Talk:Christian views on marriage/Archive 1

Deletion?

This entire article is far from appropriate Wikipedia standards. The intro paragraph alone contains opinion statements and heavy bias with NO citation whatsoever. If this is not rapidly improved, this article really does deserve deletion. At the moment, most of it has turned into little more than a didactic essay on the proper sort of marriage. Without clear citations and a NEUTRAL, REMOVED point of view this article is marred by its introduction and has no business on Wikipedia at all. Phillip (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Need for clear up

There is a need for an article which sets out the common Christian view of marriage, along with clear denominational and/or cultural and temporal variations in views as they actually exist. The polemical nature of the article as it stands probably puts many people off reading further and profiting from the many well-researched features of it. Just play the Wikopedia game, please. It did put me off, I just wanted to find out what the various denominations teach and some feel for their diversity. Doesn't do much for marriage or Christianity. Who thinks it is a sacrement and who doesn't? Who thinks it's a life long contract and who doesn't and why? Is there a way of untangling the various views on the relative values placed on sex, childrearing, companionship, social obligations? Is there a way of factoring in varying views on gender roles - giving due weight to traditional, or dominant, or strongly held, views, but also some idea of their variations, and perhaps shading into new, or contemporary or minority views, with a sense that all might be genuinely held.

---

i would like someone to talk english and say how christians think about marraige(OF THE OPPOSITE SEX) in the answer plaes]e can you answer theese questions:

• 1.is there any particular age you have to be to get married and if there is then what is it

the age to get married is at 16 with your parents consent or its 19 by ure own choice

• 2.can you marry any other religion other than christians
• 3.is it right for christians to get a divorce
• 4.what % of the christian population has had a divorce
• 5.Is there any particular dresscode for a bride and groom

the groom wears a suit thats black with a flower in his pocket and a bride has a white dress with a bouqueat

• 6.do you have to get married in a church or registery office

either one if uhave a priest but itsmore religion to get married in a church

• 8.to get married do you have to go to church every sunday

noudont have to but u can if you want to

• 9.did anyone notice i missed out number 7

yes i did

lol if an one can answer i would be eternaly gratefull jasmin

As of now 12/8/2001, this entry was written by me, Jimbo Wales, a person who has no expert knowledge of any kind in this area, and who only knows a little bit about any of this, from the general culture.

Therefore, it should be rewritten by someone other than me, who knows what they are talking about. :-)

--Jimbo Wales

Couple answers specific to Catholicism.

• 1. Not that I know of, probably whatever the law is in the country you live in...
• 2. Yes, as long as your children are still raised Catholic.
• 3. It's become OK, but it's not called a divorce. I forget what it is, but the meaning is that the marriage you're coming out of was never "blessed by heaven".
• 4. Not a clue. I suspect pretty much the same as the general population.
• 5. Like he said. Although that probably varies by where you are.
• 6. As far as the church is concerned you're not married until you've done it in church.
• 8. No. Lots of the people getting married are coming back to church for the first time in years.
• 9. Yep. Well done.

Sorry that I can't speak for Protestants or other traditional churches, hope it helps though. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I deleted this text that was talking about the availability of annulments in the US Catholic church:

, Although they usually require large financial donations to their church.

I deleted it because it seems slanderous, and no further information was given, and because Jimbo said he had no expert knowledge. If this sort of accusation is going to be made, it needs to be well founded and verifiable, not just based on what someone may have heard. Or so it seems to me. --Wesley

Are you telling me that this is controversial? This has been standard Catholic practice in the USA for the last 20 years. Shelia Kennedy just wrote a book about it. I can look up more info, but my understanding is that annulments are the modern day version of dispensation.

As to Shelia Kennedy, I have never read her procedeings. I understand that she appealed to the Roman Rota. If so, they will render a verdict that can sometimes be read -- the rota does publish some decisions. Beware, however, they publish only in Latin. As to the cost, it varies by the diocese. The Archdiocese of Galveston Houston requests $450 as a processing fee. This can be waived when a person is unable to pay.85.20.108.62 20:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

On a happier note, the Catholic entry could use more about the positive view of marriage that Catholics have, perhaps even saying something about children. It shouldn't be dominated by divorce, although it's good to cover that too. And of course someone needs to wax eloquent about the protestant view. :-) --Wesley

Yes, it is controversial that large donations are required. Since canon lawyers are involved, there are some legal costs, but these will, I understand, be generally reduced or removed for the indigent. [id=009hdz GaryfromMN] claims that his annullment cost "a few hundred dollars". This is nothing compared to divorce costs. -- Alexander Pruss

---

I'm not sure about all the catholic issues but I would say the part about homosexuality in the Protestant section was inaccurate. The word "most" was substituted for "some". The word "traditional" was replaced with biblical view. As I understand it most Protestant mainline churches are still holding to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. In regards to Roman Catholics it would be safe to say that their views are similar to a majority of Protestants, meaning marriage can be defined as a commitment by one woman and one man. This is stated and is reinforced by the fact that a clear position came from the Vatican in Rome recently. That the American Episcopalian church has voted recently to adopt a homosexual in it's clergy is worth taking note. This fact probably will lead to a split in Episcopalian church. nhishands4ever

History of religious views on marriage

i've recently seen a documentary on Discovery Channel where it stated that marriage has been a Christian religious service only since the 16th century. It also said that until then Roman Catholics totally opossed marriage. I'm not sure how accurate this information is. Could anyone shed some light on this subject?

Marriage was declared a Sacrament at the Council of Trent. This is also that set the number of sacraments at 7. The Church has never opposed marriage, but rather has always celebrated this union in different ways. The constants have always been: man and woman, life long union, good of children, good of the couple, fidelity, and consent of both parties. The location of marriage is less important than the structure of the vows themselves.Davescj 20:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Genesis 5:21

"One commonly used text is from the Gospel of Matthew (which is itself a quote from the book of Genesis). "...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19: 5-6 (quoting from Genesis 5:21)"

However, Genesis 5:21 says "And Enoch lived sixty and five years and begat Methuselah." In fact, the entire chapter is the lineage of Noah, from Adam to Noah's sons. I'm using a KJV Bible. It would also be good to mention in the article which version of the Bible that particular translation is from.

Well spotted; I've corrected the reference. honeydew 14:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

I was wondering if you'd want to cite sources for the information... an expert of Canon law would be useful here... but, I guess a book or online site it was take from would be good. gren 12:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added a quotation and reference from the Catholic Catechism.

Roodog2k 20:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

A couple of Canon Law references would be the Vatican's own site, it has the Code of Canon law on it. Specifically, many larger libraries will probably have the Commentary on the Code of Canon Law published by the Canon Law Society of America.

So not enough information

I am student and writing an essay from the information on this site and most of it is confusing.

It is very interesting on finding out many different religious views there are on marriage and divorce. thnks for taking time to read this xx i LOVE you all!

Or you could actually try properly researching the topic and not just resort to Wikipedia to write your essay for you. -Tpacw (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Plz answer

i was just wondering about christiam beliefs on marraige and if there r ne rules like there are in the muslim...etc religions thanx

jasmin

Jasmin, it would depend on which Christian denomination you speak about. Some have mroe rules than others. The Catholic Church has a whole body of legislation on marriage.DaveTroy

Not to mention that the Muslims have LOTS of rule -- which specific ones are you interested in? Goldfritha 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move : "religion-X's view(s) of marriage" to "religion-X's teaching(s) on marriage"

Involves Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian Main discussion at Talk:Jewish view of marriage#Requested move : "religion-X's view of marriage" to "religion-X's teaching on marriage". Zargulon 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This page does not have a NPOV with regard to the topic of polygamy. This must be addressed. Polygamy was accepted in the Christian church prior to the 5th century, and is often accepted still.

The "Protestant" section is just awful

I don't know what happened here, but besides the rediculous amount of padding, there is this whole trad vs. egalitarian framework superimposed without respect to denomination which fairly reeks of original research. I am frankly inclined to just remove the whole section, with extreme prejudice, unless someone can come up with a cite pretty soon. Mangoe 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Appeal from the Author

I appeal to you not to remove the section, especially with prejudice. I am a professional who works daily in the area of abuse to women in marriage that is committed very sadly in the Name of God. A friend of mine is a secular counselor/therapist who wrote the Book Battered into Submission which he has filled with chronicles of atrocities he has seen in his work--the many ways certain sicko husbands have literally BATTERED their wife into SUBMISSION using the "Husband is Head"..."Wives, Submit" passages as God-ordained justification to do that. Where the wife escapes physical abuse, she gets it as chronic emotional abuse.

Point is that so much of this is being done in the Name of Christ, and it's a huge and growing problem. The Far Right religious folks lump non-hierarchical marriage view into the pot they label "Liberal." They seriously frown on divorce, but expect the wife and kids to stay in these situations submissively--no matter what!

The section DOES cover a very crucial aspect of CHRISTIAN VIEWS OF MARRIAGE. But you're right that it is mostly without respect to denomination. The views we've described are transdenominational for the most part. That why we decided to "slice the cake" along the lines we chose. With literally hundreds of Protestant denominations out there, a by-denomination approach would be tedious and lengthy. Second, it would be almost meaningless since only rarely does a single denomination self-unify enough to take a united stance regarding roles in marriage.

Couples looking up this article need to know that at least within Protestantism (but it's not limited to them) they can expect to have their honeymoon ideals shattered the first time he goes to a Men's Conference and she does the same with the women. Powerful teachers in these settings where husband and wife are perhaps most vulnerable will convincingly teach that "you will be disobeying God Himself if you husbands don't fulfill your role as Head and become the Leader God Meant for You to Be," and similarly "You wives will be disobeying God Himself if you don't learn to submit GRACIOUSLY to the will of your husband in essentially all things." They are also likely to get immersed into these murky waters during their premarital counseling.

I'll be glad to dialog further. I hope you personally have somehow escaped the pain and ravages of prescribed and demanded hierarchy in marriage where the woman is essentially given permanent status as a minor, and the husband is given similarly permanent rank as Head in the CEO, Chairman of the Board, Boss sense. It's one thing for some sociologist or psychologist or whoever to teach that anthropological differences between the sexes might fit best into this model or that. It's a far more damning thing for powerful clergy to loudly proclaim that by virtue of their gender the women are inferior leaders, and in fact must leave the leading to the husband, no matter what a jerk he might be, no matter how ignorant or inept he might be, no matter even if he is a sadist who gets his kicks from subordinating the "weaker" physically, psychologically or both. And it's demanded even if she is a Ph.D. Economist and he is an hour laborer who quit school in the 7th grade! He MUST be the one to manage family finances, simply because he was born with the secondary characteristic of "male." That said, the punch line is that Christians teach Marriage Is For Keeps with very few exception clauses to escape. Is it any wonder that the suicide rate among women is so high?

I hope we can continue this discussion.

Thanks-CME_GBM 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)-CME GBM 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you've maybe got things a bit wrong there - just a quick look over your arguments above - the WOMAN is supposed to be in charge of the finances (referenced in Proverbs). The woman is also not the minor - husband and wife are supposed to submit to each other. I can go into more detail if you require. Hope this helps. SparrowsWing 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox - an appropriately sourced concise summary may be applicable but this is not the place to advocate. As it currently reads it sounds like original research.

In order to keep this section in, the following are needed:

• Some references that this theory of marriage has some professional acceptance
• Rewritten with a more "encyclopedic tone"
• Provide inline citations to reliable sources

Let me know if you need any help/clarification. --Trödel 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the author's points do deserve intelligent answers. Though I'm not very intelligent, perhaps I can open some dialog. It is true that some use the biblical view of marriage as an excuse for unchristian behavior; but I hope the author can understand that doing so is an abuse of Scripture, not the natural result of its application. Throughout the centuries, Scripture has been used to justify all sorts of horrible things; but this is the result of human sin, not the fault of Scripture. There are lots of psychologically healthy Christian marriages out there that are loving and nurturing, and founded upon Scriptural teaching. In the author's profession, there is a tendency to see only the worst examples, that should not lead to the belief that every Christian marriage is like that. The example Paul gives of the Church and Christ means that the husband is supposed to sacrifice his life for his wife. Each are to be subject to the other. The husband many not defraud the wife, any more than the wife may defraud the husband. Paul also teaches that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Part of the problem may lie in the historical revisionism that has occurred in recent decades of using the word "patriarchal" as a perjorative. MishaPan 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the "Christ" "Church" analogy is bullshit. A wife has to "submit" to her husband "as the church submits to Christ?" So, the woman is supposed to worship her husband? You're fucking kidding me, right?

Of COURSE the man has obligations to the woman too. But since the man is put in the "Christ" position, this means that in practice, his policies, how or whether he provides for his wife, are never questioned. The wife is supposed to assume from the outset that what he does is good, and if he violates Christ's law, she has no recourse against him. Except divorce, for which she'll be shunned as disobedient and sinful.

"Each are supposed to be subject to the other."

Wonderful. Only in practice, it never turns out to be that way, for the above reasons. I'm not saying conservative Christians don't have happy marriages. Most of them do. I'm saying that the happiness of those marriages stems from the wife's acceptance of a subservient position. Plenty of women are happy with that, and that's fine... but don't try and explain away statements like "wives, submit to your husbands" to render them more palatable for twenty-first century audiences. "Submit" means "submit", it's not a metaphor for "seperate but equal".

Wait a minute - come to think of it, that was actually a pretty good analogy... 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a section that refers to man and wife...'wives be servants to your husbands...(however) there is more...husbands be the leader of the family as Christ was to the Church." You may have to read into this this makes the husband a servant to the wife, mutual servitude.

Often the first statement is used without the logical evaluation of the second.

Modern feminism in NOrth America has as its foundation that 'women were inferior' to men...this may have been the case in some situations, but in Europe many countries were matriarchial...especially those like Italy, where family were valued.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Catholic goods/ends of marriage

I deleted the section on "remedy for..." as this no longer reflects either the law nor the teaching of the Church. While it was held from the time of St Augustine till Vatican 2, it is no longer the teaching about marriage.DaveTroy 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox theology

In the section View of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the article says, "Like all ordinations, it is viewed as revealing and sealing the relationship that has formed between the couple." What does this mean? How are all ordinations "reavealing and sealing" a "relationship"? Does Orthodox theology consider a wedding to "reveal" an already existing relationship between the couple? Would not any "revealing" have been done at the betrothal? Does the marriage actually exist before the wedding?—if so, why bother with the ritual? Since at the time that the sacramental theology of the church was elucidated, arranged marriages were the norm, I question whether this really was the understanding of the Fathers. But there is a lot of patristic material I haven't read yet. Can anyone enlighten me on this? MishaPan

I would rather see that 'the truth of the times' be so reflected. This can change for a variety of reasons. From honest good reasons to being corrupted....look at spousal abuse history will show an every changing on its definition.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ and polygamy

Rev W. Wilmers states, "Matrimony, or the permanent bond between man and wife for the propagation of the human race, was instituted as the union of one man with one woman.....

Christ also restored marriage to its original unity, created by God as the union of one man and one woman. In Mathew 19, 4-6, Mathew states that Jesus said, "Have ye not read tht He who made man in the beginning made them male and female ? And they two shall be in one flesh, Therefore now they are not two, but one Flesh." .

Marriage Restored to Unity and Indissolubity, Handbook of the Christian Religion, Rev. W. Wilmers, S.J., pages 372,373, BENZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK 1891

I am glad to see this referenced, the above writer also states that while Genesis .."and his chosen people might be permitted simultaneous polygamy, for while polygamy is less in accordance with the secondary end of marriage, that is, withe the mutual help of husband and wife yet it cannot be said to be contrary to the primary end, that is the propagation of eh human race; whence it could be permitted by God. ...Christ however, restored marriage to its original unity"...between male and female,..."And the two shall be in one flesh..."

Your analysis of this reference might be included.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Long held ?

Question the source and validity of this statement...

....bly on a continuum between the long-held male dominant/female submission view and a growing shift toward equality (without sameness) of the woman and the man.

EXAMPLE 1

As the author of several sub categories of feminism, let me point out that this is 'feminist' talk...you will notice the mention of woman and man...?

Seems correct? Well its about marriage, we should be speaking of wives and husbands...

EXAMPLE 2

Equality (without sameness). This is bisexual talk or radical feminit talk. Theya re not equal period. They may be equally valuable to the marriage, ie to have family, but they are not equal. Equality applies to all people, being equal only applies if you are the same in a relative sense.

I suggest that the opening not include such a blatant exaggeration of 'patriach'...some countries realtive to family were and are matriachial.

I suggest that political statement be removed.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Need better historical context

Coming fresh to this article I think it needs a bit of work to set out the evolution of marriage within christian communities. It currently reads as if the institution of christian marriage was instantly born with the foundation of Christianity. It may have been regarded as a sacrament fairly early on but there was little attempt to move into solemnising the ritual until the 6th century (with the establishment of a formal rite), and the later middle ages before marriages move into the physical body of the church. I'll attempt some work over coming days. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Incest and Remarriage

There is an ancient tradition in the Catholic Church which considers remarriage to be a comparable to incest, hence the taboo on divorce and taking communion with a second marital partner. This taboo is mentioned in the document Sacramentum Caritatis, which forbids re-married people to have sexual relations, as if they were brothers and sisters. It is not so simple to write about this without any precise sources on hand, but the material could be added after a proper consultation of canon law and ecclesiastic history. ADM (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Marriage

I've deleted the statement that the Catholic Church may refuse to marry people who are unable or too old to have children. Such marriages are entirely acceptable in Catholic teaching. Canon Law views "antecedant and permanent" impotence as an impediment to marriage, but infertility is an entirely different matter. ANB (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Biblical references

The first thing that troubles is me is having biblical refs cited throughout the article. This makes the whole thing difficult to read and makes me feel I am sitting a bible lesson rather than reading an encyclopedia article. It's been suggested that this is the standard way on wikipedia to present bible refs but I haven't come across any other articles that do this; and so would ask that someone point me towards the guidance/convention please so that we can check that this is indeed the way things should be done. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't found anything to confirm that in-text citation is the way this is done on wikipedia. In fact the Eucharist article doesn't do it at all; and the only articles that I find that do it are those ones where Afaprof01 has added them. My concern remains that having them in-text is hindering the ability to read the article freely and is really quite unnecessary. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Marriage in heaven

The second point that troubles me is the prominence given to 'marriage in heaven'. The text we have here is not clearly written and makes poor sense in parts. I wonder whether it's best handled by creating a completely new article? If not then I don't see why we need so much text on the issue - as I guess most of it is fairly speculative in any case? Can we shorten if we do think we need to include. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've put the bulk of this now under the orthodox section. Where it was it has nothing to do with clarifying scriptural accounts but was rather an exposition of what orthodox followers believe. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked again at this section and think it simply does not work within this article. Rather than stating that orthodox followers believe marriage is eternal for x,y and z reasons, it instead goes into detail as to why a certain text in the Bible should not be seen as contradicting the idea of eternal marriage. It's therefore answering a question that no-one has asked! I would argue that the best place for this is an article all of it's own as it deals with arguments for and against eternal marriage; when what we're looking for in this article is simply a statement of what denominations do or do not believe and practice. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right that the section does not work within this article. Although I agree with your decision about deleting the section, I must insist it do, very do work with respect to a subject of Christian views of marriage. You wrote "It's therefore answering a question that no-one has asked!". Well... While searching for the information in the Internet, I found a lot of Christian sites which have simply false opinion about eternity or non-eternity of marriage, so I wrote the section. I think it is a huge error to talk about God who arbitrarily rive the holy nuptial tie in the Kingdom (what a paradox!) in the way many people think. Moreover, I found out that a term eternal marriage is usual associated with LDS and Swedenborgians, but eternal marriage was practiced in the first centuries of Church and have been practiced by Eastern Orthodox Church for all the centuries. G00labek (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conjugal duty

There should maybe be a stub on the concept of conjugal duty, which is the name that priests and theologians have given to a wife's duty to sexually satisfy her husband whenever he requests it. Due to contemporary secularization, the usage of this marital concept has become very rare in the Western world, although it retains a certain historical value that is relevant for explaining how previous generations tended to understand marriage. ADM (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Motivations for marriage

I removed this whole section until we have an opportunity to decide its value. On a first reading it seems to me to have nothing to do with the 'christian' view of marriage - which is what this article is focussed on. Instead it seems to be one individual christian's (? - even that's not clear) view of marriage and seems to be mostly original research; with a quote at the end. My view is that the article should focus strongly on the history, development, practice, doctrines of Christian marriage - and avoid speculating on why people get married generally. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)