Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 30 December 2006

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Close Relationships project

• Talk:Marriage/Archive1
• Talk:Marriage/Archive2

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, “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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 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 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have cited the consensus paragraph, showing it is right to be broad. Adam Cuerden 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: 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.

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"... MPS 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that the above post shows why a dictorary definition isn't suitable for Misplaced Pages. 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)

See below. Adam Cuerden 18:08, 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)

See below. Thank you for your POV, but I don't think that it's appropriate to Misplaced Pages. Adam Cuerden 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the reality. Let's go to your "let's let the courts decide" approach. One finds in many states (e.g Maryland) that the state code does not define marriage per se but does restrict it to involving a single man and woman. Fifty years ago the courts of any state or country would have upheld this particular view. Worldwide, most courts would uphold this view (modulo polygamy, but that's not the axis of the issue that is causing the distortion). It is a western elaboration of the man-woman relationship that allows for same-sex marriage. I do not think we want an article that states that marriage is invariably heterosexual, but we do need an article which takes the latter as the main, historical type and then explains same-sex marriage as an extension or special case of the usual heterosexual version-- because historically that is what has happened. Mangoe 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you haven't actually read the article in question, then. Adam Cuerden 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here I do not have access to JSTOR, and I do have access to the Maryland State Code. And if we cannot turn to the courts for definition, would it then not be reasonable to turn to the sociologists and anthropologists and historians? Law is not the only source of cultural definition, nor is current law a definition of the past. Mangoe 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That article is a sociological analysis of the definition of marriage, as it happens.

Now, don't get me wrong, I fully agree that we should include the traditional views. However, I disagree strongly with the way your version explicitly excludes polygamy as a type of marriage, for instance, and that it depends entirely on non-free sources. By all means, let's explain the traditional views, but let's not remove everything else the article discusses from the lead to do so.

The lead hshould be a dispassionate, anthropological view of it, IMO, which should mention the man-and-wife definition, but not in such a way that excludes all other definitions. We then have set out the territory of the article, and may launch immediately into a description of traditional concepts of amarriage in different societies, including Western, Islamic, Jewish, Chinese, Polynesian cultures, etc.

Perhaps we're being too much at each other's throats over what isn't as deep of a disagreement as we think? Adam Cuerden 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are projecting upon me a conservative definitionalism which I did not express and to which I do not hold. Polygamy is a well-documented historical variation of marriage, and the article should discuss it. But it also fits in as an elaboration on the basic husband-wife relationship, and in a way which is easy to add (plurality) without disturbing any of the basic attributes.

My objection isn't (on some level anyway) to what the article is trying to say about marriage. It's that it is bending over so hard at the moment to accomodate same-sex marriages that the article as a description of the most ordinary kind is obscure. It needs to be constructed so that the ordinary "man and woman marry, form a family, have sex, produce children" is presented as the typical case, explaining polyamory as a pluralized version of this, and then going on to explain same-sex marriage as a different type of variant. And I think this typical case can be laid out without tying it to monogamy.

What we have instead is an attempt to define marriage on so abstract a level as to allow the typical case and the same-sex case as more or less equal subspecies. To do this, we need a generic ontology of marriage, and that's the point at which the Christian "union into one flesh" model is appearing as a subtext. It's not being stated, of course, because the POV problem would be obvious. But the article is tending to present marriage as an extremely abstracted relationship to the point of being reluctant to make any statements at all about its unique nature. That's what is so conspicuously bad about the first sentence: the dictionary can make a succinct summary of the idea (and one which can be elaborated to cover all the varieties we discuss here, in my opinion), but we don't.

We do need to be careful not to write it so that monogamous heterosexual marriage is described prescriptively. RIght now the article overcompensates so much that it's incoherent. Mangoe 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And I apologise. Hmm. I suppose it comes down, really, to a dislike more of the specific proposed version than a dislike of the idea as a whole. Shall we try writing a few more versions and see if any of them seem a way forward? (Bonus points for citations)

I'm tempted by the Marriage and legitimacy article - marriage as a way for a father to know who his children are is, I believe, the standard proposed basis of it, and so the definitions in it are useful. Adam Cuerden 20:16, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Here is a liberal perspective that disagrees with Ec5618. It is a model for wikipedia's article. We should acknowledge the traditional forms and functions of marriage and note that many redefinitions have since led some to include gays and others within this definition. MPS 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

MPS, the article that you referenced supports Ec5618 statement that “there is no such thing as traditional marriage.” The article explains that marriage has been in a “constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age”. In other words what we try to define as “traditional marriage” today will become an antiquated definition in the future. A disambig page is use to resolve conflicts that occur when articles about two or more different topics have the same "natural" title. I do not think it should be used because a definition is evolving.--GMS508 20:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

GMS508, all definitions are evolving. The fact is the very liberal NYT article acknowledges that marriage has changed over time, and it traces marriage from its origins in male-female family uniting to more and more abstract purposes to the point where it is changing definitions even today. The author refers to man-woman nmarriage as "traditional marriage." Why can't you accept that terminology? Lots of people have the POV that "traditional marriage" has historically been MOSTLY between opposite genders. What about this idea do you object to? MPS 20:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

On the simple issue of splitting the Marriage article into separate articles - where does a reader go who wants to know about "marriage" - no qualifiers, no working out for themselves what is what, no choosing between different articles? We'd still need an article that was about marriage as a whole. We'd still have this problem. As to using the term "traditional to mean one-man/one-woman marriage, that's such an artificial concept from an academic point of view. Who's tradition? Roman? Chinese? Judeao-Christian? African? What do you think the borders of "traditional" marriage are? --Siobhan Hansa 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

SiobhanHansa, it depends on what you mean by marriage as a whole. Legal marriage? Cultural marriage? Wedding customs? contractual marriage? What the hell are we talking about; nobody seems to know. Maybe we should disambiguate is all I am saying. The word means different things in different contexts. MPS 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is way oversold. Everyone understands marriage as a social institution which a variety of manifestations: legal, cultural, contractural, whatever. (Wedding customs are a different matter, and there is already a separate article for them.) The continued focus on heterosexual monagamy vs. omnisexual whatever is misplaced. Polyamory isn't really the problem that people are making it out to be; it and monogamy can easily be treated as varieties of the same thing. It's the insistence on treating everything so that same-sex marriage doesn't have to be treated as a special case that is make a hash out of the article. Mangoe 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see why you think same-sex marriage is a more special case than anything else. I see the distinction between polygamy and monogamy as a bigger change. --Siobhan Hansa 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Responding to MPS - I mean all of that (except the wedding customs for the most part). And that's what I thought the article was trying to show - that it is a complex concept and to understand it we need to look at it without preconceived ideas as to what it should be. But I don't think that means we shouldn't talk about the different notions of what it should be. Perhaps what we need is a shorter marriage article and more in-depth sub articles. If that were the case though I don't see "traditional marriage" being one of them. Maybe "Marriage in Europe and North America through the present day" or "roots of Judeao-Christian marriage". It might even make more sense to have "Pre-religious marriage" "Religion and marriage" "Marriage and the state" or similar, linking the evolution of marriage to the changing forces in society. We'd need to tie anything like this together with a strong main article though. So we still have to get to grips with our central disagreement. And I'm not sure we've even articulated that yet. --Siobhan Hansa 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the name "traditional marriage" then we can call it heterosexual monogamous marriage but I think it is significant in the sense that some POVs call it the foundation of civil society, etc etc. I like your idea of having a shorter main article due to the varying types of marriage. The subject of "marriage" is a lot to bite off. (PS I recently reorged tthe WP:LEAD so let's see how you like that. MPS 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins of marriage?

I find that the article on Marriage lacks an important part: Discussion on marriage's origins, where and when the first recorded marriage was, what function it had then, and so on.

As far as I know, the first recorded marriage took place in Mesopotamia in 3250 B.C., and had, at that point, little to do with religion. However, I've been unable to find the source of this.

Scholarly evidence

• 1951: Polygamous marriage acquired overseas deemed valid in Britain: Married. Or Unmarried?, by O. M. Stone The Modern Law Review © 1951 Modern Law Review Published by Blackwell Publishing

• 1952: Further comment on it: Polygamous Marriages, by G. W. Bartholomew, The Modern Law Review © 1952 Modern Law Review, Published by Blackwell Publishing

• 1997: Definitions of Marriage with regard to illegitimacy of offspring. Obviously, the focus excludes same-sex, but definitions are wide and varied even then, including one case where a woman can be married to a dead man, and have children in his name with other lovers. Defining Marriage and Legitimacy , by Duran Bell; Michael L. Burton; Jane Collier; Louis C. Faron; Sarah B. Franklin; Ravindra K. Jain; Paul Jorion Current Anthropology © 1997 The University of Chicago Press

• 1995: Same-sex marriage.

Excluded by Definition: Same-Sex Couples and the Right to Marry, by Alice Woolley The University of Toronto Law Journal © 1995 University of Toronto Press. Includes the particularly relevant quote: "Canadian courts have been confronted with challenges to the claim that marriage is prima facie limited to couples of the opposite sex, yet in adjucating these claims have failed to achieve a consensus, and for the most part failed to develop a coherent understanding of what marriage means. So, that backs up the "difficult to define" claim, eh? It then goes on through the debate, working forwards through the sociology and so on to come up with a relevant definition about the same as the article's preferred one.

A simple JSTOR search will find hundreds of other relevant articles. Is that sufficient PhD-level publications for you? Or shall I get some more. If anyone needs a copy of that last article, I'll happily mail it them. Adam Cuerden 18:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be more worthwhile to look at scholarly examination of the normal case. Mangoe 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? Adam Cuerden 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this sentence not enough?

I am confused as to why some individuals are not satisfied? What is wrong with this sentence? “In Western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as a monogamous union, and, until the 21st century, only marriages between a man and a woman were recognised.” To me it clearly says that in the developed western world marriage is still primarily a covenant agreement between a wife and a husband.--GMS508 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In isolation there's nothing wrong with it. However, it is not sufficient to counterbalance the evasiveness of the rest of the section. Mangoe 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

history of marriage

What if we had a history section? what would it look like? Maybe we need a History of marriage article. MPS 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the Definitions throughout history section large enough to justify spliting it off? Could it be expanded enough to warrant it's own article? I think a definite yes to the latter, but no to the former. It's needs work before it's ready to stand on it's own. CovenantD 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD rewrite of initial section

I've almost most completely rewritten the first section to work forward from that man/woman/sex/kids basis towards more general discussion. Mangoe 00:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! Adam Cuerden 01:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In general nicely done, although I did remove one sentence that was redundant and borderline POV. CovenantD 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

okay, i'll live with that. what about: "Recently the concept of same-sex marriage has been introduced to describe unions between homosexual partners, though this has met with limited acceptance." the "concept" has been around for a lot longer than recently. what has happened recently is that some statutes in law for some juridictions have been adopted to recognize same-sex marriage along with some court decisions regarding it and even some religious traditions are recently recognizing same-sex marriage. that is what this sentence should say, but i can't think of a concise wording for it. any takers? (just put it in the article.) r b-j 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Could make it really simple and change it to reintroduced and leave the burden of explaining the history to the section and the separate article. I'd also be okay with adding making it "reintroduced worldwide" and change the ending to "met with controversy" to more accurately reflect the way the section itself is structured (Marriage#Same-sex_marriage). CovenantD 02:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"reintroduced" is not making it simple, it is changing the meaning. and to something that is controversial and represents a POV. i'm talking about the objective fact that it was not legally recognized by any jurisdiction until recently and was not recognized by any religious traditions of note until recently. Einstein is quoted as saying "things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." let's keep it historically accurate and NPOV. r b-j 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that it has no historic precedent. See History of same-sex unions for more info. As you yourself wrote, the concept has been around for a long time. But what about the second suggested change, to "met with controversy"? CovenantD 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I went for "used". The history of same-sex unions is controversial and in any case it's pretty clear that the western notion of S-S marriage derives from western marriage ideas in general, with appeals to ancient precedent beng a bit after the fact. History of same-sex unions is pretty dubious in its sourcing and is obviously being ignored by the Loyal Opposition, for whatever it's worth. In any case we don't need ot fight this battle here, but we do need to acknowledge the recency of S-S marriages as we know them now. Mangoe 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The History of same-sex unions is a bit light on researched info, but I don't think that's because it's not out there. And it's has been pointed out in a thread above that there isn't even a History of marriage article on Misplaced Pages (and the sourcing for the history section here is nonexistent). They both point out a lack of attention, not a lack of research. CovenantD 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

“hough this has met with limited acceptance,” is a value statement and needs to be defined by the author possibly as a footnote, or it should be removed.--GMS508 19:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see it more as a very brief summary of the section covering same-sex marriage rather than a quote, and as such wouldn't have a citation. I've suggested changing it to "met with controversy," since that's the subheading used, but nobody seems to want to discuss that proposal. CovenantD 20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is a value judgement. The facts (as the article tries hard not to admit) are that legal recognition is limited to the very few places listed (too many times) and that most of the world does not acknowledge them, legally or otherwise. Mangoe 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

GMS508, Perhaps we could say, "though recognition of same sex marriage is limited to those listed below and at some list of places where SSM is recognized" or some such construction. MPS 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When I stated that it was a "value judgment" I did not mean to infer that the statement was either bias or false. It is my opinion that all value statements must be clearly defined, value statements that are not clearly defined provide limited information and can be misunderstood by the reader. That said, your suggestion would work, but if it is possible I believe a footnote might be the better choice. Too many words and long paragraphs in the introduction are not desirable.--GMS508 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex heavy still

There is still way too much material in here about same-sex marriage, especially since there is a whole 'nother article on it. For instance, this article lists the countries in which S-S marriages may be made in three places. Can we cut this back to something that is a little less obsessive about this? Mangoe 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such a detailed listing violates the intent of Misplaced Pages:Summary style. You did such a well-recieved job on the intro, you want to tackle this? CovenantD 05:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this would far more controversial. But I personally would cut almost all of this section, since it all appears in the other (main) article. Mangoe 12:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference for sections with other articles is to try and make a one to two paragraph summary of that article, and make sure to cite it well to back up the claims. Whilst not always appropriate, it would seem to be here. Adam Cuerden 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in this case it's damn easy: Two sections detailed things covered poorly in the Same-sex marriage article. I just cut them and moved them over there. Both articles improve: Marriage is left with a nice summary of the debate, and Same-sex marriage gains a nice section about jurisdictions made from the marerial cut. Adam Cuerden 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That is much better. Mangoe 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some mention of the rapid advancement that same-sex marriage has made in legal acceptance, possibly by mentioning the date the first was accepted and the number of jurisdicitons that currently allow for it. Nothing extensive, simply a sentence or two that reflects the last few years. CovenantD 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rapidity here is caught somewhere between value judgement and "Crystal ball". I agree a first date is reasonable. Mangoe 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy is uncommon?

It looks to me like monogamy is uncommon.

From the Polygamy Misplaced Pages page: "1960-1980. Of these societies, 186 societies were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry."

Very true - uncommon in the US and Western Europe, common elsewhere. Trollderella 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, try "uncommon everywhere except in areas with large Islamic populations"? Or maybe uncommon except in part of Africa, part of Asia, and in the Islamic countries of the Middle East"? Mangoe 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that clearly, the majority of the world's societies condone polygamy. Trollderella 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether that is an important number is questionable. The map, for instance, shows a near total correlation between polygamy and Islamic society. Looking back at the referenced document, it is unclear exactly what each "society" is, because the reference is to a summary, not an actual enumeration of cases. However, a look at the codes under "languages" suggests that for instance it's possible that each Amerind tribe is being counted as one, as well as the whole of US society as one. Therefore areas with lots of tribes are likely to be hugely overrepresented. It's not even clear that the list of societies consists entirely of current societies, as there is a date value which suggests that ancient societies are also being counted. Mangoe 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

also, if one were say "common elsewhere", you need some numbers about how common it is both in countries where it is contrary to policy (which would be expected to be small in percent) as well as countries where public policy doesn't speak to the issue (where it still might be small, but not as small). r b-j 04:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

The simple "socially recognized" doesn't cover the full breadth of marriage's acceptance and support within societies. But the "sometime religiously and often legally" is unwieldy and a bit weasel wordy (the "sometimes" and "often" seem to imply these are much less significant than the "social" and I don't think the article and the sources demonstrate that). Could we go with a "socially, religiously and legally recognized" ? Or "socially and institutionally recognized"?

And can we please stop editing it to death and discuss concerns instead? --Siobhan Hansa 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't understand why simple and factual qualifiers are called "weasel wordy". not all marriages are legally recognizes and neither are all marriages recognized within some religious authority. so we don't say nor imply that all are. but marriage certainly has some statistical correlation with legal and religious recognition, so it would be inaccurate to leave this out. r b-j 06:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all marriages are accepted socially either but we're not putting a qualifier on that. Religious and legal forces are incredibly powerful and important in building marriage into the strong institution it is. So I think the qualifiers understate their importance in comparison to social acceptance. We could move the opening around a little - A marriage is a union between or among partners forming a family. Marriages are variously recognized socially, religiously, and legally, such recognition forming an environment that legitimizing sexual relations between the partners and provides the context for legitimate production of offspring. --Siobhan Hansa 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't understand what differentiates marriage from shacking up if there isn't some sense of recognition or sanction from the society of context. marriage is not just a relationship where two people decide to become roomates or when one lover moves in with another. there is something about it where the larger society is informed and the participants are recognized as spouses, not only as lovers. it should be as simple as possible to remain accurate. also, the terminolgy of "production of offspring" sounds awful industrial. perhaps "procreation"? i dunno. r b-j 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that historically, at least in some societies, there wasn't a great deal of difference. The common law spouse concept built from the common practice of accepting that people who lived as though they were married, were married. In most societies I believe there is usually a wedding or ceremony of some sort that declares the union to the wider world, but I don't believe that's necessary.

I don't understand what that has to do with the first sentence. Societies don't always recognize marriages than have legal and/or religious sanction - I'm thinking of cases in some places and times of marriages that cross caste/class/race barriers in particular. But there are other requirements that people can insist on. I have relatives who won't recognize a legal marriage if it hasn't been blessed in a church. When it's a few of them in their town they're just eccentric, but if it's the whole town, you have a marriage that isn't socially accepted. We have different areas of authority that have some power over recognition of marriage - legal, religious and social. Each of them sometimes rejects the authenticity of marriages that one or both of the others recognize. And, of course, within each of those areas of authority we have many different groups with different ideas on what is acceptable. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

we can find weird exceptions to nearly any description of a concept using words. the fact is that marriage is something other, something additional to, something more than just moving in together. even a common-law marriage isn't really understood to be such the day they start living together, it's something recognized after the fact when either governments or just societies see that this couple have been together for 10 or 15 years and, whether they have a marriage license or not, whether some clergy or justice of peace has solemnized it or not, people view this couple as husband and wife (or "spouse and spouse" perhaps someday in the case of same-sex marriages). weird exceptions get a mention in Misplaced Pages, but the main definition (which is what the lead intro is about) need not, and should not, be gated by the weird exceptions. my original complaint about this whole article was that it was written as if same-sex marriage was the norm the world over and the article had clear accuracy and POV problems when all mentions of "husband" and "wife" or any connotation of the heterosexual norm was carefully removed. i'm no homophobe, but allowing the gay-rights movement to taylor this article to their specific wishful thinking (clearly to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to nudge the reality to the state congruent to their wishful thinking) was just inexusable. it was blatent. but to say that marriage normally has something to do with husbands and wives is not POV pushing, it is reflecting reality nearly everywhere. it is reflecting the norm. likewise, the norm is that marriage is not identical in concept to two persons simply choosing to live together. it is not identical in concept to two persons choosing to live together and have sex occasionally. there are implications of expressed committment and implications of sanction from something outside of themselves. that is minimally required in the norm. may not always be reflected in every single obscure reality somewhere, but it's the norm. r b-j 02:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I really don't understand how these arguments relate to the wording about all marriages being socially accepted but only "often" legally and "sometimes" religiously. I really didn't see this as connected to the same-sex issue. I thought the wording seriously underplays the role of religious and legal institutions in shaping and supporting marriage. I don't think I understanding your view of what a sentence without those qualifiers implies. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the argument, if you want to call it that, is about the norm. people don't get married in a vacuum, but they can just shack up in a vacuum. there is something involving more people than just the two spouses to make it a marriage. the reference to the same-sex issue was only what i wrote. nothing more. just because same-sex marriages happen in societies comprising, say, 1% of the world's population, does not make it the norm and treating it as if it is the norm is POV editing. just because some "whole town" somewhere doesn't accept a particular marriage they don't like that is socially accepted elsewhere or legally licensed or religiously solemnized somewhere else does not mean that the norm regarding marriage is not one of social acceptance of the relationship. in any Misplaced Pages article, we can dream up all sorts of exceptions to the basic facts presented in the article and make a large obtuse slicing-and-dicing of each minutia that nearly no one would ever witness, but if we did that, we would not be doing the encyclopedia nor the readers of it any favors. we will be confusing them. let's keep it simple and factual, and as Einstien is credited for saying: "Things should be described as simple as possible, but no simpler." it is simple and factual, for the norm regarding marriage to say that it entails some sort of participation or sanction from society, whether it is legal (as with a marriage license) and/or religious (as in a wedding ceremony with clergy solemnizing it) or just a recognition of the relationship in the tribe. for it to be a marriage and not just a couple (or group in the case of polygamy) moving in together, there has to be something involving people outside of that couple. that is the norm and it is not POV slanting of the article to recognize that explicitly. r b-j 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(Splitting this up to help the thread flow) The "production of offspring" wording is pretty nasty. Procreation sounds very clinical though. Isn't there some way to actually use the word "children"? "bearing children" (bit female bias perhaps)? -- Siobhan Hansa 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

dunno which is better. if we were splitting hairs, procreation/children are not necessary to the definition of marriage (old folks, well beyond potential child begetting years, get married, too), but i think such reference belongs for the same reason above: it's a normal part of the concept of marriage. r b-j

Same Sex Footnote

It is my understanding that a consensus has been reached that same sex marriage should not dominate this page. So I footnoted where relevant information could be found. But my footnote on religious institutions is inadequate because it only directs individuals to Christian religious institutions. Could someone who is a little more knowledgeable on this subject fix this note?--GMS508 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Same Sex Section

I just reread the same sex section it rings little too POV to me. I would be in favor of deleting the whole section. Since we direct individuals in the introduction to the relevant article I don’t see any reason for it to be included here.--GMS508 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is about marriage, I'm going to object to removing a section on any specific type of marriage. I hope you would similarly object to removing information on intergender marriage. -- Ec5618 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not object, but I am going to start deleting un-cited assertions. If editors do not feel it is worthy of their time to cite their assertions. I am going to assume the information is either original research, a personal editorial, or not very important. How long is reasonable to allow indivduals to cite their sources?--GMS508 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Throw a {{cn}} tag on them to let others know what you think is an uncited assertion first and give it at least a few days. CovenantD 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

dictionary definition

I reverted edit to footnote because edited provided no useful information and seems to imply a misconception that the order of listing indicates some type of importance. How dictionary list definitions is usually based on when this definition came into use i.e. the oldest definition is listed first followed by newer. The way definitions are listed does not indicate importance. If you have contrary evidence that supports that the way dictionaries list there definition is based on importance I would appreciate being educated.--GMS508 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, my opinion is the same as that expressed in the non-binding essay known as WP:NOTLEX. MPS 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could that be because you started and are the major contributor to the essay? ;) CovenantD 07:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote it... I cited the opinion essay in accordance with the opinion expressed in the essay called WP:DCEATCTAITWP. MPS 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is not a definition it supports the use of the word recently—which former editor’s insisted on including. I always believed that the word “recently” was POV. Also, you will note that I did not cite a dictionary I cited a newspaper article, the dictionary definitions was added by someone else, and provides no useful information--GMS508 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

i am reverting that back, and this can turn into an edit war. to say that "The definition of Marriage was expanded to include same sex marriages by American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin) in 2000, Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 2001, and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in 2003." and leave out the fact that the lead, primary definition of marriage in all three of these dictionaries explicitly include the words "husband and wife" is not just POV insertion, it is nothing less than deceptive. r b-j 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you believe it is relevant, could you at least separate the note on the importance of dictionaries’ using the wording "union of husband and wife" or of "being husband and wife" to a separate footnote. Because it is so POV that someone will delete it, and I prefer that the note that supports "recently" remain as long as the qualifier "recently" is used in the article.--GMS508 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

that is what is at the kernel of this current dispute. what is it that is POV? is it POV to taylor an article about marriage, delete any implication of heterosexuality in marriage (even though an extremely lop-sided majority of human beings understand marriage to be heterosexual) and mention and link to same-sex marriage a couple of times? or is it POV to mention the primary understanding of the extremely lop-sided majority of human beings regarding marriage is that it is heterosexual and mention that there is progressing adoption of same-sex marriages in a few governmental and religious jurisdictions? sure, these dictionaries have been recently updated to include same-sex marriages (as they should, since it is becoming a term of use in the same-sex context), and that should be mentioned, but not leaving off the fact that the primary definitions continue to define marriage in terms of a "husband and wife". the gay-rights POV pushers get to have the fact that there undeniably exists same-sex marriage in some church and state contexts, but they do not get to use that fact to obscure the larger fact that still, even now in 2006, that people nearly everywhere, in nearly every culture, understand "marriage" to be something regarding a husband and wife. to say, "oh, the definitions were changed" without even mentioning that it was not the primary definitions to have changed, is trying to send a message that is not factual. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle or tool for the gay-rights movement or any social movement to promote their movement by redefining the terms to suit their desire. first the common use meaning of the term has to really change and that will take decades. then, in 2050 (or whatever year) when it is commonly meant that marriage has no link to sexual orientationm that's when they get to change Misplaced Pages to reflect that fact. they don't get to reflect that fact now in the hope that society will eventually come around to accepting it. r b-j 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, I think it is time for you to Assume Good Faith. — coelacan talk — 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

assuming good faith is good and the right thing to do at the outset. assuming good faith is what one does on the outset when there is no evidence contraindicating good faith. when clear and blatent POV attempts to color the article to support the notion that same-sex marriage is the norm, or even the unqualified dictionary definition when it is neither, is not only POV but is intellectually dishonest. i'm not so naive to think that these clear attempts to influence the course of social development (to the full acceptance of gay marriage) by use of a public resource that is ostensibly NPOV (that is Misplaced Pages) rather than let that ostesibly NPOV public resource reflect the reality of that social developement are good faith. it is a clear attempt to use Misplaced Pages to advance a cause that, in reality, i do not oppose. but it is embarassing for me to associate or ally myself to a cause that cheats (perhaps i should say a cause where some supporters in that cause cheats). they're not letting Misplaced Pages reflect what marriage simply is to the overwelming vast majority of people in the world. they are insisting that a peripheral issue, that some nations and some religious traditions (and very, very few, particularly measured in terms of the populations represented) accept same-sex marriage. they are insisting that the dictionary definitions reflect the fact that same-sex marriage is included without the salient qualifying fact that it is included as a secondary definition and that the primary definitions in all three dictionaries cited use the phrase "of being husband and wife" or a "union of husband and wife". that's not just POV, it's dishonest. r b-j 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

of course the Edit summary: "restore NPOV clarification of dictionary definitions and links to sources. CovenantD, it is this factual clarification that is POV. it's also deceptive" said the reverse of the intended: restore NPOV clarification of dictionary definitions and links to sources. CovenantD, it is the deletion of this factual clarification that is POV. it's also deceptive. r b-j 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following this article so I don't know what the dispute exactly is andat this time I'm too busy to care to find out. I just noticed you were throwing aroung "the gay rights POV pushers" and hoped you'd tone it down. Regarding one comment you've left here: "...the notion that same-sex marriage is the norm..." Well, rb-j, for some people, it is the norm. Gay marriages aren't just faceless statistics out there. They are real relationships between two people who (in most cases) love each other, come home from work, eat dinner, walk the dog, and go to bed, and thus are their lives, lived like any other marriage, day after day. That's a norm too. — coelacan talk — 04:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

hey, gay folks are fine. i know only a few gay guys (they live in NYC, one of them is a president of an interesting audio electronics company), another gay guy in Indiana, and a lesbian couple who live in Ohio. i probably know more gay/lesbian people but don't know their sexual orientation because people just don't discuss their sexuality with everyone in every context and that is fine. gay people are okay with me.

calling lifelong committed gay relationships "marriage" in personal discussion is fine with me. including, in this article, the fact that there are jurisdictions and religious traditions that license and/or recognize lifelong committed gay relationships as marriage is fine with me, because it is an objective fact. trying to rewrite the fact that there is an historical bias, the world over, of the concept of marriage being heterosexual into the wishful thinking that no one ever really thinks of it that way (having something to do with "husband and wife") is blatently POV and even deceptive. including in this article that the secondary definitions of marriage in the major English dictionaries have been updated to include same-sex marriage is fine, because it is an objective fact. but to leave the impression that the primary definition was changed from what it has been (a "union of husband and wife") to same-sex is also blatently POV and even deceptive. and i am pretty damn sure that it's not being done by Fred Phelps and his disgusting ilk. r b-j 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I imagine you're going about to wrongly. What you'd like to include in the article is covered in the intro, and in fact, the first four sections. Marriage is a union between or among people, and it is usually understood to join a man and woman (who in their marital roles are termed the "husband" and "wife" respectively; generically they may be referred to as "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. -- Ec5618 08:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

romantic and pragmatic

Can someone provide a source that indicates that this is a distinction that has some meaning? Who says that marriages fall into one of these categories? Who says they are legitimate? Thanks! Trollderella 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Uxor redirect?

As a very strange and off-the-wall aside to the extensive discussion on this talk page, does anyone know why Uxor redirects here? I was trying to get to an article on Green Man's home planet. Odd, wot? MJ the Prophet 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well--I searched "Uxor" and saw the redirect; then clicked "Redirected from Uxor" which took me to the Uxor redirect page; and then the history showed that Uxor used to be a definition of the latin term for wife; which apparently got redirected to wife; which apparently redirects to marriage. (So does husband.) I created a disambiguation page which links to both Green Man & marriage, with explanation, because nowhere in the marriage page does it explain the latin term "uxor". So it's not surprising you were confused. (copying this thread to the Uxor talk page) --lquilter 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess that teaches me something about navigation on these pages, as well. MJ the Prophet 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This Article is an Embarrassment to Misplaced Pages

I appreciate the addition of the recent templates because they inform any reader who has the misfortune of reading this article that this article is garbage!!! Almost nothing is cited, and if any editors waste their time trying to cite the article they will be accused of using facts to push a political agenda. Lets put more templates up—because it is a lot easier than finding relevant citations.--GMS508 00:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let the two irreconcilable views part ways, one stays with Article:Marriage, the other goes to Article:Same-sex marriage. The culture war here will then be over, as both parties will have their respective objective truths. :-/ Nkras 01:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you advocating for censorship??? --GMS508 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

POV splitting, it seems, with a generous dose of blanking to push a POV. CovenantD 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, all parties must recognize there will be no further agreement on this subject, and part ways. I had included a disclaimer in bold face to note your concerns. Unless we all agree there will be no winners here, this war will continue unabated, without end. Objectively, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The very recent phrase "same sex marriage" is, as the enlightened would say, an artificial construct. To illustrate, Rabbis in Reform Judaism could rule that eating pork is kosher, however, that would not make eating pork kosher. Claiming that references to "same sex marriage" belongs anywhere near an objective definition of marriage is legal and social revisionism of the worst kind. That certain judiciaries, legal scholars, and editors on Misplaced Pages claim the contrary does not make the inclusion legitimate. Nkras 02:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What would help this article is if you would reference your assertions in the article and provide citations supporting them i.e. provide a citation proving that some notable authority agrees with you.--GMS508 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

i've done that many, many times, and that still wasn't good enough for the same-sex POV pushers.

i knew there would be a renewed edit war as soon as i saw Nkras's edit (but, at least as far as the lead paragraph, he is right). it was obvious from when i first stumbled upon the article that the same-sex advocacy was blatently POV pushing. i pointed this out then and tried to NPOVize the article a little by simply putting in the dictionary definition that neither the same-sex nor "traditional marriage" advocates had power to author. these NPOV edits were promptly reverted by the same-sex lobbyists as if marriage had nothing to do with a husband and wife (of different genders). CovenantD, it is absolutely laughable the version that you guys keep pushing here. it is also clear that, majority rule or not, the POV version is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. you people are trying to use Misplaced Pages to cause social change rather than letting Misplaced Pages reflect social change (that hasn't yet happened to your liking, but i expect by 2050 it will). perhaps by 2050, a NPOV article about "marriage" can be totally devoid of any mention that it is normally thought of as a particular committed relationship between a wife (female) and husband (male), but 2006 (or 2007) is not 2050. the article must reflect what marriage is now, not what you would like it to mean now nor what it might be in a few decades. i charge that removing this fact regarding what 95% of the world thinks of marriage, what the primary definitions in 3 commonly used dictionaries explicitly state marriage to be, to remove that and make it appear that there is no historical or cultural coupling of the meaning of marriage to heterosexuality, to do that is blatently POV pushing and if you deny that, i say you are knowingly not telling the truth.

the article must make reference to same-sex marriage because that is also a present cultural reality, to the chagrin of the religious right, but to equate the concepts in the present day is, simply, a lie. the only reason you guys have been able to get away with this for so long is not that you had the facts or Misplaced Pages policy on your side, it was only the transitory majority rule of editors who were paying attention.

i am no homophobe, despite what some might want to label me. in fact (i have pointed this out at the Talk:Homophobia page), i fully support political equality of sexual orientation and live in a U.S. state that had made the earliest compromise legislation to create something resembling this political equality (and it ain't there yet, but we're getting there).

but the gay rights lobby is acting like this horribly disadvantaged victim and equating their treatment to that of racial minorities (every single gay or lesbian person that i know personally is doing very well financially, is protected by law from every crime that i am protected by, and seem to be happy and secure people), and here at Misplaced Pages, it is clear that the gay advocacy is trying to use this encyclopedia to define the terms of debate in the culture war that is being slugged out presently about this. the gay advocates get to define the terms of the debate in any media of their own but not Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not owned by the gay rights advocates nor of the religious right or the traditional marriage crowd.

Misplaced Pages must describe marriage as it is and mention alternative understandings of the concept and no group has the right to nix either content. r b-j 02:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What would really help this article would be for you to accept the fact - the objective fact, to be redundant - that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is so well grounded and universally accepted in societies, religions, and cultures across the Earth and throughout history, that it should be obvious as fact. References to "same-sex marriage" belong in that particular article and do not belong here. Nkras 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

“Objective” is an assertion, but if you could support your assertion and add it to the information already in the article with a citation it would be appreciated.--GMS508 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Oh, for.... The definition of Marriage was expanded to include same sex marriages by American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin) in 2000, Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 2001, and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in 2003. What would really help this article would be for you, Nkras, to accept the fact that your definition is no longer the only valid one. CovenantD 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

it is an expansion and it is not the primary definition. the primary definition of all three dictionaries explicitly say "husband and wife". when that primary definition changes, that's when you get to declare the status-quo of marriage to not include heterosexuality. r b-j 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rbj please provide a citation for your assertion of “Primary” and define what you mean by “primary definition”. Do you mean oldest or do you mean most important? If what say can be cited it needs to be in the article. --GMS508 03:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

someone with a subscription to OED Online needs to verify this. from this article, i get "The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony. ...The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex...".

While Rbj—insist that OED primary definition of marriage is defined as between a man and a women an OED editor disagrees with him. (see quote below)

"It's not so much a redefinition, because our definition did not specify marriage had to be between a man and woman in the first place," said editor Jesse Sheidlower from OED's New York headquarters. ](which by the way is from the same article cited by Rbj).

For those individuals who wish to infer meaning from dictionary definitions it would probably be helpful if they cited a lexicographer because this is complicated science.--GMS508 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

for American Heritage Dictionary it's "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."

for Merriam-Webster, it's "(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>".

in all cases, the primary definition is explicity heterosexual. whether gay advocates like it or not, that's what a minimum of 95% of people today think of when the subject "marriage" comes up. WP:Undue weight is the consideration here. while it is inappropriate to remove any or all reference to same-sex marriage from the Marriage article, it is far more inappropriate to remove the primary inference of the term and to do so is blatent POV pushing. it is trying to use Misplaced Pages to conduct social change rather than let Misplaced Pages reflect social change. r b-j 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Beleive it or not, I actually agree with your assertion that WP:Undue weight is the consideration here. It should be possible to construct an intro that reflects the status of marriage in all of it's various forms in balance with their historical and societal importance. CovenantD 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

i would like to believe it. but i do not understand the repeated reverts regarding the Due weight of reference of "husband and wife" in the lead and main discussion of the article. r b-j 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I (and apparently several other editors) see you (and others) taking it too far in the other direction, treating SSM as a lesser or invalid form of marriage rather than a minority one. The attitude expressed by Nkras when he calls it "pretend" is exactly what we are guarding against. Not saying that you feel that way, BTW, just commenting on the problems I've seen with the wording you choose. Any opening statement that explicitly excludes anything other than "one man/one woman" is going to run into problems. CovenantD 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

excising the primary dictionary definition from the lead is blatently POV in a contentious topic as this. also removing any reference to SSM in the article (because there is a cultural motion in that direction) is also blatently POV. i think a reference to SSM deserves a mention in the lead summary. but the lead sentence, what WP:WINAD calls a "good definition", must include what the vast majority of human beings on this planet understand to be a primary property of marriage: that is it is a committed heterosexual relationship between a husband and a wife. SSM, polygamy, child marriage, divorce, life-long, all of that stuff gets mentioned and given due weight. but to excise out the common definition is so blatently POV that it's embarassing for a 51 year old leftie from Vermont that was a big-time supporter of Howard Dean. i'm for same-sex equality in the law (i would like to see the governments get out of the marriage business altogether leaving it all to civil unions whether hetero or homo). i'm completely okay about the few denominations that recognize SSM. fine. but don't portray it as normative or common when it just isn't. how this has gone down here for this article and Homophobia is iron-clad evidence of left-leaning, pro-gay, bias in WP that has been charged by the critics. it's embarassing! let Marriage be what it is, let the social evolution happen at the pace that it does and let Misplaced Pages reflect that as it happens. when versions like this one got into the article and there was so much resistance to fixing it to be more NPOV, that is this evidence that critics of Misplaced Pages have been using to beat over our heads and it's embarassing. let's not do this or Misplaced Pages will become known as a soapbox. and rightfully known as such. r b-j 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no point arguing with deconstructionists. Nkras 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I put in the request to have the page protected so that the edit war would cease and talks would begin again. Now, it is a fact that governments in various parts of the world are recognizing marriage to mean a union of two people, regardless of sex or gender. Thus an article on "Marriage", with no adjectives in the title, must address same-sex marriage in the same article as different-sex marriage. There is already an article on same-sex marriage because it is a rather detailed sub-topic that needs its own article. It might be possible to argue the case that different-sex marriage is a large subtopic that needs its own article as well; but whether it does or does not, the article on no-adjectives "marriage" must address both in a NPOV manner. The protecting admin has recommended WP:RFC or WP:M and I support either of these methods. I am not going to open a case at this time but anyone else who sees fit to do so should. — coelacan talk — 03:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest that definitions don't provide us any illumination. This is not Wiktionary, and we are not guided by definitions but by facts as they exist in the world. Marriage is being practiced, legally, in some places by public referendum, as a union of two people. This means that same-sex marriage has to be addressed in this article, and it cannot be forked off elsewhere as though it is not marriage. Furthermore, because this is a rather significant development and certainly controversial, it has to be summarized in the lead section according to WP:LEAD. — coelacan talk — 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

from WP:WINAD: Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary (WINAD), 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. it is a misuse of terms and policy to imply that WINAD means we shouldn't be using dictionary here. because this is controversial, we must not allow any side, neither the gay-rights advocates nor the traditional marriage right-wingers to define the lead sentence and thus get an edge on defining the terms of debate. until recently, it was the gay-rights advocates that, shearly by majority bullying (or "rule" if you want), controlled this content. it was not as per Misplaced Pages policy WP:NPOV WP:SOAP. r b-j 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to use WINAD. I'm not appealing to policy. I'm asking that we examine the possibility that "definition" is simply the wrong way to go about this. As for WINAD, it does say "good definition or a clear description" so why don't we try using clear descriptions instead of definitions? I do want to describe. I just think that attempting to "define", in this case, is a recipe for a never-ending spiral of revert warring. And if definition isn't necessary, and can be replaced with description, then why don't we go with description instead? Catalogue and discuss the different ways that marriage is practiced, and when we're done we'll have a description that allows for the reader to walk away with a comprehensive understanding, all without the fight over definitive definition. — coelacan talk — 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument for using "different-sex marriage" inferes that 'same-sex marriage' contains a legitimate use of of the word 'marriage'. I would leave that to the editors of Article:Same-sex_marriage to assert. Nkras 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I offer a solution: Article:Marriage be left to the traditionalists, with a disclaimer in the introduction. The post-moderns, deconstructors, and anyone else who agrees with them will have Article:Same-sex_marriage with a reverse disclaimer. Nkras 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nkras, you don't get to enforce a litmus test on what is "legitimate" marriage and what is not. The job of this encyclopedia is to report what marriage is and how it is practiced. If it is practiced involving two men or two women, and it is, then the role of this article is to report that. The encyclopedia does not decide what is "legitimate", it only reports what is. The existence of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands alone would demand that this article address same-sex marriage, and the other countries and states that do this only reinforce how much space the article should use to address this. Your proposed "solution" is no solution at all, it is a request for a POV fork, a request that will not be granted. — coelacan talk — 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, you're setting up strawman arguments and using hasty generalizations. Nkras, you're just blatantly pushing your own POV that same-sex marriages have no legitimacy. I think Coelacan has summed up the reasoning for non-gender specific wording in the intro rather well. CovenantD 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

there is no strawman argument (coming from me) and simply claiming so does not make so. rather than making an empty charge, why not itemize the purported strawmen and relate them to the only point i had been making here (that the gay advocates do not have the right to remove the inference of heterosexuality from the key definition of marriage, just because they would like to see it different.) i am inferring motive, but the evidence of all of these reverts of objective quoting of the dictionary definition support that motive. you might want to dispute my claim to knowing the motive behind it, and we can argue that, but it's not a strawman.

gay advocates simply do not want to wait for the reality to change to reflect such a change in Misplaced Pages. they want to reflect the (possible) future change in Misplaced Pages now, in the hopes that this, plus all sorts of other cultural influences, will eventually (or quickly) change the common lexicon of ordinary people regarding "marriage" so that there is no implication of heterosexuality in it. this is a charge of using Misplaced Pages for the wrong reasons and an implication of motive behind it. not a strawman. r b-j 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't specific enough. You wrote "when that primary definition changes, that's when you get to declare the status-quo of marriage to not include heterosexuality." That is not what I (or anybody else that I can see) am claiming. CovenantD 02:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

when the references to "husband and wife" have been deliberately and repeatedly removed, that is the only message that is sent. putting that in the lead reflects the primary dictionary definition of marriage and the status-quo of the meaning of the term. taking it out is denial of that. r b-j 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD doesn't even recognize his own POV claims. Now, what about my solution? Nkras 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, I didn't even add the references tag. I don't know why it showed up in my edit. I was just saying how definitions aren't useful for determining what goes in this article. — coelacan talk — 05:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan and CovenantD have my full support in this matter; for all the fervor of Nkras and others, Misplaced Pages has no business deciding that poliamorous and/or same-sex marriages are "not traditional" or whatever. The fact of the matter (and I know Nkras says otherwise, but he is simply wrong) is that marriage is not necessarily or even really traditionally an union between a man and a woman. For that matter, marriages are not in any way "objective" and never will be; a marriage is a social convention and therefore unavoidably subjective. The current reference(s) in the article to a marriage being "between a man and a woman" is/are wrong, POV and misleading and should be corrected ASAP. Luis Dantas 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

no, Luis, the current reference is what the dictionaries primarily say (i did not write those definitions) and what the vast majority of people in the world mean by "marriage". just because a handful of jurisdictions and religious traditions, representing less than 5% of the world population (and you can't claim that all of the Dutch or Episcopaleans support such change either) has recognized SS marriage. if the vast majority of people in the world mean heterosexual when they refer to the term marriage, the Misplaced Pages article should weight it appropriately. heck, i don't even think all of the gays in the world would think of "marriage" differently. the current reference to "between a man and a woman" is not wrong, you are. r b-j 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As the father of the current structure of the lead section, I have to agree that references to polyamory ought to remain there. On the other hand, the constant hammering on SS marriage is a problem. What we know as SS marriages is an innovation based on Western/Christian notions of marriage (in spite of what Boswell liked to claim). SS marriage is therefore a recent notion derivative of marriage in general, and claiming it as part of the "lost in the mists of time" tradition of marriage simply isn't true.

The tendency here is to get caught up in all the exceptional cases and forget the main pattern, which is one man and one woman forming a family and producing children. We are getting so caught up in whether or not this is normative that we ignore that it is normal. Mangoe 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages, it is not our job to determine what is normal, nor what is normative. We only describe what is. — coelacan talk — 15:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

i fully agree with that. dunno how you parlay that to mean that SS marriage gets equal weight to heterosexual marriage in the article nor how the lead should reflect the two equally. the fact is, what is, is that nearly everyone understands "marriage" to be a relationship between husband and wife, that the major dictionaries reflect that fact in their primary definitions, and it is a side issue that there are a few juridictions and religious traditions that have allowed for same-sex marriage. let the article reflect the reality rather than the wishful thinking that some gay advocates have for reality. r b-j 02:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "gay advocates gay advocates gay advocates" rant is getting extremely tedious. How many more times do you think you need to repeat it? I have not asked for precisely equal weight. I want due weight. I am open to all sorts of arguments to discover exactly what due weight should be. But you've been throwing around some 95%/5% numbers that you've never cited. These numbers, you claim, refer to what "people today think of when the subject "marriage" comes up". I got curious and tried to find a citation. Now, this is limited to the USA, but it turns out that 41% of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, and 55% believe it shouldn't be. Presumably the other 4% were either undecided or opposed to government recognition of marriage in general. This was an ABC/WaPo poll. I'm sure some other varying numbers can be dredged up, but let's put "95%" to bed, hmm? — coelacan talk — 14:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• This seems a very odd discussion. Allow me to note (and I am about to slap yet another tag on the article) that Misplaced Pages is not an American only encyclopedia. Perhaps marriage is defined as man-woman in your country, but not in mine. We do not have two kinds of marriage (eg: hetero and homo). We have only marriage, open to one and all adults. So to discuss marriage as only being between a man and woman is not only discriminatory, but exclusionary to those of us from advanced, enlightened countries who don't have bigoted laws on the books. Jeffpw 18:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And after that editorial, you're going to rag on the (presumed) Americans? "As goes Amsterdam, so goes the world"? The Netherlands is one small nation, and its current laws one small slice of history. Over the not a whole lot greater sweep of time and place, it is an abberation. The vanguard of the future? Perhaps, but we are not a crystal ball.

Polyamory is one "problem", and SS marriage a quite different issue. Historical documentation is of the former is trivial to come by; but while its practice was widespread, is anyone really ready to step up and argue against the point that, in almost all times and places, monogamous marriages were by far the most common? And as for the latter, perhaps in the Netherlands SS marriages are common, and maybe they are not; but even with Boswell's dubious documentation it would appear that this is among the most exceptional of practices, unknown in most times and places. If the USA is a bad standard, Holland is surely worse.

The big POV problem here is that, in the drive to include exceptional practices, the most ordinary sort is hardly being discussed. Frankly, I think this article would do well to barely mention SS marriages, and then point over to that subject's main article. Likewise, while we need to discuss polyamory, again it is being overemphasized. The only way to make this make sense is to let the exceptions be exceptions; instead we tend to keep slipping into on the one hand talking about marriage so generally that it has no particular nature, and on the other hand going into grinding detail on anything that is atypical. What is typical gets ignored. Mangoe 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there, Mangoe. Allowing for SS and polyamory marriages is a very' far cry from "ignoring" monogamic intersex marriages, yes? Besides, even if it were proven that SS and poly are in some meaningful way "exceptions", it still would not mean anything as far as this article is concerned. This is "marriage", not "typical marriage" or something of the sort. Luis Dantas 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And yeah, if we're going to give weight by demographics alone, the VAST majority of cultures throughout history have had polygynous (one man, many women) marriages, and the ones in the map to the right still do. It takes a particularly insular worldview to imagine that monogamy has been a historical norm. — coelacan talk — 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In your zeal to protect the unusual cases, you have misread me. Who is willing to argue that where polygamy has been practiced it has been the usual form of marriage? I very carefully avoided talking about monogamy as a norm in the passage above, because of course that would be inaccurate. But to talk about about polygamy as if it were the model and monogamy the exception is as inaccurate.

I don't think there is as much of a problem talking about marriage without reference to plurality anyway, because in general the purposes/etc. of monogamous marriage apply in plural. This part I think we can get past. The issues with SS marriage are that a lot of these purposes are disrupted in the nature of the thing, and that acceptance of the notion at all is very limited; for instance, I doubt that it would be accepted anywhere in that great green band for polygamy.

Take a look at tree. It does mention some exceptional cases, but it treats them exactly as that. Mangoe 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that either monogamy or polygamy is a norm, because I don't believe either is, worldwide over the course of human history. And I would argue that in the cultures that have polygamy, the polygamous marraiges are held by men who can afford to have many wives. It's not a minority in these cultures because of choice or custom; the limit is primarily one of money and status. Now, I wonder why you are bringing up "purposes". Do you think it is the job of Misplaced Pages to educate people on what the "purpose" of marriage ought to be? Limiting discussion of any kind of marriage because it doesn't jive with your interpretation of purpose is POV-pushing with original research on top. However, it might be useful to mention that same-sex marriage is only prevalent in cultures that have embraced love as a primary reason for marriage. But without citing Fiddler on the Roof, I'm not sure how to begin to present that without original research. It's an interesting line of investigation though. — coelacan talk — 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffpw's point is a good one. When we discuss cultures that now have same-sex marriage, do the law books have "same sex marriage" or do they have "marriage between two people"? There's a distinction in flavor here that needs to be properly addressed. — coelacan talk — 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Same-Sex Marriage be mentioned in lead summary section???

First, I fully agree that dictionary definitions do not solve any problems with this page. Still, the following has been asserted numerous times and I believe that it is misleading. Different dictionaries use different conventions so a blanket statement about “primary definition” can not be made. Please note the following citations and quotations:

• Morris, William, ed. (1982) . American Heritage dictionary (Second College Edition ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. p.6. ISBN 0-395-32943-4. We have endeavored to present the most prevalent, contemporary sense or meaning of the word first… {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help)
• Brown, Lesley, ed. (1993) . The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. pp. p.xi. ISBN 0-19-861134-X. The order of headwords with the same spelling and the same (first) part of speech is chronological… {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help)

If editors believe that it is important to state that definition of marriage as applied to same-sex marriages is neither the most prevalent definition nor the oldest. This can be easily cited, but obviously this is not what the disagreement is about. The disagreement as I understand it is that some editors believe that same-sex marriage is not important enough to mention in lead summary section.--GMS508 14:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, i think that same-sex marriage must be referred to in the article and even in the lead summary. what i am against is the removal of the notion that "marriage" is not ordinarily, in the common usage of regular people, about husbands and wives. the gay advocates have been carefully trying to surgically remove that simple fact from the article to reflect what they want the world to become: a place where everyone imagines same-sex couples in marriage as routinely as they might imagine a different-sex couple. but the world isn't there yet and Misplaced Pages is about what the world is, not what it may become in the concepts of any selection of people.r b-j 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rbj—Please note the above two reference I put them there for your benefit, sometimes as in the OED and SOED all the primary definition infers is that it is the “oldest.” If you can not support your assertions (e.g. “what 95% of the world thinks”) then people are going to assume that you are just another member of the self appointed language police. You can insist that your opinion is neutral and fact based. Your insistence that references to online dictionaries proves what 95% of the world believes shows a lack of understanding of the controversy on this page. Nothing will be accomplished on this page unless editor’s of this page start supporting their assertions with citations.--GMS508 11:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. There is also the matter that some editors want to use the article (and particularly the lead section) to reinforce their POV that a marriage is necessarily or traditionally intergender (and perhaps also monogamic). The current text of the main article's lead paragraph has such a POV and must be changed. Luis Dantas 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The article must deal with all kinds of marriage that are practiced. This must include plural marriage, for instance. When the article addresses all kinds of marriage, then WP:LEAD says that the intro section must summarize those. So there actually can be no honest debate on whether the intro should address same-sex marriage. It must; we don't have any choice. It must also address plural marriage, and divorce is such a huge factor in marriage that the intro should mention divorce and second marriages as well. So the only real question is, how are these topics to be addressed? "Definitions" of all kinds, supporting any particular POV, are entirely, completely useless to us. The attempt to defer to definitions is an attempt to make this article prescriptive, when it needs to be descriptive. So let's be descriptive. If we take a timeline approach, a.k.a. "traditional marriage", charting what has marriage been in the past, then we need to begin with "one man and several women", which is still how marriage is practiced in many parts of the world. If most editors don't want to open the article with polygamy, then there are other options. We could describe current tendencies of marriage worldwide, which will show polygamy declining, same-sex marriage rising, and different-sex marriage ending in higher rates of divorce, usually followed by second or third marriages. Another option is that we could escew tendencies in the intro, and try to capture a still image of marriage currently, wherein we might simply describe the numbers on various marriages in different cultures. Whichever way we do it though, there's no room for this "most people think this" or "most people think that" which is just reporting on personal opinions. We are not Gallup or Zogby. The first and foremost important thing for the article and the intro is how marriage is practiced, not how anybody thinks it should be. A lot of people will tell you they think marriage should be for a whole lifetime. But those same people often aren't practicing it as such. So opinions really tell us very little, and if they get mentioned in the larger article, there's still no room for them in the intro, where they amount to cruft.

Luis, for reference, here is one of the other intros. As to the matter of the lead section currently needing to be changed, yes, it does, but that is what happens when an article is edit-protected; someone gets stuck with a version they don't like. It'll be changed when the protection is lifted. In the meantime we need to decide precisely what the lead should say when that happens. — coelacan talk — 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That text is much better indeed; it recognizes the existence of the various kinds of marriages without attempting to choose which one is "right" or "better". I have no problem with it and see no reason why anyone should. Luis Dantas 15:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That text looks good, though it will need a few touch-ups (polygamy only in parts of Asia and Africa, and the USA). Haiduc 16:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we give serious consideration to the suggestion that the summary article be written using the “timeline approach.” This would place heterosexual monogamous marriage a couple of lines into the article far enough down that hot heads will not bother to read it. It would also provide an easily definable and neutral method for determining placement in the lead summary section.--GMS508 17:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For example the aricle could begin, Marriage is a constantly evolving social construct. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse,….--GMS508 17:22, 27 December 2006 UTC)

Drivel. Marriage has a common, fixed definition across cultures. Marriage is between a man and a woman as it is understood to most of the planet, except of course, to some in the legal, academic, identity multiculturalist, and left wing tribes. Nkras 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you insulting me? Prove its drivel show support.--GMS508 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not insulting you, I am insulting what you wrote, that Marriage is a constantly evolving social construct. I will reiterate:: marriage has a common, fixed definition across cultures. The exception does not make a rule. Nkras 00:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wade in with my 2¢ worth. I'm all in favor of same-sex marriage; but I agree that this article ought to focus on the traditional male-female concept. That's just the point: except perhaps in some remote times and places, marriage has not been an option for same-sex couples until just the last five years. The lead should certainly mention that the definition is changing and link to the article on same-sex marriage; and one paragraph at the end of the article could give a brief overview of the current situation, again with a link to the other article.

Having said that, I also think the article needs to be reorganized and expanded to reflect worldwide viewpoints. It also has a woeful lack of authoritative references; I am coming to believe that one of the most useful things Misplaced Pages can do is point the reader to authoritative sources, both in print and online. It's not enough to say "well, X means thus and so"; print encyclopedias generally refer readers to authoritative sources, and I think Misplaced Pages should, too, especially given its wide-open editing policy.

Merely as a springboard for further discussion, I offer the following proposal for reorganization of this topic (which I'm admittedly not an expert on, but how many of us truly are?):

Marriage

• Purposes/Effects/Benefits of Marriage
• Restrictions on Marriage (incest, affinity, endogamy, exogamy, etc.)
• Variations (monogamy, "serial monogamy," polygamy, etc.)
• Divorce and remarriage

(Note: these 4 sections allow introduction and definition of terms which will reappear in the sections to follow)

• Marriage in the West
  • Antiquity (before A.D. 500)
  • Middle Ages (500-1500)
  • Modern Period (1500-present)
    • Civil Marriage
    • Religious Marriage
    • Recent Developments (since the Pill, 1961)
      • Cohabitation
      • Domestic Partnerships (male/female)

• Marriage in non-Western Cultures
  • Marriage among Native Peoples
  • Marriage in Africa
  • Marriage in Asia
  • Marriage in the Arab/Muslim World (which spans Europe, Asia, and Africa, etc.)

• Same-sex marriage

It may well be that some or all of these subcategories will need to be spun off into separate articles to keep this one from becoming too long.--Textorus 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your outline makes sense, but I disagree that "this article ought to focus on the traditional male-female concept." This article should have multiple focal points, in different sections if need be, on all forms of marriage. The article title says "Marriage" not "Marriage as it has been traditionally practiced". Perhaps you didn't mean "focus on" but rather "give a larger portion of the discussion to" in which case you may be right as we need to avoid WP:Undue Weight. I am all for appropriate weight, but the article title should be taken literally, and we should not pretend that "same-sex marriage" is different from "marriage"; the former is merely a subset of the latter and as such deserves serious discussion here. — coelacan talk — 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that same-sex marriage deserves serious discussion, but I meant what I said. Although we have literary, historical, and archeological evidence of same-sex pairings (more or less accepted/legitimated by the surrounding culture) from as far back as the Gilgamesh epic and the 24th Dynasty of Egypt, up through ancient Greece and so forth, including ancient China and pre-Columbian America, male-female marriage--legally, socially, and religiously recognized--has been far more widespread. Full, official "marriage" in these senses has simply not been available for same-sex couples in most times and in most places until the last 5 years. That's the point of the current debate: that it should be opened up and the definition expanded.

The intro to this article ought to make clear that the more widespread male-female union will be discussed here, and as I said, refer readers to the SSM article for more reading. We can certainly include a paragraph or two about SSM in this article, either at the end, or under "Recent Developments" as outlined above. But as much as I favor full equality of marriage rights for same-sex couples, I share with you a concern for giving undue weight to what is an extremely recent development in human history. A very good development, in my point of view, as was expanding the definitions of personhood and civil rights to include women, people of color, etc.--but nevertheless quite recent in terms of official recognition, legally, socially, and religiously.--Textorus 19:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If "same sex marriage" is "marriage" then it belongs in the "marriage" article. And per WP:LEAD the intro must summarize what is in the body of the article. So the intro should give appropriate weight to each type of marraige here discussed. Thus far, I think we are in agreement, yes? Now, should we explicitly "make clear that the more widespread male-female union will be discussed here"? No, because all klnds of marriage will be discussed here, and if the male-female union is given the larger weight of the discussion, then it is superfluous and redundant to explicitly point this out. It's not the same as WP:PEACOCK but the general principle applies. We should show, not tell. If the majority of the article concerns intersex marriage, the reader will know it because the reader is reading it. To make an explicit point of it, however, implies that the article should be for one thing and not the other because one is a more legitimate topic, and I think that this would be implicit POV-pushing. I think it is actually the same form of POV that User:Nkras is trying to get with his article-fork proposal, just toned down a few degrees. It's certainly not your POV, Textorus, but I'm afraid it's an unintended consequence of the proposal. — coelacan talk — 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. Same sex marriage is a subset of marriage, not a wholy different concept. -- Ec5618 21:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

it is considered to be a subset of marriage by a proportionally small subset of people. that's why SS marriage does not deserve anything close to equal weight in the article titled Marriage. when people mention the term "same-sex marriage" most, nearly all, people will think it refers to marriage between persons of the same sex and it would be wrong to try to remove that fact from that article. but it is also wrong to try to inject into this article what you wish that people would think when the term "marriage", with no qualification, is brought up. the vast majority of people in the world understand marriage to be about a heterosexual relation between husband and wife (which lexigraphically supported in the major English dictionaries) and that fact must not be diluted in the article just because you don't like it. r b-j 03:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Same-sex marriage" is not a subset of marriage, because it is not marriage. It is a wholly fabricated construct. Members of the same sex cannot get married, because they are not of the opposite sex. To demand the inclusion of "same sex marriage" in the Marriage article is pushing a political and social agenda, is the destruction of language, and an attempt to push a POV that is already evident in the Same-sex marriage article. As a compromise, I will agree to the inclusion of a section about "Redefinition of Marriage" where references to "same-sex marriage" can exist, subordinate to the intent of the article. I will not agree to any "consensus": a group of editors could reach a consensus that eating pork is kosher, though it remains treif. The editors may think they are correct because they have reached a consensus - and they would be wrong nonetheless. Destroying language and the definition of marriage is not acceptable under any circumstances. Nkras 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Marriage is indeed a fabricated construct. What exactly is your point? Furthermore, in the Netherlands, for example, there is no difference between a marriage between a man and a woman, and a marriage between two women, which rather invalidates your point. Since definitions are fluid, and language is too, I can see the point in a section on redefining words, but hardly in this article specifically. The word gay once meant cheerful, and the word knave was once in popular use. Words and meanings change. As has been explained above, Misplaced Pages is not in the habit of ignoring the way in which a word in actually used. Marriage in this world, and at this time, may refer to the joining of a couple of men or women.

You're right in saying that consensus does not trump truth. Verifiability however trumps truth. In any case, the word marriage is applied to unions between people of the same sex, in some cases by governments. This is verifiably true. As such, we must report that the word marriage may be used to refer to such unions, in the same way that we report that the term may be used to refer to the union between two atheists of any gender, and even to the union between a small child and a tree (see tree worship).

Again, Misplaced Pages does not dictate language. Misplaced Pages does not decide what the term marriage may refer to. Neither does consensus. The outside world does, and it has decided for us. -- Ec5618 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

going by that standard, then less than 5% of the article should be about SS marriage and no mention of SS marriage should be in the lead at all. r b-j 03:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but do you have a source for this 95%/5% number that you keep using? CovenantD 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

take the sum of populations in the jurisdictions depicted in dark blue in this map and divide by 6 billion. or add up the membership numbers of denominations such as Episcopal, Methodist, Quaker, Unitarian, UCC, MCC (of course), and whatever other fringe denominations that recognize SSM and divide that by 1 or 2 billion. or include all religious traditions that recognize SS marriage and divide that by the population of theists in the world. or type the words poll same-sex marriage into Google and pick your link. a large majority is against changing the law to allow for SSM, but this 95% is not what people want for the law, but is what people think of when the term "marriage" is presented to them. maybe it should be adjusted to 98% or 99%, but i thought i would be conservative. i don't want to overstate the case. r b-j 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Rbj—you stated, “but this 95% is not what people want for the law, but is what people think of when the term "marriage" is presented to them.” I now feel foolish because I wasted my time looking for an article that supports what you stated. I would like to see the poll the supports your statement. (specifically, if you can find the poll again, what populations was sampled, how many individuals were sampled, and what the expected error was.) If that information is not available in the article I would still like to see this article.--GMS508 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rbj is just making these numbers up. It's blatant WP:OR. And it's completely wrong. The fact is that 41% of Americans want legal same-sex marriage. But no matter what the first thing that pops into someone's head upon hearing the word "marriage" might be, Misplaced Pages is not free association therapy or stream of consciousness writing. — coelacan talk — 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a Faulty generalization. CovenantD 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, really? and statements like "In this world, nowadays and indeed in centuries past, the term marriage can refer to the union between two men." are not? or by using the qualification "can refer" that this means that the common definition of the term (referring to "husbands and wives") is appropriately stricken from the lead even though it is not so stricken in the three dictionary definitions? that's not faulty generalization? it's this faulty generalization that because a small proportion of religious traditions and a smaller proportion of jurisdictions have recognized SSM, that the general meaning of the term "marriage" has changed worldwide which is what is being corrected now in the article. this is what reform is. to take that teeny-weeny cultural change and protray it as if it is the norm is corruption of the NPOV that Misplaced Pages is committed to being. r b-j 04:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't seem to be Faulty generalizations. Marriage can indeed refer to the union of two men, and there appears to be evidence to support that use in centuries past. That is not a generalization. I don't understand your concerns about "husbands and wives" being stricken from the lead. It very clearly states, sencond sentence of the second paragraph, "Usually it is understood to join a man and woman (who in their marital roles are termed the "husband" and "wife" respectively.)" It's been there since Mangoe did a major rewrite about a month ago and was met with wide approval. CovenantD 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not my part of the outside world - nor the overwhelming part of the outside world has decided - that marriage is anything else than between a man and a woman. Imposition by edict does not legitimize a law, for doing so would be without the consent nor consultation of the governed. Nkras 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Geography is not the issue. In this world, nowadays and indeed in centuries past, the term marriage can refer to the union between two men. Perhaps the term is not so used in your part of the world, but considering that we write here to cater to the entire world, that hardly matters. You have no right to state that the marriages between two women in South Africa are not marriages when the government of that country disagrees with you. How dare you suggest that the Netherlands have no right to allow same-sex marriage?

The Netherlands and South Africa can go ahead and try to dignify the coupling of two men or two women as a "marriage" - they may even pass laws to pretend it to be so - but it still is not marriage. BTW, States have authority, limited by Constitutions, laws, and custom; individuals have rights, limited by laws and customs. See my above comment for clarification concerning the conext of "outside world". Nkras 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not decide what the term marriage may refer to. Neither does consensus. The outside world does, and it has decided for us. It has decided that the term marriage refers to the union between men just as it does to the union between Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. Verifiably so. -- Ec5618 00:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

that's actually a falsehood. (and verifiably so.) only a very small portion of the outside world has decided that the term marriage refers to the union between persons of the same gender. the vast majority of the outside world still thinks of marriage as referring to husband and wife. r b-j 03:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. In this world, the term marriage may be used to refer to same-sex marriage, even if only a small part of that world does so. We cannot restrict our article to the concept of 'marriage in Britain in the nineteen hundreds', any more than we can restrict our article to the concept of 'marriage in most of the world'. -- Ec5618 11:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Many WP articles deal with unusual concepts and exceptions. Why should this one be any different? Only a minority of Christians (and virtually no one who is not a Christian) believe in Rapture, yet we have an article on the concept. There is no point in either hiding the reality of SS marriage nor in giving it undue weight. And to claim that the minority should go unmentioned is IMNSHO quite against the NPOV directives. Luis Dantas 05:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the political context of defining the term "marriage" in the US today, I think the only way to do this is by being very specific about time and place, even in the introductory material. Something like, "Marriage is a relationship between at least two individuals, defined by applicable cultural, religious, and legal rules. Marital status today is generally a civil, religious, and social state; it is typically publicly declared in a wedding ceremony and licensed by the state. (new P) The most commonly recognized form today is that of a single, monogamous union between an adult male and female, who in their marital roles are termed "husband" and "wife", respectively, or generically, "spouse". Polygamous marriage (sometimes termed "plural marriage") is ancient but is now common only in Africa or Asia, most typically in the form of polygyny (one husband and multiple wives). Since the late 1990s, a small number of countries have recognized same-sex marriage, in which both parties are of the same sex, although some social recognition for same-sex unions can be seen in many historical societies. Most states require marital partners to be adults or adolescents, but child marriage (marriage of a child to another child or an adult) is still sometimes seen. ... and then the last two paragraphs from the current introduction" --lquilter 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(Note that I'm adding in the bit about child marriage; I'm not sure why this isn't mentioned at all--historically in noble families there was quite a bit of it, and it still exists as an abusive practice today. Age limits have been a significant legal reform of marriage practices the last 150 years, along with gender equity, and I'm very surprised there's so little discussion of it.) --lquilter 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about reformulating the article is nice, but unless there are citations, another self appointed member of the language police will edit the article. Please look at some of the past variations of this article and you will notice that the language police always return to the article.--GMS508 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I like what you're doing there very much, Lquilter; though of course "child marriage" like "child abuse" and everything else depends on a certain frame of reference (which no doubt would be elaborated on further down in the article): I know of at least 2 great-great-grandmothers who married somewhere around age 14 or 15, as many of their contemporaries did, and apparently were happy with that, though we today would think it inappropriate. "Arranged marriage" is another topic that ought to be in the article somewhere; still going on today, I understand, and some brides and grooms think it's just wonderful.

Frankly, I don't know how to avoid POV in an article like this. Everyone has strong feelings on the subject, and naturally we all feel we have the "right" view. And I think all views not intended to be hateful are worthy of respect and a fair hearing. It's not about "destroying language"; it's about using language to describe fairly what this particular term means/has meant in various times and places and cultures, as Lquilter rightly points out.

I understand where Nkras is coming from; though I think the religious analogy with kosher food is very telling. To one part of Judaism, a certain dish is kosher; to another it is not; so to say it is or isn't all depends on your frame of reference, your first premises, which in this case come down to religious belief--definitely POV. The same is true in Nkras's use of the word "marriage"; it's not true that "Members of the same sex cannot get married"--they certainly can, right now, this very minute, in 5 countries and one American state.

But of course "married" in my meaning rests on a legal and civil definition, whereas I suspect that in Nkras's case, it rests on a religious meaning. So both Nkras and I have a POV, and we are both correct by our own meaning of the term. Which is why in my suggested outline above, I think the discussion of marriage as the term is used in Western society needs to be done under both religious and civil headings. It all depends on the meaning assigned to the word in a particular time and place, and in the Western world that definition is now expanding, in the civil sense, at least.

All right, I've put in 6¢ worth now. I'll get off and let somebody else have a turn.  :-) --Textorus 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should erase and lock the article for all time, and both sides will go their respective ways to their respective Articles. Nkras 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why so? Luis Dantas 05:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditionalists and believers in Objective Truth on one side; and Post Modernists, Deconstructionists, Critical Studies adherents, Nihilists and Identity Multiculturalists on the other. Nkras 06:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some support for “objective truth” regarding marriage. At the very least you should be able to demonstrate that somebody notable agrees with you.--GMS508 11:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that same-sex marriage is a wholly different concept from 'regular' marriage. You have made your opinion quite clear. Obviously, you would like to split up the article. However, it is just your opinion. In some parts of the world, there is no difference between marriage and marriage. As such, we cannot claim that they are fundamentally different. -- Ec5618 11:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Constantly evolving" versus SS definition

We seem to have several disputes going on here, some of which are (I think) artificial and some of which are not. They all seem to revolve, however, around stretching the general definition of "marriage" to cover same-sex unions and indeed almost any kind of formalized same-sex relationship. That seems to be the source of the "constantly evolving social construct", a phrase whose essential vacuity we should set aside. When we rely on such language, we are essentially saying that we cannot characterize it; and if we cannot do so, what's the point of having an article?

I cannot see how we can make something coherent without starting from the most basic kind of marriage: a man and a woman of fertile age unite to form a family and have offspring. All the various distortions seem to be arising from the demand to put all sorts of other arrangements on equal status with this. OK, then: polyamory is a simple expansion of this and is easily fitted in with a few paragraphs here and there. It's same-sex relationships that are causing the problem. In the first place, as far as we rely on Boswell and others fishing for such relationships in western history, we are going to have trouble. Boswell's claims are widely disputed and he is often relying on same sex unions which do not seem to have been regarded as analogous to marriage. In the second, we are being asked to endorse Amsterdam over the vast majority of the world, by defining marriage in the large as encompassing such unions. If we are going to admit of world-wide standards, we have to admit that very little of the world or of history agrees that they are part of the whole. They need to be treated as a special case, with most of the discussion of them kept in their own article. The primary definition needs to be in terms of men and women, because that is by far the predominant context. Mangoe 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, Mangoe, it is not Amsterdam, but the Netherlands. Secondly, we are not the only country which allows marriage to anybody. That list also includes Spain, Belgium, S. Africa Canada and Massachusetts . While I would grant that marriage used to be as you and other POVers here would have it described in this article, the fact remains that your definition is not valid now, and whatever you write here will not make it so. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought Misplaced Pages (an encyclopedia, after all) was supposed to reflect truth, and not the wishes <of its editors. If you are opposed to people of the same gender marrying, feel free to push your agenda in your Parliament or Senate, but don't push it in an encyclopedia which is supposed to educate its readers to facts as they are, not as they were or how you hope they are again in the future. Jeffpw 14:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The validity of the definition is by its nature a POV problem, for what it means in essence is that the definition is contextual. Defining marriage in the large as encompassing SS unions is every bit a reflection of "the wishes of its editors" as utterly excluding it, for the vast majority of the world refuses such a definition.

The form that I would argue for is to mention SS marriage as extant but derivative of the primary sense that is universally accepted. That is, after all, the reality: that SS marriage as we know it now is derivative of western notions of romantic marriage, and that the vast majority doesn't accept this innovation. The opposition to forming it this way, it seems to me, represents the desire for Misplaced Pages to endorse SS marriage by overruling all those people who say that it isn't marriage at all. Mangoe 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages neither endorses or rejects anything. It simply reports on facts as they are. And the facts are simply that marriage is now open to people of the smae gender in more and more countries. It is clear, Mangoe, that you don't like it. While I think your view is narrow minded and bigoted, I respect your right to hold it.

That respect, however, does not extend to allowing you to write an encyclopedia article to reflect that narrow minded world view. Once again, Misplaced Pages does not solely represent the views of Americans and the religious right. It is--or is supposed to be--an educational tool that sets out the facts for readers, who can then form their own opinions on the matter. Jeffpw 15:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You are using a lot of highly value-laden language in condemning my neutrality, so you have largely vacated your point. Of course Misplaced Pages does endorse matters, by categorizing "facts" and saying that "this is this" and "this is not that". The problem fact here is that the categorization of SS marriages as a subspecies of marriage in general is not widely accepted, and that most people in most times and places would consider them to be analogous to marriage but not a kind of marriage. And that's not just the American religious right; that is the world. The characterization of me-- or them-- as "narrow-minded" is utterly beside the point; indeed, broadening my/their mind(s) is obviously POV-pushing.

I do not want to eliminate SS marriage from the article; it should be mentioned. But right now it is taking over the whole article. It's rather like making sure that every aspect of the tree article apply closely to saguaro, instead of treating the latter as an exceptional case. The historical reality of SS marriage as we now have it is that it is extrapolated from western marriage as we already knew it. It just makes more sense to discuss marriage first in terms of men and women (and children), and then to say, "and SS marriage is like this except...." And this has nothing to do with whether anyone accepts the legitimacy of the latter or not; indeed, I think we can write the article in this way without addressing that question. Mangoe 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can the primary definition not be all encompassing? Why does it need to be in terms of men and women? This article is about marriage, not an ideology, nor is it about 'what we can all agree on'. Predominant context indeed.

This article clearly states that marriage is understood, in most of the world, to involve a single man and a single woman. The problem we seem to having today is that people feel that same-sex marriage is not marriage in the same way that slaughter is not laughter (while the terms may appear similar, they differ greatly). Same-sex marriage, in that logic, should not be acknowledged by referring to it in this context. My point here is that these people do not get to decide what is or isn't marriage. Marriage is what people refer to when they say 'marriage', and sometimes, in some juristictions and in some ideologies, that may include same-sex marriage. -- Ec5618 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, those people do get to say what it is just as much as anyone else does. The alternative we are being given is that a few nations and states get to tell everyone else what marriage means in the face of overwhelming objection.

Personally, I would be ready to take the lead section back to where it was about the beginning of the month. Mangoe 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, those people don't get to limit the use of the term, because the term is verifiably used to refer to unions between members of the same sex. Logically, this article is about marriage, and again, not about any limited notion of marriage. Marriage is what people refer to when they say 'marriage', and sometimes, in some juristictions and in some ideologies, that may include same-sex marriage. -- Ec5618 15:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What the society allows and what exist is not the same. Murder exist, but I know of no country were it is allowed. You need to prove that society does not acknowledge the existence of same sex marriage not that society does not approve of it. The fact the so many governments prohibit same sex marriage is proof that it existence and that there is almost universal acknowledgement of its existence.--GMS508 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a legitimate assertion, or are you joking? :-s Nkras 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you do not prohibit what is not realistic possibility. Same sex marriage is prohibited because it is a real possibility. The list of governments and individuals trying to prohibit this type of marriage is endless. So I must assume that the possibility is extreme.--GMS508 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

After further thought and after listening to the debate, I take back my earlier objection to including same-sex marriage in this article (which was based only on historical, not philosophical grounds). Marriage is marriage when and where recognized as such. To point out just one possible example, the Catholic church does not recognize the marriage of some divorced persons, but the state does, so they are definitely married, regardless of how the Church or individual Catholics may view the relationship. The same can be said of same-sex marriage, so there.

Therefore, I humbly offer this definition, which I think ought to suit everyone; variations and exceptions to be noted as they come up in the course of the article, as I outlined above:

"Marriage is a term capable of many different interpretations in different cultures at different times in history; but when used alone, it usually connotes an emotional, sexual, social, and financial union, intended to be permanent, of two people that is officially recognized by civil or religious authorities."

Anyone who's interested can compare the lists of marriage definitions at and . Now can we just get on with it, and all get along here? Peace. --Textorus 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• The lead paragraph, as you wrote it above, Textorus, is acceptable to me. Jeffpw 12:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from my objection to Textorus' assertion of how marriage is defined, I propose this revision:

"Marriage is a term, when used alone, usually connotes an emotional, sexual, social, and financial union, intended to be permanent, of a man and a woman that is officially recognized by civil or religious authorities. It is, however, capable of many different interpretations in different cultures at different times in history."

Nkras 12:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nkras, this really isn't going to work unless you accept that same-sex marriage isn't really just something gay people do to pretend they're normal. Any definition that states that marriage is, and must always be, between an man and a woman (though some people dare suggest otherwise) is unacceptable. You don't have the authority to state that the people of the Netherlands, Belgium, South Afrika, Canada and certain American states are using a faulty definition, but that you know better. -- Ec5618 12:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have, in good faith, just tried to offer a compromise. The line in the sand is now definitely drawn, and will not be crossed. Nkras 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the word compromise. Are you, or are you not, advocating a definition that states that marriage refers to intergender unions alone? Are you, or are you not, advocating a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex marriage? -- Ec5618 13:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate: eating pork is not kosher, regardless of how many Rabbis who would say it is, or wish it to be. A dog goes "woof", and a cat goes "meow". A dog cannot go "meow", nor can anyone redefine "woof" as a "meow". It would still be "woof", regardless of how many would wish it to be otherwise. I included the latter for the secular. Nkras 13:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. What does that have to do with a human enterprise such as marriage, of which the definition and the practices surrounding it are ever-changing? Please understand that while you still define marriage as being limited to intergender couples, several governments have broadened the definition to include same-sex couples. Your opinion on the definition of marriage does not supercede their right to redefine it. In your example, the opinion of rabbis does not supercede scripture, which seems logical enough. But marriage is not a religious term, and so it is not protected in the same way. Marriage, in this world, may refer to the joining together of a boy and a tree. While your church may not recognise it, it has no right to dictate to others how the term is to be applied.

As for your newly added 'secular example', I can only marvel at your application of logic. A dog doesn't go meow, just like gay people don't really marry. Marvelous. -- Ec5618 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole comparison to "kosher" has been pretty misleading so far. In fact the word kosher ("kashrut") is never used in the Torah to refer to dietary law. The concept of kosher is developed in the Talmud, not the Torah, and the Talmud is not scripture but rabbinical discussion. So in fact, whatever a bunch of rabbis say is precisely what kosher is. This hasn't anything to do with marriage, and the comparison was always ill-conceived, but the concept of kosher has even been misstated here as well. — coelacan talk — 15:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to Leviticus 3:17 and 11:1 to 11:47. Nkras 00:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Levitical dietary rules. I refer you to the original Hebrew, in which you will not find the word "kashrut" in conjunction with dietary rules. The concept of kashrut is developed in Talmudic discussion of Levitical and other rules. And the Talmud is a collection of rabbinical correspondence. Without the Talmud, there would still be a bunch of rules in Leviticus, but they would not be rules of kashrut. You don't have to take my word for it. Get out your yellow pages, call a synagogue and ask if you can talk to a rabbi for five minutes. — coelacan talk — 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"The basic laws of Kashrus (a Hebrew word referring to kosher and its application) are of Biblical origin (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 17). For thousands of years, Rabbinic scholars have interpreted these laws and applied them to contemporary situations. In addition, Rabbinic bodies enacted protective legislation to safeguard the integrity of kosher laws." http://www.ou.org/kosher/primer.html Nkras 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See, now you're starting to understand. Whatever a bunch of rabbis say is precisely what kosher is. Thanks for listening. — coelacan talk — 02:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The point was: the basis of kosher is in the Torah. Nkras 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I do not see any benefit at all in "defining" marriage to be either "one man and one woman" or "two people". We could define the aurora borealis all night long and it wouldn't tell us anything about what the phenomenon actually is. We should describe how marriage is practiced, and if we do this well, it will present all the information that a reader would need to understand marriage, without both sides of this debate obsessing over what the delineation of the term should be. — coelacan talk — 13:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Suppose we simply drop the phrase "of two people" from my proposed definition? That would avoid the controversy raised in this debate, as well as leave room for polygamy as practiced by some Muslims and ancient Jews, 19th C Mormons, etc. Unless somebody wants to argue that a devout Muslim is not "really" married to 4 wives, or that Jacob was not "really" married to both Leah and Rachel. Though in point of fact, I believe that a modern-day Muslim coming to live in the US or UK can't bring all 4 wives as legal wives--so maybe he isn't "really" married after all? LOL Which proves my point: marriage is marriage when and where recognized as such. --Textorus 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any complaint with your approach. Your "marriage is a term... recognized by civil or religious authorities" suggestion above is an example of what I see as functional and descriptive. I am also comfortable with merely describing all the forms of marriage without trying to present any synthesis that would attempt to contain all forms within a couple of sentences. I'm just suggesting that we try to think in terms of description instead of definition for our own ease and sanity; the result may be interpreted by the reader as definition, or description, or a big heaping pile of words. — coelacan talk — 01:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfc requested

Since we seem to have reached an impasse, I have added this article to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. This seems the logical step before mediation and/or arbitration. Jeffpw 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am skeptical about this: all we need is more comments, mediation and arbitration from that minority subset of the planet: the enlightened (/sarc), computer literate members of the intellectual and creative classes. Nkras 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nkras, since you've already said that you "will not agree to any "consensus"", I am skeptical about whether your complaints can be imagined to be constructive, good faith contributions toward the goals of Misplaced Pages. A "request for comment" is standard practice for dispute resolution. If you don't like it, feel free to head over to the WP:Village Pump and begin your one-person campaign to completely reform Misplaced Pages policy. — coelacan talk — 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you try to read anything I write completely? Do you at least try to analyse and then comment after you comprehend it? r b-j is right. To paraphrase: it doesn't matter what I write, how many times I write, or how many times I explain. You refuse. Misplaced Pages is cursed with the editors who are but just a microscopic cross-section of the socio-economic and political castes. Nkras 00:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the comments rbj left on your talk page, Nikras, Misplaced Pages is also cursed by editors who act in concert to push their point of view while skirting the WP:3RR rule. I see several people trying to negotiate this in good faith, but you, rbj, and two others seem to prefer edit warring to get your own way. Since you seem so intransigent about this issue, the next step is mediation, I suppose. Jeffpw 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The "same sex marriage" editors are pushing their POV, others are stopping them. Trying to change the language is not acting in good faith. I have suggested a disclaimer at the lead of the article and the inclusion of a section about the redefinition of marriage. Your side won't agree, because you believe that "marriage" can be legitimately applied to members of the same sex. It cannot. I am skeptical about the objectivity of any arbitration or mediation here, because I fear its members are part of the same socio-political class that would be agreeable to "social change" and not take the concerns, beliefs or proofs of traditionalists seriously. This is just another battlefield in the culture war. Nkras 00:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nkras, you say "it cannot". Prove it. Supply us with a source for this claim. -- Ec5618 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter what the proof, it would not matter. There is no need to waste my time trying to prove the obvious, nor to convince you. Nkras 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. After we've come all this long way together, you're going to cop out like that? Don't be coy. Come on, give us your proof; unless of course your only "proof" is A) a religious text, B) an appeal to tradition (in your corner of the world only), or C) your personal disgust at the thought. And BTW, about the word legitimate: "from Latin lex, legis: sanctioned by law or custom; legal; reasonable." Want to rethink your statement?

And quit the name-calling and ad hominem attacks while you're at it, will ya? Make love, not war. Peace. --Textorus 02:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ad-hominem? Where? BTW, marriage is between a man and a woman. You'll just have to take my word for it. But enough of this: see my post below for a possible resolution. :-s Nkras 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In the wayback machine

Back towards the beginning of December we had this language:

A marriage is a socially, sometimes religiously, and often legally recognized union between or among partners forming a family, legitimizing sexual relations between the partners and procreation. Marriages are generally publicly declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. Usually it is understood to join a man and woman (who in their marital roles are termed the "husband" and "wife" respectively; generically they may be referred to as "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Recently the word marriage has also been used to describe unions between homosexual partners (same-sex marriage); as a legal contract, same-sex marriage has been recognized by a few governments and religious institutions.

I'm wondering exactly what is wrong with this. Mangoe 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that some editors object to any definition of marriage that does not exclude same-sex marriage, I'm going to guess that they will reject this description. -- Ec5618 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the least objectionable paragraph I have seen thus far, though I disagree with the term "a few countries" to describe at least 5 that I can think of. Jeffpw 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't it exactly five? And out of well over a hundred, I would call that "a few". But the actual number-- that is, 5-- could be used instead. Mangoe 21:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it is exactly 5, Mangoe. There are 5 that I can think of off the top of my head, and they are confirmed by the Wiki article--though that doesn't include Massachusetts, and I thought marriage was open to all in Iceland, as well. That's why I said "at least 5". Please don't be snarky. Jeffpw 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the version above nor was there anything wrong with this version.

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.]

The problem is that no matter what version we choose if it does not state “man and a women” or a “husband and a wife” someone will show up and edit the article. Then an edit war starts, followed by a new version. Unless we change the approach this will be an endless cycle. I really believe that a descriptive approach of different types of marriages instead of a definition approach might be worth consideration.--GMS508 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, nothing wrong with any of these versions, except that they raise some people's hackles, no matter how neutrally they are worded. Which is why I think eventually Misplaced Pages will just have to put a permanent lock on some articles; it really is a waste of everyone's time to keep debating and debating the same thing. And tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, some newbie who hasn't been part of this debate will come along and start it all over again. Life is short; why spend it like this? The buck's got to stop somewhere. And I'm up to 12¢ worth of wisdom now, more than I wanted to spend.  :-) Time to settle this and move on. --Textorus 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again. How about:

A marriage is a socially, religiously, and legally recognized union between between a man and a woman, forming a family, legitimizing sexual relations between the partners and procreation. Marriages are generally publicly declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. It is commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (who in their marital roles are termed the "husband" and "wife" respectively; generically they may be referred to as "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Recently the word marriage was redefined to include the union of a same sex couple in a limited number of jurisdictions.

Nkras 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between between two or more people, forming a family, creating kinship, bestowing legal rights, benefits, and obligations, and legitimizing sexual relations between the partners as well as legitimizing any offspring they may have. Marriages are sometimes publicly declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century in the Western world, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. In the 21st century West, as well as in some cultures in other places or times, the concept of marriage also includes same-sex marriage or civil unions, now officially recognized by a number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by a number of religious organizations.

--Textorus 03:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see "legitimizing sexual relations" in a lot of these proposals, but as you pointed out elsewhere on this page, Textorus, "legitimate" is a legalistic term. It doesn't apply to modern sex in the West. Would "sanctioning sexual relations" work instead, as a more general term? — coelacan talk — 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan, I was just working with the wording provided by Nkras; it's not the paragraph I would write myself. But to answer your question, I think "legitimizing" is quite appropriate. Even in the modern West, there are still all kinds of laws in many jurisdictions governing and limiting sexual activity. To take just one possible example, it's possible in many places that a 24 y/o, say, could marry a 16 y/o (or even younger), with parental consent; their sexual activity would then be quite lawful, whereas if they were caught in flagrante delicto unmarried, it would be considered statutory rape or even child abuse. There are also still plenty of laws on the books, enforced or not, in various places against adultery, bigamy, polygamy, fornication, etc.--Textorus 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe:

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 for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations. Marriages are usually declared in the context of a wedding ceremony. The precise nature and characteristics of marriage have varied widely over time, and across cultures. Marriage as an institution traces back into antiquity and is found in nearly every culture. From the end of classical antiquity until the late twentieth century, it was commonly understood as the joining of a man and woman (in their marital roles, termed "husband" and "wife," respectively; generically, "spouses") in a monogamous marriage. Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia; polygyny (a man with multiple wives) is the typical form of polygamy, while polyandry (in which a woman takes several husbands) is rare. Currently in the West, the concept of marriage has been expanded to include same-sex unions, now officially recognized by a limited number of national and sub-national jurisdictions and by certain religious denominations.

This may work. I am still hesitant about "legally recognized union between two or more people", and the reference to "Polygamous marriage, in which one person takes more than one spouse, is ancient, but is now common only in Africa and Asia". I am still torn between "expanded" and "redefined". Nkras 04:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's late here, I've been extensively rewriting another article all evening, and I don't feel like going over this paragraph point by point at the moment. But if you are going to use the phrase "same-sex unions," then "limited" is most definitely a poor choice of words.

You now have 5 nations that unequivocally allow same-sex marriage on their soil; 1 (Israel) that recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad; about 20 European countries that provide for civil unions or registered partnerships (and some of those, like the UK, ARE same-sex marriage in practically every detail EXCEPT the name); same goes for all the 6 or 7 Australian states; New Zealand (ditto what I said about the UK here); a place or two in Latin America; and then 7 US states plus D.C. that offer either SSM, CU's, DP's, or a couple of those options; on top of all that, several dozen US counties and cities that also offer DP's.

There's also a pretty long list of religious denominations that now recognize, bless, or even conduct same-sex union ceremonies--so the word "certain," like limited, doesn't seem quite right here. I should provide links to back up all I just said, but it's late, I'm tired, you can find them easily if you poke around the CU articles. Enuf said.

BTW, it's not about taking something away from you, Nkras; it's about adding to the worth and dignity of millions of your fellow human beings all over the globe. Words are powerful things, we need to use them carefully. Peace. --Textorus 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Social justice POV pushing. Nkras 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What concerns me most about the paragraph is not so much the word legitimizing, but procreation. Not all people get married in order to have procreative sex. Obviously not couples of the same gender, and many inter-gender couples are also childless by choice. So that does not seem to be a real part of the definition, but rather somebody's POV of what marriage is. Just a thought. Jeffpw 09:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken. There should be a qualifier on procreation. Nkras 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with all of the suggested and previously used negotiated lead summary paragraphs; they are un-source/un-cited. Since they are written in isolation and do not reflect the sourced and cited main article they need there own citations. Without support “edit creep” occurs, I have noticed that Misplaced Pages editors are hesitant to rewrite and edit sourced portions of any article. And when editors do rewrite and edit sourced portions they are reverted if not replaced by sourced edits.
For those editors who have points of view that they really feel need to be expressed. These opinions are valuable to an article if you can demonstrate that recognized experts agree with you i.e. if you can cite it—you not only get to put it in it is welcome. As for NPOV my personal opinion is that this can only be obtained and maintained when editors agree to cite there assertions and respect the cited assertion of others.
Now this is my suggestion, when this article is opened-up for editing we go through the article and delete all non-sourced assertions (regardless of whether or not we feel they are true and accurate). Maybe I am a deconstructionist.--GMS508 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we'll have to delete much of Misplaced Pages except for "and" and "the".... /laughing Nkras 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage

Coelacan, who the hell do you think you are, requesting deletion of Traditional Marriage without having the decency to notify me on Talk:Marriage? Your request has been removed from the article. I strongly advise you remove your request for deletion. We're almost at a solution here, and if you pull that again, you'll find Same-sex marriage marked for deletion as well. On the other hand, Traditional Marriage is the antithesis of the Same-sex marriage article. If TM is a "fork" as you put it, then so will Ssm be a fork, marked for deletion. You have been so advised, be guided accordingly. Nkras 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I am someone who uses a watchlist and figures you do the same. You created your POV fork without notifying anyone on this talk page, but you expect more from others, yes? Well, I went out of my way to make it up to you, Nkras. I counted your vandalism against Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional Marriage as a "keep" vote. — coelacan talk — 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

treif. Nkras 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oy, nebekh. — coelacan talk — 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If Traditional Marriage is a fork of Marriage, so is Same-sex marriage. Want to stop this war and get back to negotiations? Remove your request for delete. Nkras 07:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. See WP:POVFORK. If you'd like me to set up a deletion request on same-sex marriage as well, I'll take a few minutes to start the process. It will survive, because it's a child article, not a POV-fork. But if you request deletion, I'll shuffle the paperwork for you. — coelacan talk — 07:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, you already did. Kind of you to save me the trouble. — coelacan talk — 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaaand it's over. Result was speedy keep, per WP:POINT. — coelacan talk — 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That was some consensus. Don't be so smug. This is a complete farce. /laughing Nkras 07:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand Misplaced Pages if you think this discussion is a negotiation, Nkras. -- Ec5618 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand Misplaced Pages very well, ec5618. It is a generally worthless reference populated by POV pushers from a specific caste. I have no illusions anymore about what is going on here: the control of language, and an attempt to establish a point of reference in your own images, for your own egos, and for your own purposes. That Traditional Marriage is considered to be a 'fork', and Same-sex marriage is not; the farce of "voting" and reaching "consensus" in re afd is about all the proof needed. Nkras 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you can see that your definition of marriage is not the only definition of marriage. Your definition of marriage may have been historically correct, but the term is currently used more broadly. Not always, mind, but often enough for us to acknowledge it. You cannot seriously expect us to ignore same-sex marriage, as though it isn't real (even though several governments disagree). Consider that you have refused to explain to us by what authority you can unequivocably state that marriage in the Netherlands isn't really marriage at all. You simply say that marriage is what you believe it to be, without offering a source. Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy forbids us from adding anything to any article that isn't verifiably true. And I'm afraid that in several countries around the world, marriage is a term used to describe a pairing of any two people, regardless of gender.

I hope you can see that getting upset is hardly productive. I hope you can see that in all fairness, your definition of marriage cannot supercede other definitions. Your authority is not greater than the authority of the government of Canada. The government of the Netherlands is perfectly free to apply the term marriage to what they deem to be marriage. The standing definition allows for all forms of marriage. -- Ec5618 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
2. The definition of Marriage was expanded to include same sex marriages by American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin) in 2000, Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 2001, and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary in 2003; see Harper, Jennifer. “Dictionaries take lead in redefining modern marriage.” THE WASHINGTON TIMES 24 May 2004.
3. For list of governments presently recognizing same sex marriages see list maintained at same sex marriage
4. For list of Christian Churches presently blessing same sex marriages see Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches.
5. Wiener, Julie, “Patrilineal Descent More Divisive Than Reform's Vote On Gay Unions” Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 7 April 2002.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics