Talk:Marriage

• Talk:Marriage/Archive1

German Wikipedia

The German Wikipedia has this picture:

caption?

with a caption I cannot decipher, on de:Ehe. Could someone provide a translation please? TIA. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"As Reymond and Melusina together were lead... and by the Bishop were blessed in their bed (Woodcut from the Schönen Melusine, 15th century)". Paul Beppler 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My quick edit to this page

While on vandalism patrol I noticed that the phrase "marriage is defined as a close relationship among or between individuals" had been altered to say "marriage is defined as a close relationship between a man and a woman". I chose not to revert the page as vandalism, which it may or may not be, but instead replaced the original sentence. My reasoning for this is based on the fact that legally speaking, in many countries in the world, including the U.S. marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman. I expect this is a contentious issue among some people (it certainly has been here in Massachusetts), and am not suprised to see that it has been discussed on this page. My intention is not to enter the debate, but restore the page to the currently consensus version. Dina 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just realized this page is being repeatedly vandlized by the same IP. Will keep an eye on it and revert this edit as many times as it takes using Vandalproof. Dina 17:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Dina..for example in Belgium, in the Netherlands or in Spain marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman.GLGerman 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Is it not the case that is the vast majority of marriages on this planet are between one man and one woman? You seem to go out of your way to make marriage as gender neutral as possible while omitting this one obvious fact (you do use the word "many" quite a bit but it is unconvincing). I would not refer to someone's edits on this subject as vandalism.

I also take offense at the use of CE as opposed to AD.

In general, I did not find this article to be as informative on marriage as it could have been. HarwoodRH 01:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could be more specific about what you would have expected to find in the article but didn't it might help us to improve it.

We're an encyclopedia, so it makes sense that we talk about the general case, not simply the majority. I think the article is very clear that one man - one woman unions are the dominant form without falling into the trap of writing about marriage as though that's a part of its inherent nature.

On the CE front I'm not a fan myself, though I don't understand how its use can offend. Though I'd probably vote for a standard use of AD and BC if the matter ever came up, I don't think such a policy would actually significantly improve the encyclopedia. Since English is a diverse language and our many users have perfectly legitimate standard usages that clash with other users' perfectly legitimate standard usages, in general we tolerate a number of different forms, asking only that editors respect each other, use common sense and try to be consistent within an article. You can read more about the details in our manual of style. If you have a constructive comment about something covered in the manual of style you should make it on the appropriate sub-article's talk page. This isn't the place to discuss the guideline. --Siobhan Hansa 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions/plans

Hopefully I'll have time to do some of this, but if someone could beat me to it, great. This article's getting longer than it ought. The section on "Marriage and economics" could be made a seperate article and greatly condensed. Also, the wedding section has some info in it that should be moved into the main article, and other information that could be greatly condensed or removed in favor of coverage in the main article (ex: facts specific to individual countries).

Also, there are sections in "Definition" that pertain to current events, like in the last paragraph, that could be stricken entirely and moved to the same-sex marriage and polygamy articles. Not sure whether they actually 'should', though, so I'll leave it be for now. MrZaius^talk 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The section of "Marriage and Religion" is an important component of this article as marriage has its roots in religious practice and belief. Marriage is a solemn covenant, contract, and vow often taken in the presence of witness with God Himself often considered to be a witness. Marriage and related topics are discussed in many separate articles in Wikipedia. This main article on marriage is helped by keeping this section on Marriage and Religion here and keeping it strong and informative. Itohacs

External links

I removed links that were blatantly commercial. The ones that are left are still pretty dodgy. The only one I think adds real value is the Rugters marriage project.

• igla.org - International gay and lesbian association. Presumably here as some sort of "balance" against the catholic encyclopedia link. But it's to the organization, not even to their stance on marriage. And it's not really a counterpoint to the catholic Encyclopedia content.
• Social Determinants of Attitudes Towards Women's Premarital Sexuality Among Female Turkish University Students - This just seems bizzarly specific. It's kind of related, but how many readers are actually going to find it useful linked from here. If something like this isn't relevent enough to be a reference it's unclear to me why it would be a good external link.
• Catholic Encyclopedia "History of Marriage" - I don't know what the provenance of this site is, or if it's well respected within the Catholic community. But I was surprised by it. The article itself seemed out of keeping with the strong tradition of scholarship for which the Catholic Church is known. And the site appeared to be very commercial (covered in google ads - and pushing it's own sales). Is this connected with the Catholic Church or one of their universities? Is it well respected in academic circles?

Anyway, I'd like to remove all but the Rugters marriage project. Does anyone want to defend any of them? (Or suggest Rugters goes too) --Siobhan Hansa 17:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for a section by an anonymous user

The following appeared on the main page: It wasn't vandalism, but it was misplaced, so I move it here.

== History ==

What is the history of marrage?

Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

stats

are there any stats on the avg age of when people from certain countries get married? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.13.120 (talk)

The UN produced this pdf in 2000. Things may have changed significantly since (even the stats they're using are over a worryingly long timeframe) They may have something newer somewhere on their website. --Siobhan Hansa 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Is there a particular reason this article states that marriage is between a man and a woman, when several countries around the world have, on grounds of anti-discrimination, opened marriage to couples of any gender? -- Ec5618 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

my curiousity is where do you mean?? somebody went through painstaking effort to remove any inference of heterosexuality in marriage in the common mind since so many faiths, cultures, laws, and people assume such when they refer to marriage. r b-j 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO There are three kinds of NPOV ways to cite sources on defining marriage: (1) Legal marriage (marriage law in a particular legal region like a state or a country), (2) Religious Marriage (marriage as defined by a particular religious organization .... or other ideological organization?) and (3) "Marriage" in the English language (as defined by popular usage among English speakers). For the first kind, the NPOV definition of marrriage depends on the laws in a given country. For the second, we define it by official doctrinal or ideological statements of a particular group. For the third, you go to popular usage of the word/concept in NPOV sources liek a dictionary. IMHO, "marriage" for this article needs to be defined in the intro 'graf. MPS 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

r b-j, when I make the comment, it was valid[1]. Shortly after, CovenantD addressed the issue.

MPS, in no case can we state that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, as you did just now. While the majority of countries restict marriage to intergender couples, that does not mean that countries that define marriage as a bond between individuals are wrong. Our definition should be so wide as to include all marriages. -- Ec5618 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

i fully disagree. in the laws of the nations/states of 90+% of the worlds population, in the practice of marriage in 90+% of the world religions of 90+% of those who are counted as members, marriage is understood as being between a man and a woman. the article should reflect that fact (not that marriage is between a man and a woman, that is debated, but that it is considered to be between a man and woman in such a significant portion of society the world over) and it should state it in the intro. it should also qualify it since there certainly are marriages recognized (but not universally recognized) between same-sex couples. the way that this has been carefully sculpted out of the article reflects the POV of those who believe (rightly or wrongly, i am not judging that) that marriage should not be a function of the genders of spouses instead of reflecting the reality that marriage is viewed by the vast majority of the world population (as well as the dictionary definitions of the term) as between a man and a woman. this POV sculpting of the article should be fixed. r b-j 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The current definition is correct in all cases: "A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants." Whether most believe it to be essential that one of those (and just one of those) individuals be male is no justification for defining marriage so that the minority is by definition wrong. Like it or not, in South Africa and the Netherlands and such, marriage doesn't need to be intergender. Ergo, marriage doesn't need to be intergender. -- Ec5618 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

as per WP:WPINAD: "an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic" i have corrected the definition to the primary (lead) definition in the M-W dictionary and included a reference. while it may not be the reality you seek, the fact is that conservatively 90% of the world's population, as reflected in the laws of the jurisdictions people live in and reflected in the canons of religious tradition that claim adherents numbering at a majority of the world's population, a socially sanctioned, intergender relationship that generally includes a sexual component is what the vast majority of people understand marriage to be. certainly this article should reflect the existence of same-sex marriage and it does, but the POV pushing is blatent to carefully sculpt out any mention of the normative concept of marriage when that is precisely the principle definition in the dictionary. OED says essentially the same.

to make a reference to same-sex marriage in the article and not mention the existence of intergender marriage when that is the primary definition is balant POV editing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the same-sex marriage movement. if you want to change the world (to accept same-sex marriage worldwide), be my guest, but you cannot use Wikipedia to do it.r b-j 07:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The definition that we are presently using does not conflict with the Merriam Webster definition that you cited, nor SOED (I do not have access to an OED). If you feel that a reference to these definitions is important add the citation, but I would prefer that the present definition be retained; “[a] marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants.”

Language is fluid and changing and I personally feel that the definition presently being used on this page is both more precise and accurate than the cited Merriam Webster definition you were using.

Can anyone find out when last the OED definition for marriage was updated? Also, when last Merriam Webster updated their definition of marriage?--GMS508 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

the print version of the OED (1971) has for its primary (lead) definition: "The condition of being a husband and wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock." listen, this article should make it clear that there are same-sex marriages out there, that there are governmental jurisdictions and also religious traditions that recognize same-sex marriages (it probably should also qualify that fact with the other fact that these jurisdictions and traditions are relatively few in number). it should link to same-sex marriages as well as discuss it, but it should not have what is commonly thought of as marriage by 95% of the world's population carefully sculpted out of the article so that it appears politically-correct to the gay-rights movement. when society changes to the degree that people do not normally associate marraige to a sanctioned intergender life and sexual relationship but commonly associate it to something that does not specify any gender difference or identity, when the standard dictionaries of the English language yank out "man and woman" or "husband and wife" out of the principal definitions, that's when the Wikipedia article gets to reflect that fact. otherwise it's using Wikipedia to push or at least nudge social change and that is not what WP is for. r b-j 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The 1971 OED is a fine resource, but I would like to know how it is presently defined by the OED. I am sure that some lexicographer out there can provide a more relevant citation. Also, I would like to point out English words are defined by usage and that there is no recognized governing board of the English language.

Do you wish to see a citation for same sex marriages in print?

It is my opinion that the citation you are using is not enough to support your recent changes. Personal beliefs and preferences are relevant for defining law, but usage is the be all and end all for defining a word.--GMS508 20:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(new indent) All I am saying is that this article needs to reflect existing definitions of marriage in WP:NPOV ways rather than draft "our own definition." WP:NOR demands that we correctly reflect current legal, cultural, and linguistic definitions. Only if these change should we change "wikipedia's definition" ... because wikipedia doesn't have an opinion except those attributed to recognized sources. MPS 20:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just same-sex marriages being excluded by that phrasing: polygamy and, rarely, polyandry have existed and still, I believe, exist in some cultures. We mustn't be biased solely to Western cultures. That said, there HAVE been notable legal battles about this in America and so on, and it is imprortant historically: Why not make a controversies and/or historical section? It would be eminently appropriate there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

the article gets to discuss polygamy, polyandry, same-sex, religious, civil marriage, all of these things. but it doesn't get to "adjust" the primary definition of marriage from what 95% of people understand it to be to the personal likings of those who are unhappy that laws nearly all of the world's governments and the practice of nearly all of the world's established religious faith recognize only heterosexual marriage (as well as monogamous, etc.) it's not that everyone does it that way, 95% or 99% is not 100% and that left over 1 to 5% should be discussed, but just because there are a relatively small number of same-sex marriages in the world does not mean that the definition of the word should be changed from what it is to what this 1 to 5% would like it to be. here is what Britanicca says in its lead: "... a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any)." it doesn't say "always", but it is understating the fact when it says "usually". the vast majority of all marriages are intergender. the vast majority of all governments (by population) recognize only intergender marriage. the vast majority of institutionalized religious traditions recognize only intergender marriage. if that is to change in the future because of whatever social forces make this reality to change to a "better" reality, that's fine but Wikipedia is not here to help fight that fight. WP only reflects the sides of that fight (every side with significant number of adherants), but not to advocate for any one side.

If 95% of people understand marriage to be restricted to intergender couples, they misunderstand marriage. Some countries allow same sex marriages. Marriage, in other words, is not always a union between a man and a woman. This simple fact falsifies any definition of marriage as being "a state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". -- Ec5618 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

from WP:NPOV (which, by the way, is official policy): "if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced." even if 95% misunderstand marriage, if 95% (mis)understand marriage to be precisely what definitive standards of meaning of English words such as the OED or Webster's say marriage to be in their principal definition, that "misunderstanding" is what goes into Wikipedia. and in this case, because this issue is rife for POV editing, the dictionary definition is what goes into the lead of the article. anything else is editing out of one side's POV. we don't let the Christian conservatives come in here and define the article to be what their POV of it is either. both get mentioned, but for the pro-gay or LGBT or "inclusionist" or whatever side to define marriage to be something different than the dictionary definition or the common "mis"understanding of it, is POV editing. and it is blatant. r b-j 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference between what people approve of, and what people understand. In addition, would you state your source that “95% of people understand it to be...”. Are these your opinions, or do you have a reference we could check?

i haven't put that in the article. what i did put in was the dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster) and i cited here the OED. for both the primary definition specifically mentions "husband and wife". r b-j 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that 95% of the people disapprove, or that 95% could not comprehend that a marriage could between two individuals of the same sex?--GMS508 03:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i am asserting that at least 95 persons out of 100 in the world understand the definition of "marriage" to be that of some kind of societal-sanctioned union between a man and a woman. but i am relying on sourced, widely recognized, dictionary definitions for the article. r b-j 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) This article is about the institution of marriage. We don't define words in our articles, we define the subject we are talking about. We don't define the subject of our physics articles to meet the understanding of the general public, we explain the subject as it is understood by experts in the field, and encompass all significant points of view. Using the broad definition of marriage is not promoting a new, unpublished idea of what marriage is. The idea that marriage can encompass a broader set of relationships than one-man - one-woman is verifiable despite Mirriam-Webster's definition. There is no original research. It is easy to broadly describe marriage so that it reflects the general case. Recent attempts to the change the article lead and disambiguation statement ([2]) show how much weaseling is necessary to try and sustain a narrow definition and still inform readers of relevant exceptions. We should stick to an elegant and broad lead. --Siobhan Hansa 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"elegant" is a matter of opinion. "broad" is not allowed here unless the topic actually is broad. but, for as much debate as you might get in the progressive countries that legalized same-sex marriage, that is still not the norm the world over. "marriage" the world over is thought of as a heterosexual thing by the vast majority of people in nearly every nation in the world. it is not the place for Wikipedia to effect social change by changing definitions of common concepts. this "broad definition" is just a term hiding POV editing by those desiring/supporting same-sex marriage. again, it's fine to point to the fact that not all marriages recognized by all governments are heterosexual, but to remove any inference of that and to change the lead definition from that (which is still the principal definition in both Webster and OED, and, i just looked up, the Houghton Mifflin dictionary) to what you might like marriage to mean is POV editing. it's blatent. r b-j 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, have you noticed my latest edit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

yup, and it wasn't sufficient. before the article had every inference of intergender marraige removed except for the little pic in the sidebar (yet had at least a couple of explicit references to same-sex marriage). then you add that one little "incidental" tidbit that for 99.97% of recorded human history "marriage" meant solely a relationship between hasband and wife (perhaps more than one), but the weight of that is unduly small. the principal definition of marriage in nearly every dictionary of the English language (i haven't seen them all, but Webster, OED, and Houghton Mifflin are pretty widespread) defines marraige as heterosexual. to surgically cut that out is blatant POV editing and contrary to Wikipedia policy. again, the article needs to treat same-sex marriage, but the year isn't 2050 or 2100. in this era, marriage primarily means heterosexual and to use Wikipedia to "educate" people that that it doesn't mean that is POV. r b-j 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the relative dominance of inter-gender marriage makes it worth noting in the lead. But that doesn't mean we should be defining marriage in a way that does not encompass parts of the subject covered by the article. When a dictionary definition does not cover aspects that are subject to current academic enquiry, recent changes in practice in several countries, or global and historical perspectives, it is a poor source to use.

This has become an edit war to the extent we now have 3RR violations. I suggest we put a request for comment together and see what a broader Wikipedia community has to say. --Siobhan Hansa 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: You are explicitly saying polygamy is not part of marriage in your preferred version: "This definition does not include polygamy, which is practiced in many parts of the world." That means you do *not* get to handwave it away as a parenthetical comment about "sometimes more than one". Do you actually know anything about the history of marriage outside of Christian cultures? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Yeah, we get vandalism like that a lot, I fear. Just revert any you see. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. -- Ec5618 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you guys are reverting without adding edit notes using your popups editors... is there any way you could alter that method to include reasons why you are doing what you are doing? It really helps collaboration when we can talk things out. Peace, MPS 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The last effort was fairly good, but it had several problems:

• History of same-sex unions: If this article is afccurate - and I can't guarantee all of it is, because only parts are referenced - then we may be forcing a modern western world bias on things if we're not careful.
• I'm particularly concerned with the exclusion of polygamy: it was a common practice, it's found in the Old-Tesstament Hebrews, Arabic societies, Mormonism, and many others. That's an awful lot of history to arbitrarily ignore.
• The 2003 date is inaccurate according to Same-sex marriage, even for just the western world.

(Had missed further changes. Ignore this part) Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

there is a trend here... intro graf revert war?

The following seems to be a daily pattern: 19:25, 20 November 2006 MPS - (rv to RBJ... I trust you but unless you cite those experts, your preferred intro graf is highly POV towards what RBJ would call the 5% view. .)

14:19, 20 November 2006 SiobhanHansa (Talk | contribs) (Reverting again - experts already know marriage can cover more than the narrow definition of Mirriam-Websters - they may not want it to, but it isn't disputed that in some places it does.)

13:55, 20 November 2006 Rbj (Talk | contribs) (rv POV definition. this is not a pro-gay nor pro-same-sex-marriage encylcopedia. FIRST you have to convince the world (or a large portion of it) that marriage is not about wives and husbands.)

01:50, 20 November 2006 CovenantD (Talk | contribs) (Fine. Marriage is "defined" many different ways, and to present only two in inaccurate to the point of POV)

The question is... how are we going to frame the intro graf... MPS 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Side 1 prefers:

Marriage is currently defined as "(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." and "(2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage" This definition does not include polygamy, which is practiced in many parts of the world. Other precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but marriage has been recorded in many cultures as an important concept, especially as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Prior to 2001, marriage was defined in every nation in the world as the legal conjugal union of two persons of opposite sex but since that time, the definition of marriage has evolved in some juridictions to include the legal conjugal union of two persons of the same sex.

Side 2 prefers:

A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. The fact that marriage often has the dual nature of a binding legal contract plus a moral promise can make it difficult to characterize.

Let's debate this on the talk page. MPS 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

MPS, bias or not, the intro you suggest is incorrect. Marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman. The current intro is factual. -- Ec5618 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My intro is sourced. What's your source? Not trying to be snarky... my contention is that version 1 is less biased because it states a reliable source but notes that this definition is incomplete. In contrast, version 2 neither cites a source nor reflects that there are varying definitions which may or may not include man/woman, SSM, and polygamy. The sourced version is always less biased because it attributes varying opinions to sources. MPS 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How is stating "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman" less biased? Even with a source, it is inaccurate, which, if anything, invalidates the source. And defining marriage to exclude same sex marriage, and then suggesting that some definitions allow the term to be applied to same sex marriage is simply wrong.

I say again: the current intro is factual, the one your propose is not. Please address that before making any more edits. -- Ec5618 00:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The source for the "side 2" intro is the article itself - which is what the lead should be about. The existence of same-sex and polygamous and polyandry marriage is well sourced in the article. We don't write an article by looking for quotes unless we're looking to mention a particular point of view. To me the problem with the "side 1" version of the lead is that - it is a dictionary definition that doesn't encompass the article in the lead. The summary should reflect the article, and the "side 1" use of a dictionary definition doesn't. I agree with the need to make it clear that most marriage is not same-sex. I think that's very clear in the way same-sex marriage is talked about in the article, but a rewording could be discussed if it's going to make that clear to others. I also think there's validity to the idea it should be mentioned in the lead because it is such a dominant form. The pushing of monogamous as massively dominant seems less valid though and I think any change needs to reflect that. --Siobhan Hansa 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The same cited source could be used for both introduction paragraphs. The first listed paragraph above is a direct quote, the second a more concise definition which does not need clarifying sentences. So the use of the citation is irrelevant.

I have a problem with the first paragraph in that the statement, “[p]rior to 2001, marriage was defined in every nation in the world as the legal conjugal union of two persons of opposite sex but since that time, the definition of marriage has evolved in some juridictions [sic] to include the legal conjugal union of two persons of the same sex,” is a sentence that does not belong in a intro paragraph, but within the body of the article and only if it can be cited. Also, this sentence seems as if it has been written with a bias that infers that same sex marriages have only been created by law and not by changes in societal values.

As presently written I would be against the use of the paragraph which begins with "Marriage is currently defined as..." . As we all know one can misuse sources to create a biased point of view.--GMS508 00:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

GMS508 - I'm not clear on which paragraph is paragraph 1 nd which is paragraph 2 in your comments. Could you clarify? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I revised my statement to make it clear. I guess I should be more careful.--GMS508 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a great problem in using dictionary definitions as the principal source, especially in the lead paragraphs. Definitions can vary significantly from dictionary to dictionary. (An online dictionary [3] includes same-sex marriages.) And dictionaries suffer greatly from systemic bias. An American dictionary describes how a word is being used in the US. An Australian dictionary will describe the use in Australia, etc. We are not describing how the word "marriage" is used in the English-speaking world but what marriage is throughout the whole world. That's one of the differences between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. In the world, marriage has lots of facets, so the lead paragraphs need to be general enough to encompass all of those differences. But not to list them all -- that should come later. –Shoaler (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said in one of my edit summaries. CovenantD 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

you guys may have a problem with using sourced dictionary definitions, but the alternative you have is putting in your definition and that is contrary to Wikipedia NPOV policy, particularly in a topic with some controversy. i wouldn't expect "marriage" to be so much of a topic, but the "subtle" POV pushing by removing any inference that it is commonly (right or wrong) understood to be heterosexual makes for a controversy. when an article, particularly one of a nearly ubiquitous concept or experience, becomes controversial, it is important to not let any one side set the terms or the tone of the article. by editing out the primary definition in ALL dictionary definitions referred to so far (including Shoaler's reference) and inserting in the one preferred by the gay community or same-sex marriage advocates is clearly POV. while you might want to think of "marriage" as inclusive of same-sex marriage but the vast majority of human beings, governments, and religious faiths understand marriage as "different-sex". when the meaning of terms in contentious, no one side should be able to define the terms of discussion and a source that is not controlled by any particular side must be what sets those terms.

now this doesn't mean that the article should focus on intergender marriage only, just as it should not focus on monogamous marriage. if some conservative group came here and wanted to remove any reference to same-sex marriage from the article and describe the topic solely as heterosexual, those efforts should be rebuffed. but you guys are doing the same thing, but on the other side. you are trying to inject your POV in a place where it does not belong. r b-j 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep catching out the supposed NPOV definition in errors. For instance, [Hawaii has allowed same-sex marriage since 1993.] Things like that, where you state claims in very definite terms that turn out to be false, make it very hard to trust your paragraph. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

the OED specifically says polygamy is marriage. Hence, your statement that polygamy is banned from the definition is intensely POV. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have cited the consensus paragraph, showing it is right to be broad. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you are being mendacious. first of all your statement about Hawaii doesn't seem to be supported by the link. doesn't matter. the statement in the intro which is not the definition was that Prior to 2001, marriage was defined in every nation in the world as the legal conjugal union of two persons of opposite sex but since that time, the definition of marriage has evolved in some juridictions to include the legal conjugal union of two persons of the same sex. it came from Status_of_same-sex_marriage#Netherlands which says The Netherlands became the first country in the world to recognise same-sex marriages on April 1, 2001. edit it to be semantically correct, if you can find a better way to communicate that fact.

the OED does NOT support your POV definition. it, as well as the other dictionaries, mention same-sex marriages (as this article ought to) but the principle definition of marriage in all dictionary references made so far explicitly define it as a union between husband and wife. your argument is weak. and it is not very honest. it betrays your POV intent to change the definition of the term the article is about to one of your liking. it's POV. r b-j 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand why dictionaries have multiple definitions of words, do you? It does not mean that one definition is more correct, indeed, it may not in all cases mean the first is the most common (though it may do in this case) - all the definitions listed are correct. The fact the consensus version includes all definitions is a mark in its favour; your version which says polygamy is not marriage (which sounds like OR to me: can you prove to me, by showing me Merriam-Webster's Polygamy entry does not call it marriage, that this is what Merriam-Webster intends?) is patently false on at least one point, and selectively reads definitions, choosing only the ones it likes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

again you misrepresent other people's position. that is mendacious. it is the fact that the primary definition is being totally removed as if it doens't exist that is the problem. this article should talk about same-sex marriage. but if it represents that there is no common understand of marriage as heterosexual, the article is not accurate and blatently POV. the version you prefer does not contain even the principal definition. you are not editing honestly and you're injecting POV into the article. r b-j 01:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The primary definition is mentioned a couple paragraphs lower, still in the lead. I know because I put it there myself. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was reading my dictionary last night, and there was a great essay on lexicography and Lexicology. I am thinking about starting an an essay called Wikipedia: You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer (WP:NOTLEX). Either we are allowed cite sourced materials or we bicker endlessly about our own arbitrary definitions ("marriage is two merged things"). My vote (and WP:V's vote is for citations. If you don't like Merriam Webster, then find another source, but with all due respect, please don't claim to be a lexicologist... or a lexicographer. MPS 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But I did find another source?

I take huge exception to the idea that the lead should be a definition of marriage - it shouldn't. It should be an introduction to the article. From our manual of style the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow."

That's explain not define. If we're putting something in the lead that needs a reference because it isn't already sourced in the rest of the article we're likely doing something wrong. --Siobhan Hansa 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this intro graf doesn't explain marriage, it explains Mergers and acquisitions. If we want to talk about marriage, we have to start with what that word has meant for the thousands of years prior to 2001. MPS 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to focus on the familial nature of the relationship. But the mergers and acquisitions similarity isn't entirely surprising. The language isn't driven by a simple desire to avoid implying hetero relationships. Marriage isn't an institution that is easily defined if you're not talking about a specific cultural instance. About the only thing that is consistent across societies and throughout history for marriage is that it always seems to deal with the transfer of wealth. --Siobhan Hansa 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll?

Would it be at all helpful to start a poll on this matter?

Heavy western, Judaeo-Christian bias

This article is largely written from a Western POV, and as such displays a strong bias towards a Judaeo-Christian ontology of marriage. Some of that, I suspect, was always there (because most of us are from a culture in which such an ontology is taken for granted), but it has gotten worse in the push to elevate same-sex marriage to the same standing as conventional marriage. Now, even in western cultures the latter isn't entirely-- or perhaps even widely-- accepted, but in any case it seems clear to me that it exists historically as a special case. What I see in the article now is that trying to squeeze it into the picture everywhere is producing a profoundly distorted article.

We are all aware that in alomst all times and places, marriage unites a man and a woman (husband and wife) into a family structure recognized by the larger society, in which procreation enjoys positive sanction. If the article is not written from this starting point, it is going to come out warped. Right now, it doesn't even state what "husband" and "wife" mean; the reader has to infer this from context. Instead, it is focused on the union part between two partners, with fairly weak and scattered acknowledgement of the societal and familial structures that this normally entails. The heavy emphasis on the union manifests the J-C "one flesh" ontology at the expense of actually explaining how marriage usually works.

If nothing else, the first sentence is a disaster. About the only things it gets right are that more than person is involved, and that it has a societal context. It could just as well describe the formation of a corporation. Mangoe 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The first line is fine: marriage is a union of people. That specific cultures allow or disallow specific types of people to enter into such a union is for the rest of the article to explain. Similarly, societal views differ on the purpose of marriage. One might argue that marriage can be entered into for purely legal reasons. -- Ec5618 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Marriage doesn't have to be between people. [4]

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.

8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.

9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.

So maybe we should say "marriage is two merged things"... [/snark] MPS 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that the above post shows why a dictorary definition isn't suitable for Wikipedia. This article is to be an encyclopedic article on the concept of marriage, not on the word. -- Ec5618 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see your published PhD thesis on the defintion of marriage and we'll talk. Until then I don't think you're personally qualified to negate the work of published lexicographers. MPS 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

IOW show me another, better published source on "the concept of marriage" ... when it comes to contradicting a dicdef, your personal opinion doesn't cut it. MPS 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The first line is not fine. The first line is in fact a prime example of weasel words. All those definitions 5-9 listed above are abstractions from the first definition in the same place:

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

THAT is the real definition of marriage from which all the others derive. The current first line is attempting to avoid admitting that it first of all represents the familial bond between husband and wife, and by extension is taken to represent an analogous bond in a same-sex sexual relationship. As it stands, the current first sentence is so determined not to mention the whole husband-wife-family structure that is the point of ordinary marriage that it doesn't say anything at all about the kind of relationship involved.

Obviously we need to talk about the notion of same-sex marriage. But as it stands, it represents the extension of the already-extant notion of marriage into a new context. We need to talk about the standard, male/female marriage as the primary type and work out the variations from there. Mangoe 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

disambig page

maybe marriage should be a disambig page and it can link to traditional marriage (man/woman), types of marriage, marriage controversy (2000s), same sex marriage, etc. MPS 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no such thing as traditional marriage, I would have to say I oppose this idea. -- Ec5618 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I am going to frame your statement and put it up on my wall with a caption underneath that says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." MPS 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting articles so each POV can have their "own" little bit of Wikipedia to work on is generally a poor way to build an encyclopedia or develop good articles. The idea that there is one form of "traditional" marriage is particularly troubling, and seems destined to transfer the issue.

I have a lot of sympathy for the point that I see being made that there is not significant enough coverage in the article of the importance placed on male/female unions by most cultures, both today and historically. I'm fine with articulating that more clearly. Different historical and cultural norms for marriage should be covered in detail in the article. I expect it is because male/female marriages are the norm in my world, that my reading of the way same-sex marriage is singled out made it clear to me that in virtually every other case male/female relationships are the expected pairing. But I don't see any problem with having a section that looks at the preponderance of the male/female norm. Or of including more explicit reference to it throughout the article in terms of the types of restrictions and expectations different cultures have had around marriage at different times in history. But I disagree that wording that is inclusive of the many different forms of marriage that do exist is inherently POV when we're not explicitly talking about a specific form of marriage.

What I have found difficult to collaborate with in these discussions is what I have seen as a view that the marriage article should start from a one man/one woman perspective and talk about everything else as a deviation from that. I find that very problematic. Am I reading this wrong? Or is this the big difference we have to sort out? --Siobhan Hansa 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)