Talk:Covenant marriage

Untitled
FWIW, the Oregon legislation did not pass.

74.171.136.139 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that there be a "controversy/criticism" section added to the article; overall, the language of the entry is subtly slanted towards the institution:

"Divorce is also discouraged because divorce increases the poverty of women and inflicts psychological and social damage on children. Childbirth within marriage is promoted as well so two adults can bring more financial and emotional resources to the upbringing of children than just one."

"As the result of the social and political changes in the United States, the movement seeks to inform couples of the seriousness and permanence of marriage. This way the desolation of marital separation can be avoided by assisting couples in understanding the full implications of getting married."

In addition: the sources are of questionable homogeny, no criticism is noted, few figures cited, and the hisotry is spotty. I would for one mention Tony Perkin's role in passing LA's covenent marriage laws, and examine this 'redefinition' of marriage alongside his strong opposition to 'redefining' marriage to extend these rights to ame-sex couples.

Conservative sources are vast: http://www.divorcereform.org/cov.html

As well as more critical ones: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove.htm

-Wyz

74.171.136.139 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article looks a little bit too advertise-y from happening upon it. But what it needs more is more specifics about the legal rules for divorce proceedings in a covenant marriage.  Would it remove the no-fault or "irreconcilable differences" grounds that some states have?  Are the remaining grounds for divorce all linked to criminal prosecution - i.e. if a couple divorces through one of those grounds, that can be used to charge one of them in a criminal court (adultery is technically still a crime in most states).  I know that in NY there are no "no-fault" divorces; there must be grounds of some sort, and using "adultery" or "cruel and inhumane treatment" could open the case up to prosecution.
 * Just some suggestions for whoever is working on this! Good luck.Wilytilt (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The bolded content is not biased. If you disagree with the fact that divorce causes harm to children, take it up with the APA to have recent parental divorce removed from the diagnostic criteria for depression. And the idea that alone-ness is part of ending a relationship is so axiomatic as to be tautologically correct. What is your issue with it? And the article is about covenant marriage, not Tony Perkins. Feel free to edit or start his Wikipedia entry. I'm removing the NPOV sign unless you can cite bias in the article as it exists. 174.124.241.162 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm putting the NPOV tag back, but I do agree with a few of the comments above, I think "divorce causes harm" is likely neutrally sourceable, for example. However, the original complaint on point of view contained the statement:  "I would suggest that there be a "controversy/criticism" section added to the article; overall, the language of the entry is subtly slanted towards the institution:"  That statement appears correct, and objectively so: General searches through news and books talking about convenant marriage demonstrates that there is a significant volume of criticism out there of the concept. The article neither describes that criticism nor does it link, so far as I can tell, to any critical source.
 * I'm also adding a few other more stylistic tags to the article. The basic structure of the article here does not follow the tone or style of an encyclopedia entry, and should, etc. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of COVENANT according to the Bible
As I understand it in the Bible, there is no where that states a covenant was broken due to actions. There were even times where one was tricked into a covenant and it was still honored by God when one party stood in faith and honored their covenant. Therefore, a covenant should not have any stipulations or grounds for divorce based on actions of the other party. Divorce should NOT be an option when entering a covenant marriage. A covenant is a unilateral, irrevocable, indissoluble commitment before God which is valid at least until death. A covenant is NOT dependent upon the choices of another, but is a commitment unto death before God. These comments above are my thoughts and beliefs on covenant. mrkbrny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkbrny (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC) For what it's worth, I am a firm believer in the institutuon of traditional marriage and support efforts to effect and maintain traditonal unions, and even so I'd have to agree that some of the wording used is less than neutral. This site is designed to help people understand terminology, not push them, even subtly, toward any given point of view. I have no idea how to sign in so I guess I am going to be annonymous. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.106.92 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious backgrounds - not accurate?
I think that the "Religious background" section should either be removed or at least seriously modified. I think this section is trying to draw some type of link between concepts of marriage in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and the main subject of this article. The problem is that the section is too generic, and (in my opinion) improperly links the concept of marriage in these three religions to the law of "covenant marriage" in some American legal jurisdictions.

For example, covenant marriage (as described in the remainder of the article) places limits on the right of married couples to divorce for any reason. I'm unaware of any such restriction in Judaism, and I also do not think Islam has any such limitation.

Therefore, what's the point of the "Religious background" section? Is it trying to link US law on the subject to religious authority? Or is it trying to explain the general religious background behind the concept of marriage generally? If the former, then this section requires much better authority and explanation. If the latter, then the subject more properly belongs in the general wikipedia article about marriage.

Any agreements or disagreements about whether this section should be removed? Techielaw (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more that I think that the issues discussed above have never been resolved and perhaps the entire article needs a re-write. Techielaw (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked the above questions almost three years ago and haven't seen any responses here. I think that the second part of the article is largely an opinion piece, and is not written NPOV. Therefore, I'm removing most of that section. If anybody feels that parts should be added back to the article, please post here with citations to supporting sources (that are mostly absent from the article). Techielaw (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Cohabitation?
How was Covenant Marriage supposed to reduce cohabitation? 111.240.183.151 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)