of the President of France, I don't remember the exact reasons.) I don't really have time to look up the information and add it, and I'd hate to do a horrible job with it, so someone may be willing to add it. I may add it later in a stub-like fashion, and let people expand upon it, as they have researched and factual information. --Puellanivis 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A group called the Nuer had something like that that anthropologists call ghost marriage, though the social relevance was a little different (click here and ctrl-f "ghost marriage").

A couple of additional sources if anyone wants to research or write this:

• Marjorie Topley. "Ghost Marriages Among the Singapore Chinese." Man, Vol. 55. (Feb., 1955), pp. 29-30.

Not incredibly current, but describes wedding ceremony among Singaporean Chinese in which two deceased persons, or less frequently, one living and one deceased person are wed. Such weddings take place to procure grandchildren or to placate ghosts.

• John W. Burton. Ghost Marriage and the Cattle Trade among the Atuot of the Southern Sudan. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 48, No. 4. (1978), pp. 398-405.

Links decrease in ghost marriages among Atuot in southern Sudan to cattle trade.

--Media anthro 21:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I read that Mormons have a sealing ceremony in which dead people can be married. The thing is that "Marriage" has multiple meanings: religious cermony, (resulting in) religious status; civil process, (resulting in) legal status; cultural expectations, (resulting in) societal status; and a word used in analogous situations. WAS 4.250 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I will delete the first sentence

Someone has asked for a citation for the first sentence. Any editor has the right to ask for a reference for an assertion, and it is unreasonable to expect someone else to provide a citation for your assertion. The writer/writers of the first sentence should provide a citation. If they can not find a citation for the first sentence it needs to be removed. It does not matter whether or not it is true. What matters is can it be verified. I personally believe that the first sentence is true, but I cannot find a citation for it. Someone needs to remove the first sentence and replace it with one that they are willing to cite, or if they believe that the “citation needed” was an act of pure vandalism then they need to remove citation needed comment and state why it is unneeded.
The opening summary is a time bomb until we write a cited summary. If the citation needed comment is there tomorrow I will delete the first sentence, because I do not care if the sentence is true. I have been watching this page for two months and experience shows me that consensus without citation last two weeks at the most.--Riferimento 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... I just want to see if I am understanding you correctly. You're planning to delete the first sentence of this article, because it doesn't cite its sources? (Well, one part of it actually does cite a source, so I would expect you to leave the "transfer of property" alone, so we'll have "Marriage is for the transfer of property.") The entire first sentence is supported by the rest of the article. Why should we ditch a perfectly legitimate summary, and lead in just because you're upset that it doesn't establish any sources for its claims? By the position "if it doesn't cite any sources, it must be deleted" we could remove the line: "In their marital roles, the terms 'husband' and 'wife', respectively are used." That doesn't cite any sources, despite the fact that anyone could pick up a dictionary and provide us with sources. So, for the purpose of providing sources for the summary part of the article, I present where the summary is supported by content of the article itself, or simple existance of a provable position for that element.

"Marriage is a socially (1), religiously (2), or legally (3) recognized union between two(4) or more people(5), for the purposes of the formation of a family unit(6); legitimizing sexual relations(7) and procreation(8); social stability(9); education and development of offspring(10); transfer of property(11); security(12); and companionship(13), or any of such combinations(14)."

1.) Common-law Marriage

2.) Marriages under any of the world's major religions

3.) Marriage under only a legal-aspect in some parts of the world (such as Germany), also, the legislative actions to define marriage in America

4.) Current definitions in some parts of the US as between one man, and one woman. 1 + 1 = 2

5.) Polygamy

6.) Major religions expect marriages to produce children, and that those children be raised in a household, where the parents are in the condition of being married, if this is not a "family unit", then I'm not sure I understand what "family unit" means.

7.) See laws against adultery and fornication

8.) See legitimacy of children, vs illegitimate children

9.) This is as far as I know, an assertion, and not a factual statement, that marriage is the building block of the nation, etc. Although, in the past governments, societies and cultures have been based upon strict rules of inheritance and social status from a person's legitimate parents. In order to maintain these societies (which were usually had power fairly strictly controlled among a few people, the requirement of a legal marriage to inherit status leads to a stability of that government.

10.) kind of a carrying over of "formation of a family unit" and "procreation", this is hopefully an opaque logical extention

11.) Citation already given for this assertion

12.) There exist people, who marry simply to not be alone, if this assertion means something else, then it's perfectly ok to remove it, due to vagueness (what does it mean to say "marriage is for security"?), but certainly not due to lack of citation (which, I will grant is quite difficult to do if you're even unclear upon what the thing you're supposed to be supporting even means).

13.) See also: Love

To address your other issues, Wikipedia is a collective environment, it is the responsibility of whoever wants to provide citation or support for an argument to provide such citation or support, not necessarily the one who posts the actual assertion themselves. In closing, tomorrow I will remove the "citation needed" flag, as the majority of the positions above are verifiable with plain direct evidence, and do not require citation in general. I would also remove the condition that I stated is vague: "security", and maybe expand "social stability" to make it more clear what marriage is stabilizing. Otherwise, I see your entire post as an extreme overreaction to a summary position of an article. The purpose of the summary should be to provide generic, wide-sweeping information, that is easily verifiable, even at times without giving citation. (I mean, to propose that Marriage is not recognized in at least two ways of religious and legal... that's just flying in face of blatent fact. It's like saying that the sky is typically blue. I don't need to provide citation of this, just look out your window!) --Puellanivis 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First, someone did provide a citation. Second, if you felt that the request for citation in the article is unjustified (blatant vandalism or passive POV pushing) then the request needs to be removed and the reason for it stated on the talk page (please note I did not request the citation). Last, please reread my post and you will note that my reason for the post is to end the constant edit wars. A Cited article is stronger.--Riferimento 12:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you felt that the sentence should be deleted then just go ahead and delete it, and the reason for it stated on the talk page. If you think you're going to end the constant edit wars, you're not going to do that. Marriage is a contentious issue, and will remain so likely for the duration of your mortal life. You certainly wouldn't solve an edit war by simply removing this sentence. --Puellanivis 02:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have noticed that someone removed the comment and replaced it with a citation? I never felt the sentence should be deleted. I felt that when someone asked for a citation it was reasonable to provide it. At the very least someone should have reacted to their request instead of letting this article remain looking like it was poorly referenced. Because I liked the sentence but did not have a reference to support it I decided that I would discuss the issue on the talk page.
I do not believe this article needs to be considered controversial I think it can be referenced and written from an academic neutral point of view. I think this article has become controversial because too many editors believe that the factual accuracy of what they write is self evident and does not need to be cited.--Riferimento 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A different way forward for the first sentence

One way to improve the first sentence would be to integrate verifiable source citations for each of the points Puellanivis lists above. Then someone could in good faith remove the {{Unreferenced}} tag. But there might still be claims that the sentence doesn't adequately express all major points of view on the subject. Another approach would be to use the first sentence to openly acknowledge a lack of consensus. For example,

The fundamental nature of marriage is the subject of philosophical debate: constructionists view marriage as a social construct created, institutionalized, and sometimes modified by humans; essentialists hold the dialectically opposed view that the essence of marriage is not something humans — individually or as a society — can change.

Can we all agree there is this lack of consensus? Is the sentence above written with a sufficiently neutral point of view? Does anyone feel their own point of view is inadequately represented? Sdsds 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What is in contention is the very definition of "marriage" as in is it still "marriage" if (fill in the blank: they are both male, one is dead, whatever). Therefore it is not helpful to do anything other than be rigorous in sourcing one or more definitions for "marriage". I recommend multiple sourced quoted definitions from the best available reliable published sources. WAS 4.250 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitions − as found in published dictionaries for example - won't be useful. They are what WP:RS calls "tertiary sources." What the introduction to the article needs to convey is that existing "secondary sources", all of them either scholarly or otherwise meeting the highest standards of reliability, contradict one another. That is, the first sentence should convey that the meaning of marriage is the subject of scholarly debate. Sdsds 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not tertiary sources. WP: RS does not even mention dictionaries. Most mainstream dictionaries are scholarly publications produced by professional scholars, known as Lexicographers. Please add to the essay called "WP:NOTLEX" for more discussion on the use of dictionaries as sources. MPS 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A dictionary definition is sometimes a useful way to begin an article and always a useful way to begin a subsection on the use of a word as a word. Reliable Encyclopedia introductions (source provided above) are by definition a useful way to introduce our encyclopedia article either as an example for us to follow or as a quote if there is lack of agreement on a rewording of the sources. WAS 4.250 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

this is an understatement. in a contentious article, the dictionary definition is the only way to begin the article in a NPOV manner. otherwise whatever else is written, was written from some particular editor's POV and there are other editors who don't share it. if it's OED or Merriam-Webster writing the lead intro sentence, no single party can (legitimately) complain about the POV. it simply states what marriage is defined to be in the English language. it is no mere accident that all three English language dictionaries all say in the primary definition, that marriage is a union of or the state of being "husband and wife" and nearly immediately afterward state an alternative definition that includes same-sex marriage. both need to be in this article, but the primary definition is what it is, despite what the SSM interest groups wants the world to believe. r b-j 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite obvious that there is a "lack of consensus" on what marriage is among the public in general (to say nothing of this talk page). I think a worthwhile goal is to have the intro note that simple truth and then let the rest of the article expound on the different views of what marriage is (and among whatever). Trying to nail down the intro into any one definition of marriage (be it "traditional" or "alternative" or whatever) is simply POV. 205.157.110.11 10:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Establishing what the article is to be about is critical to a successful collaboration on an article. WAS 4.250 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Remove Unjustified Citation Needed Comments

Many of the comments have been in this article for multiple weeks. I think it is time we start deleting the uncited assertion. I believe that the problem is NOT that statements are false, I think the problem is that it is very difficult to find a citation for someone else’s work. I am going to start deleting the uncited assertions and pasting them to the talk page. I understand that some editors feel that some of these comments are actually passive aggressive POV pushing and unjustified. I would ask that editors take the time and remove the unjustified comments.--Riferimento 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Formation of a Family Unit

There's a commonly held conception that a marriage almost always creates a family unit. I think this point of view should be reflected in the article, especially if anyone can find a good source to cite for it. Frequently however marriages occur, even in current times, which do not create a co-habitating family unit. The article cites one culture where it almost never happens. Also, the historical and modern Saudi tradition called misyar marriage involves the husband and wife living separately. To say their marriage is for the purpose of forming a family unit would be highly misleading. These marriages are frequent, not rare. Sdsds 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Since the onemanonewomen vigilantes have returned constructive editing will no longer be possible. Any constructive edit made during this new war may be reverted and lost. Please keep an eye out for cited work that is added to this article so that it can be returned to the article after the fighting is over.--Riferimento 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. It should certainly be "between two persons" to be neutral. .V. (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken off the dispute tag- it's really bad to have it on an article if it can be avoided and I don't think its necessary yet. We shouldn't preempt disputes. Lets continue with normal editing, working towards a concensus. I see no onemanonewomen vigilantes... The present text expresses the fact that marriage is usually between a man and a woman (which is true) and I've restored coverage of same sex and polygamous marriage to the intro rather than a later section. Hopefully the present version is a compromise acceptable to all. If someone doesn't like the present content they can change it, this is Wikipedia after all. (PS. I'd prefer two people to two persons if that version is adopted). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make it obvious that the POV pushers are back. I also placed a request for comment. Consensus was reached on December 31, 2006.--Riferimento 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the POV pushers hadn't left. and they are you. r b-j 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah, just like Congress voting themselves a pay raise at midnight, while everyone is gone on holiday (and not at their computers) "Consensus was reached on December 31, 2006". ha-ha. r b-j 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please lets leave out the whole calling people POV pushers. Personal attacks are not necessary and these debates would be much easier if everyone showed respect for other contributors' opinions. Both sides have legitimate views here and what we're looking for is concensus/compromise (thats what NPOV is) rather than one set of views triumphing over another. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WJB, i am battlescarred here. i've only been trying to stem POV edits and have cited sources, dictionary definitions, statistics (that hated "95+%"), explained the nature of the POV, defended the reference to same-sex marriage in the lead paragraph, looked for compromise and allowed such to stand, and done everything the WP way, yet this unrelenting LGBT interest group activists insist on their POV in modifying the definition from what it is, to what they want it to be. rather than wait for the change in society where the status quo becomes that where marriage is thought of without reference to the genders of the partners, these POV pushers cannot wait and are trying to use Wikipedia to further the political and social goals by defining the terms of the debate. they do not have the right to do that anymore than the religious right has. i don't wanna see Jerry Falwell coming here and crapping up the article, but the LGBT crowd doesn't get to do it either. r b-j 04:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rb-j-Please cite the 95% in the article and let it stand for itself. Inform the readers. I never have been able to find it so I do not know if it was a legitimate statical analysis of a randomly chosen population or just how 19 out of 20 of your friends feel.--Riferimento 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

it's not in the article, but several times in discussing what should be the lead sentence (the definition) i mentioned that (conservatively) 95% of human beings do not see marriage or understand marriage to be same-sex. 2 weeks ago CovenantD asked me where i got such a figure and i immediately answered and said that i added up all of the population of the jurisdictions in dark blue on this map (5 countries and the state of Massachusetts) and divided by 6 billion. (and got 971⁄2%, so 95% is conservative). then, as a result, Coelacan said that i'm "just making these numbers up. It's blatant WP:OR. And it's completely wrong." but, in fact, it is completely right, not OR, and i didn't just make these numbers up. it's shit like this that is battle scarring. and these LGBT POV pushers don't even realize that i am not coming from the religious right, nor am i against equality for gays. not at all. what i am against is using Wikipedia to define the world as they would wish, not as it is. i am against using Wikipedia as a vehicle for social change rather than to reflect it. they are the POV pushers, not me, and that is obvious to any intellectually honest person who thinks critically. r b-j 05:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, another request for calm. You are only going to work yourself up more by bringing up old debates about which you bear ill-feeling. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning though. It assumes that people in countries/states conceive marriage according to what the local law is. There are no doubt people in some countries that do not allow same sex (or polygamous) marriage who encompass those forms in their view of marriage. Similarly, there are no doubt some people in the state of Massachusetts that do not recognise same sex marriages as marriages in their personal definition. Ideally all these personal definitions should be irrelevant. We are not trying to create an article on the most common form of marriage. That would be relatively easy. This article has the much tougher task of attempting to be an overview of marriage generally. And therefore must in some way give fair coverage to all forms of marriage, marriage in all cultures, and marriage at all points in history. How to keep balanced the coverage of such a vast topic is, as I understand it, the problem that faces us here. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree with you about the weak connection regarding "people in countries/states conceive marriage according to what the local law is". but what of the converse? just because less than 3% of the world's population lives in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage, just because in the past 5 years (out of 5000), that these very few juridictions have, within their boundaries, changed the legal meaning, that means that we change the definition from the current primary dictionary definition in the three major English dictionary to what the SSM advocates want??? 95% is still a conservative estimate. what are they saying that because 21⁄2% of the world's population live in jurisdictions that recognize SSM, that a much greater percentage of the world's population think that "marriage" means or includes SSM? they don't have to justify their numbers?? or, if they don't, that just because almost no-one outside of Wikipedia even stop to think that "marriage" might mean SSM, that they get to taylor the article to reflect their desire that people include SSM when they think of the topic: Marriage? that is ridiuculous, nakedly POV, and is trying to use Wikipedia to get people to think differently about marriage. the LGBT lobby gets to use their own media resources to do that, not Wikipedia. the right the SSM interest group has to sculpt the definition to meet their liking is no greater than the right that Jerry Falwell does. if the religious right had their way, there would be no mention of SSM whatsoever in the marriage article and there would be no same-sex marriage article at all. or they would define SSM as "disgusting godless sodomy". that's what they think of it. do they have the right to go to the SSM article and define SSM as they wish? r b-j 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think snubbing faiths and cultures that practice polygamy is appropriate in Wikipedia. Marriage is most certainly not always just between two people, and it certainly shouldn't be defined as such in an unbiased encyclopedia. The comment above that marriage is "between two people" simply isn't appropriate. Rklawton 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom And Arbitration

I don't know why this hasn't gone to arbitration. That seems the only solution to me. We were almost ready to arbitrate in December, but sanity prevailed and a good lead was written (a lead that was agreed to by people on both sides, I should add). Now that another edit was is erupting, arbitration once again seems the only solution....and page protection Jeffpw 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't rule on content, only on behavior. And arbitration is never binding as new editors can always show up and reraise issues. WAS 4.250 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultimetely it can rule on content but there are a few more formal steps to go through first. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some concern about the time interval (the holidays) when this "concensus" was reached. By implication, the "sanity" you describe only prevailed because "insanity" was taking a vacation. Sdsds 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding back "usually a man and a woman"

When Jeffpw did the edit, "rv back to old lead that was arrived at in consensus", the lead sentence lost the phrase, "usually a man and a woman". That's a shame! It didn't seem to violate WP:NPOV, wasn't controversial, and is demographically factual. What if we added the phrase back, so the sentence read, "... union between two or more people, usually a man and a woman"? Sdsds 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, here I go, commenting on my own comments! Just to be clear, especially for Puellanivis, we're striving for an article that is acceptable to people who have different points of view. From some editors' points of view, the article is unacceptable unless the introduction uses the phrase, "husband and wife." Some of those editors even believe the phrase belongs in the first sentence of the article. Hopefully my recent edit will help us understand whether those editors might accept, as a compromise, an article where the phrase instead appears in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Sdsds 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can see what you're meaning there. For some people allowing for variance in the meaning of marriage can be a very upsetting issue. I just got reverted for changing the phrasing of the part that links male marital role => "husband" and female marital role => "wife", back to what it was originally moved from. This particular editor doing the revert claimed it was "extreme same-sex POV", when it isn't about same-sex bias, it's that were (note: I'm using subjunctive here, which means that I am not arguing fact, but making a statement that may be contrary to fact!) two men married, then they would both be labeled "husbands", while two women being married would make them both "wives".

It's important to me to link those terms with their gender counter-part free from a definition of marriage as "one man and one woman", as reflexively, a husband is a "male member of a marriage", and a wife is a "female member of a marriage".

Instead of just reverting it back (like I almost did twice) I decided it would be better to work his viewpoint into a seperate paragraph above, which would deal with prevalance and commonality. Thus, leaving the particular definition of "husband" and "wife" section on its own to stand apart from an same-sex/opposite-sex debate. --Puellanivis 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, why do some people dislike "usually" and others like it? Sdsds 06:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed way forward

OK, I'm going to make a suggestion to try and stop this article from getting stuck in deadlock/ a revert war.

I am assuming that there are 2 competing views on how the introduction should read (please correct me if I am wrong). I suggest that both sides of the debate create below a version of how, in their view, the introduction should read. Please remember WP:NPOV in drafting them. Those sample intros can then present a basis for discussion and hopefully a mutually acceptable compromise.

Note. A version that contains no mention of gay marriage/polygamy is unlikely to gain concensus. Similarly a version that doesn't note that the predominant form of marriage in the world is between a man and a woman is unlikely to gain concensus.

Lets try and see how much distance there is between the 2 groups here... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Path of a One-Sentence Introduction

Oh yes, that could be fun! I wonder, though, that you perceive only two competing views! I propose an introduction with a single sentence, leaving everything else to be hashed out in sub-sections. The intro I propose is, "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of two or more people, usually a man and a woman." (But any tightly worded compromise would be better than the current text!) Sdsds 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful though it would be to keep it that simple, the Manual of Style requires 2 or 3 paragraphs for the lead section in an article of this size (see WP:LEAD). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The text to which you refer in WP:LEAD reads, "The following specific suggestions have been proposed." That is, 2 or 3 paragraphs is a proposed suggestion, not a requirement. Of course we agree my proposal couldn't do everything WP:LEAD says a lead should do. In particular, one sentence couldn't adequately describe the subject's "notable controversies." But apparently neither can 3 paragraphs.... Sdsds 06:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage at French Wikipedia

To gain an external perspective on the matter, I thought it might be interesting to see what other language Wikipedias say in their marriage articles. I also edit on French Wikipedia so have looked at the article there.

I have translated below the introduction from the article there:

In the majority of societies, marriage is an alliance between a man and a women, the aim of which is to form a family. This is described as a manogamous marriage. In some contries, notable in Africa and the Middle East, a form of marriage involving one man and a number of women is practiced, which is known as polygamous marriage. In some very rare instances in Asis, a marriage between one woman and several men is practices and this is described as polyandry. Equally, homosexual marriage has begun to be legalised in many countries.

Marriage is a union of indefinite duration which is terminated only by divorce or the death of either party. The union can be religiously as well as legally recognised if performed by leader of a religious congregation.

In France, since a law of the 14 April 2006, the man and woman cannot enter into a marriage contract before the age of 18 (previously, the age for the female party was fixed at 15) wihout the permission of their parents, which is necessary even in the case of emancipated minors.

In terms of canon law, marriage in the law of the Catholic church cannot be entered into before the age of 14 for the female party and 16 for the male party.

In general the implication of marriage is that sexual relations take place between the spouses (martial sex was a legal requirement overriding consent until recently in most jurisdictions and still is in numerous countries). Non-consumation can be a ground for annuling a marriage.

Notably none of the sentences are referenced in the original version there. The coverage of polygamous arrangements seems more extensive and the coverage of same-sex marriage less so. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the French Wiki, but Dutch and German Wikis don't mandate references, so most articles don't have them. Jeffpw 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage at the Dutch Wikipedia

Marriage is a type of living arrangement, generally between one man and one woman, which forms the legal foundation of many families and generally forms the legally and socially accepted basis of sexual relations and family ties. The precise definition of marriage is dependent upon the historic and cultural context (see below). World-wide, heterosexual, monogmous marriages are the most common, followed by polygamy (a marriage between one man and more than one woman). Frome the late 20th century onwards, some countries accept the term marriage to define homosexual unions. In the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Afrika marriage between people of the same sex has been legalized (See gay marriage). Other countries, such as Latvia, define marriage in their constitution as explicitly a contract between a man and a woman. Jeffpw 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

A dispute exists when two sides each claim to be "right": objective, true, correct, unbiased, whatever they say of their position.

Wikipedia's role is never to declare either side to be correct but rather to describe the dispute between them. We do not say that Pluto is or is not a planet but rather that, until last year, astronomers generaly considered it to be a planet; then it was demoted by them regardless of what most people think.

Marriage has traditionally been held to be a relationship between one man and one woman, although many variations have been described. Pending a discovery that it has been a minority tradition, we should play it safe by describing it as the norm. Yes, in some cultures men have had mistresses, concubines or even extra wives, but how prevalent has this been? I've seen no research in the article to suggest it was ever more than a rare variation.

As for the modern gay rights movement attempt to enlarge the definition to include "two or more people of either sex", we should write an article on their advocacy; we should not simply adopt it as a "consensus view". There is no consensus here. Rather, there is a dispute between those who feel marriage is one man, one woman, and those who feel it does (or can) have a broader definition. The place for a full description for all the variants of marriage is Types of marriage. --Uncle Ed 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage has traditionally been held to be a relationship between one man and one woman With regard to passive voice declarations like this, it might be helpful if we knew specfically who holds this view. I find it hard to believe that this formulation of "traditional marriage" that excludes any other form extends to, say, countries in the Middle East. Saying that a majority of marriages are heterosexual-monogamous is not the same as saying that monogamy is the only tradition.--Media anthro 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

getting the POV out of the lead definition.

even the Dutch and the French WP has "husband and wife" in the lead definition. all of the English dictionaries have "husband and/or wife" in the lead definition. there is no NPOV reason for deleting this cited and substantiated material.

certainly the recent edit i jammed in is ugly. the lead definitions from the 3 dictionaries should be accurately merged. that merge will have something about a "union of or state of being husband and wife" in the sentence. the very next sentence should say something about the emerging same-sex marriage. language can be drawn from the 3 dictionary definitions for that. but no one can, without inserting their POV, delete the referenced dictionary definition that all of the foriegn language (even the Dutch) WPs have included. this is blatant POV pushing.

fine, clean it up (i did not risk putting in my POV in how the 3 defs are merged) but leave out your POV. and deletion of cited, authoritive, and relevant material is POV.

how can you claim the deletion of this dictionary definition is not your POV when it is obviously so important to you personally to delete it? r b-j 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch: "meestal tussen één man en één vrouw" -> Usually between one man and one woman.

French: "Dans la plupart des sociétés, le mariage est l'alliance d'un homme et d'une femme" -> In most societies, marriage is an alliance between a man and a woman.

So?

Oh, and marriage is not what dictionaries say it is. It is all things dictionaries say it is, and more. -- Ec5618 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Selection of dictionary to cite can provide a significant POV element.

if there was disagreement between commonly recognized and authorative dictionaries, that would be correct. but i haven't seen such a dictionary fail to define, in the very first primary definition, marriage as a union or the state of being husband and wife. so there is no POV element in such selection. they all say that (and they all say, in a secondary definition, some as far back as definition "(d)", that same-sex marriage is sometimes meant, that is why SSM must be included in the article and also mentioned in the lead).

At least one previous editor had posted a citation to dictionaries that supplied a definition not allowing for the provision of a same-sex marriage.

dunno what dictionary was used because OED, M-W, Am. Her. all include, as a secondary definition, SSM.

If one understanding dictionaries, one would realize that there are two types. One is a descriptive dictionary, which attempts to describe the usage of words and terms as people use them at the time given. The other is a PERSCRIPTIVE dictionary, which states how words should be used. As English does not have a perscriptive authority of English, there actually is no perscriptive dictionary for English, British or American. Thus, all dictionaries for English are descriptive,

not what my English teacher taught us in school. especially the OED has multiple examples of usage, how a word is meant to be used or can be used.

and for this reason are incredibly poor sources of usage in a semantic argument.

baloney. and the opinions or wishful thinking of gay-rights interest groups is a better source than three independent and general dictionaries?

O.E.D. in particular has described itself as strictly a descriptive dictionary. So, if some people start using "marriage" to mean "between any two people" or even if people started using it to mean "a legally recognized union between any two animal", then the O.E.D. would report this as the usage.

and when OED (and some other dictionaries, i don't think one is enough, but 3 sure is) does that, only then is the time appropriate for Wikipedia to change its lead to include "legally recognized union between any two animals" as its lead definition. but not before. if animal rights groups came here to change that, such would be blatent POV, just as it is now when the same-sex advocacy comes here to change it.

As such, one *can* argue against a descriptive dictionary, stating that it does not properly reflect all variations of a term. In a language that has a perscriptive source (say, French), arguing against a perscriptive dictionary is fruitless, as in formal documents the use of a term is governed by that dictionary. (Colloquial/Informal speech is typically never under the perview of a perscriptive source).

Some speakers of English allow for the term "marriage" to include same-sex marriage.

some people allow for the concept of Intelligent design to be science. doesn't mean that it actually is science.

what goes into Wikipedia is sourced fact. and you do not have a source that defines marriage primarily between two persons of unspecified gender. all primary definitions of marriage specifically define it as something ("of being" or "union of") between a husband and wife. that fact is not ignorable. to change it in the WP lead is an attempt to move the social concept of marriage from the widely held belief or understand that it is heterosexual (and possibly monogamous) to something else. someday the widespread understanding might come to that, and when it does, WP should reflect that fact. it hasn't happened yet.

Certainly, even those that do not believe that this term should be allowed to apply to marriage understand the meaning intended by those who do. Arguing about the definition of marriage is in an argument of semantics, and in the respect of legal doctrine, the only meaning that matters is the legal definition of marriage (which in some states is defined as a "man and a woman" and in others, no such distinction is made, and a same-sex marriage is permitted.)

one U.S. state has, by judicial decree (that may very well be reversed by referendum, if you keep an eye on Mass. politics) not by passage of law, made such legal definition. five countries in the world have done so (none before 2001, whereas heterosexual marriage was the normal meaning of the term for better than 5000 years). just because 21⁄2% of the people in the world live in such jurisdictions does not mean that the definition has primarily changed. it hasn't. not yet, anyway. but there is an emerging concept and practice (legally and within some religious circles) of same-sex marriage and that fact must be reported here despite what the religious right believes or would prefer. in the same manner, the existing primary definition must be reported despite what the SSM advocates would prefer.

Outside of the legal realm, and despite the strong feelings of some people, other people will continue to use "marriage" colloquially in a way that allows for same-sex marriage. My sister considers herself "married" to her husband, although they have no legal, or religious recognition of that marriage. They simply consider themselves to be married, and live as if they were married. So, legally they're not married, and he is not her husband, but it doesn't stop her from calling him her husband, and other's from doing the same. Arguing this point of semantics is ultimately fruitless.

If you want to say that many jurisdictions define "marriage" as between "one woman and one man" knock yourself out. This cannot be argued with.

oh yes it can. it is not "many jurisdictions". it is nearly every jurisdiction. it is nearly every religious tradition. it is the vast majority, more than 95% (the burden is on you to show otherwise) that define marriage as such.

But some jurisdictions do define marriage in such a way as to allow same-sex marriages.

very very few. almost none at all.

Just because a couple is not legally recognized as married, does not mean that they may not consider themselves married,

but what of the converse? just because a couple may consider themselves married does not mean that they are married. doesn't matter whether it's same-sex or different-sex.

and you're not going to stop them from saying that they are, just because they're not legally defined to be married. It's colloquial use. So, focus the article less about defining who marriage is between, and more about what the goals of marriage should be. Then mention in a sub-header controversy about how some people want to define marriage legally to exclude same-sex marriages, and how some people want to define marriage legally to allow same-sex marriage. Arguing that "same-sex marriage" doesn't happen is absurd...

strawman. i never argued that. it is still not the status quo (even though the SSM advocates wish it were).

we're arguing about if it's legally recognized or not, not if same-sex couples get married. --Puellanivis 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

most of the world, where 971⁄2% of the people live, it is not legally recognizes. and yes, some same-sex couples get married. some people get PhDs from diploma mills. are their PhDs real? depends on who you ask. r b-j 02:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Puellanivis—made some really good points worth reading. I recommend you read her comments as originally written before it was cut up and made difficult to read. See section “getting the POV out of the lead definition” before Rb-j’s comments [[1]]--Riferimento 03:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

State the obvious; provide source citations

There are several obvious aspects of marriage the article doesn't mention. For example, it doesn't mention that most adults are married, yet the census provides, in the U.S. at least, good data to substantiate that claim. Would it make sense to focus more on fixing those short-coming of the article, and less on quibbling over terms in the lead sentence? Sdsds 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, yet this morning's New York Times has a headline "51% of women are now living without spouse" [2] (referring to Americans, I suppose).

• "... in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time"

Perhaps we should write about numbers and percentages of people who are married, and what Types of marriage they are in. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive approach

Every so often I like to re-suggest we try a descriptive approach where we describe each type of marriage and state how they differ. I would also like to point out that dictionary definitions would be OK with me, if they are current and complete, but using only the first definition and drawing conclusions based on the order of definitions is POV pushing, or at the very least WP:OR.
Stating that one type of marriage is more prevalent than another is not useful unless it is supported with a citation i.e. census information or real published statistic gathered by statisticians.--Riferimento 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. Whether you personally define marriage as only between a man and a woman or not, does not change the de facto state of same-sex couples that consider themselves married, or may have even taken a legally-unrecognized ceremony in order to consecrate their union as a marriage. If this article were entitled "legal marriage" then we would have cause to argue about whom marriage may be between, and there should be a section devoted to such information. I think it's possible though to talk about marriage in such a way as to not concrete one definition over another. Simply don't say who it's between, and describe what would cause two people to declare that they are married (and no, legal/religious recongition is not necessary for this.) I think there's a lot to talk about marriage beyond just "it's between one man and one woman" and "no, it's between any two consenting adults." I think that argument can be confined to a sub-heading of the whole argument.

As for dictionaries, they're totally worthless in my opinion. Any dictionary of English would recognize that it's a descriptive tool, and not a perscriptive tool, (O.E.D specifically states this) thus it's entirely useless to this debate about what a marriage is. Because some people are using the term "marriage" to refer to same-sex unions, then the O.E.D. reports that as a usage. They also report "new-kyuh-lur" as a pronunciation of "nuclear", despite all perscriptive sources saying that this usage is invalid. English Dictionaries are not authoritive sources! --Puellanivis 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly linking marriage to "one man and one woman" is not necessarily same-sex POV

I just really feel that I would like this to be addressed, because I don't like edits (at the very least, my personal edits) being claimed as same-sex POV simply because of a removal of an explicit statement that "a marriage is most commonly one man and one female".

I'm not trying to argue with that, and I don't want to argue with that. It's true! (At the very least, within the most common realm of audience for this particular article, the English-speaking world.)

The issue is that there are parts of marriage, which whether you agree or disagree with same-sex marriage, can still be addressed equally, fairly, and neutrally, without requiring an address of which is most common. If a particular assertion has no importance as to the members of the marriage, then no mention of any specific commonality of a heterosexual-monogamus marriage need be mentioned.

As such, since the terms "husband", "wife" and "spouse" are assigned according to individual attributes of that particular member of the marriage, and not dependent in any way upon any nature of the other member of the marriage, a statement addressing male-female marital roles and the terms associated with them is done an injustice by linking it into essentially a "rider amendment" that, "oh, by the way, a marriage is typically between one man and one woman." I don't debate either part of this issue, I just don't believe that they should be attached, as attachment is entirely unnecessary for the definition of these terms! --Puellanivis 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

but because the fact of marriage, that it is the world over (even in jurisdictions that recognize SSM), so overwelmingly lopsidedly heterosexual, that to sculpt that fact out is blatently POV. SSM exists in some very few jurisdictions and religious traditions, but it exists. that very fact (plus the fact that it also exists as an alternative dictionary definition) means it cannot be ignored in the NPOV article. but WP:Undue weight applies here. just because it exists in codified law in a few places and in some people's minds or world view, does not mean that this vast minority POV should change the meaning of the term in the article. the NPOV thing to do is point out that such SSM exists and that some (although relatively very few) people view SSM as marriage. fine. point that out (i think the article does). but don't change the definition until such change is so widely accepted by the culture that the dictionary definitions (or other references like E.B.) reflect that fact. that's when Wikipedia also reflects that fact. but the present fact is that, in the world, hardly anybody (relative to the total population) accepts or understands SSM to be marriage. but enough do, that the article needs to mention that fact. r b-j 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with that, and my second edit in response to your revert seperated the two statements. I have no problem with the article saying that marriages are "overwelmingly lopsidedly heterosexual" (and monogamous!) My only objection is that "male member of marriage" => "husband" and "female member of marriage" => "wife", and "member of marriage" => "spouse" is irrespective of any characteristic of their partner. As such, these definitions should be laid out without a need to say that "Marriage is between a man and a wife, who are 'husband' and 'wife' respectively". I had no problem with that phrase being there, I was just bothered by what it was attached to!

Again, because a husband may be married to another man, and a wife may be married to another female (under conditions where their marriage would be recognized) and this does not in any way alter either of the terms, their applicability nor their validity, then we don't need to assign a condition where we begin debating if a husband can only be married to a wife, who can only be married to a husband. If you want to relate that most husbands are married to wifes, who are mostly married to husbands, then that's fine, but please don't make it the central clause of the argument.

If you didn't get it the first time, this is "extremist same-sex POV" it's "extremist logician POV." If someone wanted to put "Two men who are married together would both be husbands, while two women who are married together would be wives." That would get just as much editing time as I spent on your change. The definition of "husband" and "wife" is entirely irrespective of the gender of the other member! It's as simple as that. --Puellanivis 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reference we can cite supporting the assertion that no female partners in marriages are called husbands? Because without a citable source I'm not convinced, thinking particularly of partnerships between stone butches and fems. Of course my reality may be shaped by too much TV. Sdsds 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just dictionaries citing it as the most common usage. So like... no... there is no decent reference to cite about what a particular word means. In the situation you describe, the butch might call herself a husband. Although, I know one woman who is addressed as a man by her guy friends... so, it all depends. --Puellanivis 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

well, i'm outa reverts for the day, ...

... but your statement "None of the dictionary definitions say “primarily” invalid support)" is itself invalid. every dictionary lists first the primary definition of a word with multiple meanings. SSM is not it. your edit is POV and you deleted accurate and sourced material from Wikipedia which is contrary to guidelines. r b-j 03:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring yourself as being "out of reverts for the day" is contrary to the spirit of the 3RR policy which says:

"The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is not an entitlement,"

DanB†DanD 04:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for Wikipedia policy lesson. how about one on WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:Undue weight, WP:OR, WP:SOAP? not much credance given to those. r b-j 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

and here's another one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias it's not a policy though. r b-j 04:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there's lots of work tobe done on all this stuff. However, I've never seen anybody title a talk-page section Verifiability is for the birds or Sources? Why bother? DanB†DanD 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR it's offcial policy. As for your charge of WP:Undue weight We end up with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't", because saying that marriages most typically "one man and one woman" is giving Undue weight to the side that says that only those marriages should count. If you exclude that detail (like many legal statutes in many legal jurisdictions... like Massachusetts, and New Mexico) then apparently you're giving Undue weight to the "same-sex marriage is tolerable" side of the issue. --Puellanivis 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

no, it isn't giving undue weight to any side. it is just stating the status quo as it is. it is just stating the dictionary definition (in multiple and widely authorative dictionaries of the English language) of the meaning of the term. taking it out requires is saying the dictionaries are incorrect, at least in putting such in the least in the lead definition. saying OED, Webster, and Am. Heritage is wrong is an "extraordinary claim" that "requires extraordinary evidence". r b-j 02:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing - part two

Please take a look at the subsection above called POV pushing. Uncle Ed, a longtime contributor and experienced capable dispute-resolver, has made some apt comments. Perhaps he could be drafted to help resolve some issues with this article. Do any of the disputants care to let him take a shot? WAS 4.250 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While Uncle Ed has been a great contributor to this encyclopedia, his reputation on POV pushing is not exactly stellar. Last summer's ArbComm Case does not support the idea that he is an able resolver of disputes like this. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What process or person do you recommend as an alternative to the current "I used up my reverts" situation? I like it when people add relevant quotes from reliable published sources (and do not delete relevant quotes from reliable published sources) and then when everything in the article is properly sourced begin the task of rewording quotes (where appropriate) and moving the actual quotes to footnotes. In other words: Step one: find sources; Step two: accumulate relevant quotes; Step three: reword using sourced quotes as footnotes. Arguments should be about whether or not to say "According to The Oxford English Dictionary" or not; about whether a source is reliable or not; about whether a quote is in context or not; about whether a rewording is supported by a quote or not. This business of having a revert war over whether the first sentence includes gay marriage or not is just sad. WAS 4.250 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of Uncle Ed’s use of the phrases “Marriage has traditionally been held to be a relationship between one man and one woman” and “attempt to enlarge the definition” I am not sure he understands the controversy. If he did I am sure he would have avoided using these controversial prejudicial phrases both of which support a particular POV. I suggest that we describe the different types of marriages and stop creating definitions or citing partial definitions.--Riferimento 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think marriage issues are complicated enough that even professional anthropologists debate them and Ed's suggestion to document the controversy is appropriate. I also fully agree with your recommendation that "we describe the different types of marriages and stop creating definitions or citing partial definitions." Can others agree to this? WAS 4.250 15:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we might be best off by identifying (on the talk page) what the leading journals and centers of research are around the world. Then we might be able to describe the significant views of experts in the field on what marriage is, it's impact on the world and how it developed. I agree the current discussion is unproductive (which is how I read your comments above). -- Siobhan Hansa 15:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this also and it is fully compatible with Riferimento and Ed's suggestions. Can we all agree to these three things

1. Ed: document the controversy
2. Riferimento: describe the different types of marriages and stop creating definitions or citing partial definitions
3. Siobhan Hansa: "identifying (on the talk page) what the leading journals and centers of research are around the world. Then we might be able to describe the significant views of experts in the field on what marriage is, it's impact on the world and how it developed."

WAS 4.250 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I can hardly say no since I suggested it! I do think this sort of thing needs more than one person. I have no idea how to find research on Asian, Latin American or African marriage for a start, and my knowledge of the English speaking social science research world is not huge, so I would appreciate any help people can provide. I'm starting collecting things in my sandbox. I haven't actually looked at the sites yet. I'm trawling through things like Google scholar getting links and info together. It may take a while to get up to speed. I'm flying for most of the rest of the weekend and will be online only intermittently for the next 10 days or so. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

check this diff (with the current). the version from me that you insisted was too skewed, in i dunno what direction but i suspect it was not liked by those not wanting "man and woman" or "husband and wife", now has that and does not have the same-sex reference that my unacceptable version included. what gives?r b-j 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a tag above this article that clearly says that the “neutrality and factual accuracy are disputed” no reasonable person would trust this information. After a while real editors give up and let the POV pushers have their way.--Riferimento 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally

I feel it would be appropriate to mention that personally, marriage is self-defined by many people, and a legal, religious or social recognition is not necessarily required for a union of people to express themselves as married. I'd find maybe a better way of expressing it than that, but it should be important to at least mention... I mean, legal and religious meanings do not encompass the entirety of our world, do they? --Puellanivis 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since anyone can edit, Wikipedia's credibility rests on citing published reliable sources. Original research is not allowed. WAS 4.250 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly OR, and seems like a very valid point that I would imagine is easy to find sources saying the same. I would think thatthat is well worth adding if you can link it to a source. (Personally, I think its self-evident and asking for a source is a bit silly, but on a controversial entry, can't be too careful.) --John Kenneth Fisher 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A great place for improving the article in this regard would be the section on "Recognition," which currently starts with, The participants in a marriage usually seek social recognition for their relationship. Substantiating that claim would help. (I wonder if there's any research showing that 99% of married couples want their friends to know that they are married.) Going a step further, don't some couples feel that simply proclaiming their marriage in public is sufficient, i.e. that social recognition of their union is enough to cause them to be married? (Is this the essence of common-law marriage?) Documenting the corner case, where a couple consider themselves married in secret even without a religious or civil ceremony, presents some intrinsic difficulties. The couple would have needed to have 'gone public' and their doing so would have needed to have been sufficiently notable that their prior secret marriage was reported. Sdsds 20:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I changed usually seek social recognition for their relationship to something like usually proclaim their relationship publicly. Sometimes people elope (to avoid notice from, say, nosy family members). Celebrities frequently avoid publicity, even marrying in secret.

Whether I can document the controversy is another story. At this point, I merely assert that it exists; and that it's between "traditionalists" (MF-based) and "extenders" (group of 2 or more, any sex).

Is there any relevance to our article on group marriage? --Uncle Ed 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Group marriage as the general form

Main article: group marriage

A form of group marriage where an individual (male or female) is married to more than one other person is called polyamory. This is unique from traditional group marriage in that each member of the group would be legally married to each other member of the group regardless of gender.

It appears one school of thought among Wikipedians contributing to our Marriage article, is that common forms of "marriage" are variations on the general concept of Group marriage.

In my thinking, marriage (or perhaps "traditional Western marriage"?) is indeed a more narrow concept; group marriage is the variation. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Love and marriage

Cut from intro:

Convention assumes that people who marry are normally in love.

Where and when has this been a convention? (Don't get me wrong: I've heard this all my life, growing up in the Northeast of the US, but we are talking universals here.)

Let's do a little research: what proportion of marriages are love matches (as in Bend It Like Beckham) as opposed to arranged (by force as in Ever After or voluntarily as in many Asian countries)? --Uncle Ed 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to lead

Not that my edits won't be subject to reversal, POV, etc. Nkras 00:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When you removed the cited reference to infidelity, it drastically altered the POV. On the principle that forward is better than reverse, I've removed the unreferenced claim about fidelity. Now this section is balanced again!  ;-) Sdsds 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nkras, nice to see you breathing again. when did they recind your banishment? any terms/agreement that you're willing to share with us?

anyway, the lead definition currently (since this edit) says "man and woman" instead of the neutered "individuals", but since the dictionary def does include SSM as an secondary definition, it should be included in the lead. even at the latter half of the first sentence or in the next sentence. i was (and am still) curious why such a version was killed (ostensibly because it wasn't SSM-friendly enough) yet the current version survives that doesn't even mention SSM until much farther down the intro. i would put it back in, but i think, out of habit, it would be taken out along with the current "usually of a man and a woman", which would make it worse, so i am leaving it alone for the moment.

even though i seem to get in fights here with the SSM advocates about the inclusion of any kind of "husband and wife" as you would find in the lead in the dictionary def, i might be a pain-in-arse for you if you take a flame-thrower to the article. (but other people will probably revert before i would get to it.) just to give you an idea about where i am on the spectrum. r b-j 02:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I'm excercising restraint, if only because I realize the blatant postmodernist POV here, and there are other battles to be waged other than on the world's largest BBS. I am well aware that what is at the core of the arguments are. It is control of ideas, definitions and language. The postmodern and critical theory editors know this, I suspect, and it is their duty to change the culture of the world through their edits and position of their articles in Google search results. I'm not going to get into any edit wars. It's a waste of time. BTW, the decision to unblock is here. Nkras 23:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, some of us are just here trying to present a linguists point of view that languages change as a matter of social consensus. The transition from a neologism to an established word is based entirely upon social acceptance of that new word, and the factors determining it are as turbulent as the weather. Modern social consensus of the meaning for "marriage" finds no violation of terms that keep it from being used to discuss "same-sex marriage", unlike social consensus continuing to find little if any reasonable meaning in the phrase colorless green ideas sleep furiously. If social consensus were that "marriage" absolutely had to be between a man and a woman, then "same-sex marriage" would make as much sense as "colorless green", or Invisible Pink Unicorn. Unlike these two later cases, even those opposing the use of "marriage" to apply to same-sex unions, still understand exactly what is intended and meant with the phrase. From a linguistic position, the argument that we shouldn't let gays get married makes as much sense as fighting the tide. If social consensus embraces the usage, then it will change, no matter how vehemently one position may fight. A similar situation is the use of the alternate spelling Womyn. If ever there were a group more vehemently positioned to argue about use of social language, it would be advocates for alternative spellings of "woman" and "women". However, the tide is against them, and these alternatives will not pick up. This has not been the same case with "gay" and "marriage". It may be saddening, and I doubt my revelations from a linguistic perspective will convince anyone as to the fruitlessness of their actions, but at least, I can represent the linguistic position that all this debate is... moot. People are going to get "married" whether there is social, religious, or legal recogniton or not. They just would really like to have the same privileges afforded any other couple having made an equally strong commitment. --Puellanivis 08:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

consensus means "general agreement: unanimity " ... "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole;". regarding the definition of "marriage" to include SSM, we don't have that consensus. it's not even close. social consensus has not yet embraced such usage and to imply in a WP article that it may have is not factual. you placing the burden of proof on the status quo, instead of on the possibly emerging change is backwards, Puellanivis. the requirement is not that social consensus be that "marriage" absolutely has to be between a man and a woman to leave the definition as it is stated in the dictionaries of present, but rather the burden of proof is on the other side. if the dictionaries we slow to adopt the changing meaning and it was clear that there is social consensus that "marriage" absolutely has to include SSM, then we could make a case that OED and Webster are just wrong and Wikipedia is not repeating the mistake. but no such consensus exists. in fact, world wide there is near consensus of the status quo, as reflected in the laws of nearly all jurisdictions and in the religious tradition of nearly all those who practice such. but since it is not complete consensus (which is not really consensus, if we were to use the term strictly) then it is important that this article makes reference to SSM, even if the religious right objects to the term. but there is nothing even close to consensus to justify change the definition from three different authoritive sources just because of how the term is understood by a very small minority of people world wide.

whether or not "we" let gays get married is a social/poltical issue that gets to be reported in Wikipedia, but is not an issue decided here. let's let the social change happen as it may. after such change has happened, if it has happened, then let's report it as such in Wikipedia. to report of such change that has not yet happenned, is POV and is a blatent attempt to use Wikipedia to support such change. r b-j 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing a completely seperate issue from social consensus about the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. I am discussing the linguistic use and validity of the term "marriage" when applied to a same-sex couple. Linguistically, the meaning of "marriage" accepts the adjectival phrase "same-sex", not just grammatically, but semantically. A less emotionally charged example would be a "purple orange", it makes both grammatical, and semantic sense, unlike "colorless green", which while grammatical, is (without contrived amounts of context) semantic nonsense. "Same-sex marriage" falls into the same group as a "purple orange", because while it would be generally agreed that such a fruit would not be natural, and had to be artificially modified in some way, the color of an orange is not essential to it's existence as an orange. Similarly, "same-sex marriage" while presenting an alternative meaning for nominal phrase "same-sex marriage" which differs from simply "marriage", this difference is not at all any more worrisome or bothersome than any other adjective being use to describe the marriage, because the entire purpose of an adjectival argument in a nominal phrase is to alter the meaning of the head argument. Depsite "purple orange" and "same-sex marriage" being semantically meaningful phrases, not all grammatical adjective noun combinations are semantically meaning full, and this is where the example "colorless green" demonstrates a semantic collision, because "green" is a color, and cannot be at the same time a color, and as indicated by "colorless", lack all color.

Social, Religious, Legal, or even Lexigraphical recognition of "same-sex marriage" has nothing to do with my issue at hand. We could legally outlaw purple oranges, we could socially refuse to eat them, our religious leaders could condemn those who who eat them, and the dictionary could enumerate all the colors that an orange may be, and not ennumerate purple. But, if you were to be presented with a purple orange, you would immediately identify it as a purple orange.

This is my argument. "Same-sex marriage" is not a semantic collision, and while a greater question is raised of "why is it not a semantic collision", this would lead one into the realm of a social, religious, or legal argument. I am specifically not dealing with those issues. I will not be derided by anyone telling me what the consequences would be from recognizing "same-sex marriage" as a legitimate use of language. My focus is solely on the fact that such a use is grammatical and semantically legitimate use of language. The evidence in support of this fact, the continued used in colloquial and contemporary speech. (Which is an appropriate use of Argumentum ad populum, as language use is a social convention. Could this legitimate use of language change? Yes, it certainly could, but we're talking about right now, and the evidence is highly in support of my linguistic position.) Further evidence is that opponents of same-sex marriage, still call it a "same-sex marriage", or "gay marriage".

Unless you can provide a linguistically supported argument that use of "marriage" with "same-sex" is linguistically invalid. I will continue to assert that the lead in definition of marriage should not first describe marriage as between one man and one woman, but rather describe the generic meaning associated with marriage, a formalized union between two or more people. I do not object to saying in the lead that the most common form of marriage continues to be composed of one man and one woman, but if you present marriage as "Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, but alternatively can refer to a same-sex union, or a polygamous union" is unnecessarily POV as it provides that same-sex marriages are not equivalent even in linguistic terms. A generic definition of a term is not necessarily a POV statement, and I have attempted continuously to demonstrate with arguments supported by linguistic science that my position is reasonable, and not a point-of-view, but a finding as a result of proper linguistic analysis. --Puellanivis 01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

there is much, much, to respond to. and everytime i intersperse replies to each point-by-point, people here don't seem to like it, so i will refrain. there are many points you make above, Puellanivis, that, on their own, just do not stand up. or they are not applicable to the concern that i brought to this article since the beginning (for me). you should have seen the version at that time. except for differentiating between polygyny and polyandry, every mention of the terms "husband" and "wife" or "man" and "woman" was carefully sculpted out of the article, yet same-sex marriage was mentioned several places. if some alien from the planet Zog were reading the article, they would conclude that, outside of the Roman Catholic Church, marriage on the planet Earth was either same-sex or virtually uncoupled to heterosexuality or understood as such here. this is a false impression (since the overwelmingly vast majority of marriages in the world are heterosexual and thought of as such) and was deliberately done to satisfy the world view of the gay community as well as allies. that is blatently POV and contrary to Wikipedia policy. it is taking the wishful thinking of the SSM advocates and identifying such wishful thinking as reality. it's a falsehood. so that's where i started getting involved here. previously i was in a pretty brusing dispute about the content of Homophobia where, again, the gay-rights advocates were trying to infer meaning to the word that is not the lexigraphical meaning at present for their own political purposes. even though he is also a partisan (on the other extreme) User:Nkras is absolutely correct in saying "It is [about the] control of ideas, definitions and language." there are partisans coming here and using Wikipedia for such. and that is contrary to the 2nd pillar of Wikipedia.

now, it's clear that you and i seem to use language differently. you say most states, but you didn't really mean "most states". when i say "most foo is of this kind" i mean more of this kind of foo than any other kind of foo. at least a plurality of foo, if not majority. but certainly not minority.

your use of the word "consensus" is similar. you said Modern social consensus of the meaning for "marriage" finds no violation of terms that keep it from being used to discuss "same-sex marriage" and i took issue with that. there is no consensus at all that marriage means anything else than that of "The condition of being a husband or wife" (the OED primary definition). Husbands are not of the same sex as wives. there is a "semantic collision". there is certainly, until usage and social consensus truly puts these terms together, a semantic inconsistency, in most people's understanding, putting the terms together. this fact is reflected in the primary definitions of at least three major dictionaries of the English language. that is simply the fact, whether you or i or any SSM advocates or detractors from the religious right like it or not. that is the way it is and Wikipedia says it the way it is, not how some of us might like it to be.

now, perhaps, to the chagrin of the religious right and others who might vote in referendums to prohibit SSM, the fact is that same-sex marriage is an emerging reality with legal standing in 5 countries and 1 U.S. state. that's a fact and such should be reported in Wikipedia, both in an article about this fact and with at least a mention or two in the Marriage article. but this is an emerging social phenomenon, not the new status quo. i personally feel that an emerging phenomenon regarding the Republican party is that it is proving itself to be the most corrupt, hypocritical, and destructive policital force in the U.S. but, until such fact is well established as fact and understood as such by a consensus of people, i can't go over to that article and say as much, even if i cite the numerous examples of corruption, hypocrisy, and destruction attributable to actions of the GOP. r b-j 06:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop arguing about issues that I have already conceded... you're treating me like a dead horse and beating me. I have requested of you a pointed question you can not even manage to address: "Please, address your reasoning as to why a dictionary is an absolutive authority on the English language."

Next in the same edit you say, "there is a "semantic collision"." and "the fact is that same-sex marriage is an emerging reality". You need to make up your mind, because if it is a semantic collision then it is nonsensical term and cannot be used. As someone stated against me somewhere on this article, "It's like trying to pass legislation that Pi equals 3." Pi has a fundamental value that is not exactly equal to 3, and thus attempting to define it as such fail on a fundamental semantic error. If same-sex marriage is an emerging reality, then it cannot be a semantic collision. Your own usage of "same-sex marriage" betrays your assertion as your usage shows that your idiolect does not consider it a semantic collision. We cannot argue that "colorless green is actually the new in color", because "colorless green" has a semantic collision. You attempt to establish a claim of semantic collision based on the authority of a dictionary. Now, if you would allow me to refresh you on my pointed question, "Please, address your reasoning as to why a dictionary is an absolutive authority on the English language." Appeal to authority is a fallacy. The dictionary doesn't make a meaning right because the dictionary dictates what a correct meaning is, the dictionary simply affirms meanings of words, which may or may not even be out-dated. So, why should I even take your argument as anything but fallicious when you attempt to assert a point contrary to your own actions?

My argument here is not that you are wrong about same-sex marriage, but that your attempted use of definitions is flawed, and needs to be resolved. If we can even have a meaningful argument about the occurance of "same-sex marriage" then the term cannot have a semantic collision, as it could not logically exist in the first place. If "same-sex marriage" were a semantic collision people arguing for it may as well be arguing as a proponent of an Invisible Pink Unicorn. I feel that this point has to be specifically addressed before any meaningful discussion about anything else about marriage is possible. Because if you assert that "same-sex marriage" is a semantic collision, and then you turn around and discuss it with the appearance that you assertain it to be in existence in reality, then you are arguing a contradiction. If you want to tell me that the terms contradict according to the dictionary, that is a sustainable premise. My position is that the true meaning and use of these words even on your part indicates that you can actually reconcile this contraction of dictionary terms, and use these words in a meanng outside of any "authority" that the dictionary has. At which point, the discussion of if the dictionary contradicts itself is irrelevant, because English dictionary are descriptive! Similarly the two superfamilies under Primate were Prosimii, and Anthropodoidea, but once scientists discovered upon further evidence that in fact, their classifications were incorrect, and they switched to Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini. That's what science is, discovering error, resolving it and moving on. Not holding on to a piece of Common Wisdom asserting "But you can't just move the Tarsiiformes into the same group as the Anthropodoidea! They're in the superfamily Prosimii!". It's like using an "authority" to assert against reality, when that authority is merely a model and a description of reality. Do you understand where you're going entirely wrong? --Puellanivis 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

to simply state that "Appeal to authority is a fallacy" is misleading. in fact, by what proof or authority do you make such a claim? your own expertise? a Wikipedia article? in fact, if you go down to the section Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority, you will note that it says: "Any argument should ideally be based solely on direct evidence and the argument itself, ... However, it is rarely possible in common discourse to provide all the direct evidence, so an "appeal to authority" is often used as a shortcut:" now, if we were to argue about the age of the universe, and i were to claim that it was 1 billion years old (not the obviously unreasonable 6000 years of the young-earthers) and you were to refute it with the (now widely accepted) 13.7 billion years, how would you base your argument "solely on direct evidence and the argument itself"? we would be appealing to the authority of scholarship within the disciplines of physics and cosmology unless you, yourself are a cosmologist and you have your own evidence (that is peer-reviewed, etc.) how about if someone claims that HIV doesn't really cause AIDS and it's just a load of crap. are you researching this directly? whom are you going to believe? Thabo Mbeki or the medical establishment? we can't all be experts in every area. we must rely on authorities regarding knowledge that is outside of our personal areas of expertise.

in fact, i am making an appeal to authority but i am being choosy about what authority i am appealing to. it's interesting that in that section Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority, some of the criteria are The authority must have competence... The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence... The authority must be interpreted correctly... The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue... The expert should be reasonably unbiased... i should believe you (or some the SSM advocates) before i believe the OEM, Merriam-Webster, or American Heritage dictionaries? another criteria is A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. what's interesting is that all three independent dictionaries essentially agree. in the primary definitions of all three, the words "husband and/or wife" are there. in all three, the secondary (or tertiary) definition of SSM is there. looks like the authorities agree. but somehow these uncredentialed editors of Wikipedia are higher, more competent authorities that trump the OEM, Merriam-Webster, or American Heritage dictionaries?r b-j 08:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've loaded the version you describe the lead in contains no mention of either heterosexual or homosexual marriage. You say that a Martian reading the article would not be able to tell that heterosexual marriages even occured? Did you miss the section: "Having always regarded it in practical terms as a relationship between a man and a woman, it was in the 12th century that the Church (the Catholic Church ), as well as other orthodoxies, formally defined marriage as a sacrament. (In Catholicism the Sacrament of Matrimony is between three people: God, the man and the woman)" Are you just selectively reading against same-sex marriage or something? Next up, a double hit for both homosexual and heterosexual: "Since the later decades of the 20th century many ideas about the nature and purpose of marriage and family have been challenged, in particular by LGBT social movements, which point out that marriage should not be exclusively heterosexual." (emphasis mine) As you accussed me of, it's like you're "talking through your hat". I make honest failures of ignorance (I didn't know, and still do not know the ratio of states that have ambiguous definitions of marriage, and neither do you, unless you've done all that research and not bothered to share it.), but you continue to assert a position that I can show is logically fallacious, and contradictory, but not only that, but you misrepresent something that I can easily go back and actually look at, and accuse it of asserting that "marriage on the planet Earth was either same-sex or virtually uncoupled to heterosexuality or understood as such here". You choose your facts, you choose your arguments carefully, and you beat me like a dead horse about an issue that I have conceded numerous edits ago. If you continue to assert your position as valid, I can only just blow you off. If you're right in agreeing that "It is [about the] control of ideas, definitions and language.", then I can entirely understand why your actions are taking the course that they are in attempting to continue to assert that a generic definition of marriage would not include the sex of the partners involved, or even the number of partners involved. --Puellanivis 07:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

if it wasn't about the "control of ideas, definitions and language" there wouldn't be so much effort made by the SSM crowd to sculpt out virtually every reference to husband and wife from the article. that is why i'm convinced it is a blatent attempt to inject SSM POV into the article just as i would know it was the religious right blatently injecting POV if they tried to remove any reference to SSM in the article. by the way, i referred to the Catholic implication of heterosexuality in marriage in that version. problem is that the aliens from Mars would be misinformed if they were led to believe it was only Roman Catholics who understood marriage to be, by definition, exclusively heterosexual. r b-j 08:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If people start using the word "pi" to mean three, they can do that. Who's to stop them? What no one can do is make a circle with a circumference that's three times its diameter. Is there a connection between "pi" and "marriage"? Honestly I don't have an opinion on that. But if on either subject the wikipedia editors were divided, I would expect the wikipedia article to fairly explain both views, and let each reader decide which makes the most sense to them. Sdsds 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

actually that state law was, i believe, from Indiana around the turn of the previous century and they wanted to decree that π was equal to 22⁄7 which is pretty close, but of course not exact. pretty much in agreement with Sdsds. but if there was disagreement in pi about what the value of π is, i would not let it slide that there was even an alternative definition of it as 22⁄7 in the lead definition or the intro. perhaps a mention of this other view could be placed way down in the article, sorta like there is a mention of numerological theories about the value of α, the fine-structure constant. but these alternatives do not get anywhere close to equal weight (such as in the lead sentence) because they do not deserve it and it would be misleading to the reader to suggest as much.

in the same sense, although same-sex marriage should exist as an article and should get discussed and cross-referenced in the marriage article and should even be mentioned in the intro as an alternative definition of marriage (since it is semantically incompatible with the primary definition that includes "husband and/or wife" unless one were to imply that "husband" need not mean male or man and "wife" need not mean female or woman or womyn, whatever, and i hope we don't go there). that should exist, but to remove the primary definition of marriage from the lead sentence and replace it with the androgynous "individuals" gives SSM equal and undue weight in this article where it does not deserve it in either common usage, legal usage, or the (authoritive) dictionary definition in the English language. to place this vast minority usage of the word on the same level as the common, legal, and primary dictionary use of the word is wishful thinking of the POV of the gay and SSM partisans. some day it very well may evolve in status to the common, widespread legal, and formal primary dictionary definition where such evolution is reflected in Wikipedia, but we aren't there yet and must not use Wikipedia as a force to move us in that direction. r b-j 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds right. The views should both be represented in the lead, but not necessarily with equal weight. The first paragraph as it currently stands (although a grammatical mess) has no explicit mention of SSM, which seems OK. Perhaps the place to introduce SSM explicitly is the first sentence of the second paragraph? If so, the third view (that under no circumstances should same-sex unions be thought of as marriages) might get a reference in the last sentence of that second paragraph. Would that satisfy proponents of each viewpoint? Sdsds 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit to the lead sentence that went back to "individuals" rather than " weaselly a man and a woman": my response was to move back into the first sentence the concept that the union must be for certain purposes. Not every business partnership is a marriage, after all! How we describe the people involved in a marriage makes less difference (to me) than how we describe their intentions. Sdsds 07:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, and I think that the paragraph sounds both neutral and explanatory as it is now. Cheers, HalfDome 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:HalfDome stated: "Statistics about the frequency of different types should be later (if you ever get some))" I referenced those very statistics. It was moved to Marriage and Religion. "World Religions and Same Sex Marriage", Marriage Law Project, Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, July 2002 revision [3] BTW, you should refrain from explanations such as "lmao! rbj thinks making a defintion better reflect the full usage of a term is POV. You can't get much more backwards than this guy." Ad hominem. Nkras 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

lol, btw, you should refrain from calling things POV when you are applying the definition completely backwards. Ad backwardsiem. All the best, HalfDome 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

so what can you say that's persuasive? r b-j 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

and BTW, whether it is "averaging" or "summing" is just a matter of a scaling constant. they would never likely have the rates of married filing jointly to be at the same value they are for single at the same income levels (justifying describing it as summing the income). and if the rates for married jointly were twice the that of single at half of the income, there would be no marriage penalty and this would exactly the effect of the spouse averaging their income against each other and paying as single (assuming no kids or similar in both cases). but, of course, the rates are higher than the latter and lower than the former. but, i think the fact is that more married couples in the U.S. gain a tax advantage even with rates that are higher than twice of single (at half income) than there are couples that suffer a marraige penalty (usually both spouses work but there is still a disparity of income from each). r b-j 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edited template

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

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. [4] 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. [5]

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 2^nd 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.Flammingo^Parliament 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)

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)

I've changed "marriage is a... union of x and y" to "marriage is a committment between"... because, as you 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)

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)