Talk:Marriage vows

Scope
At present this only describes Church of England marriage vows. Ideally something on those used by other denominations and religions (and in other countries) should be included.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage
unions between partners of the same sex are now legal in some jurisdictions, though not universally accepted as marriages since the element of procreation is absent, though adoption of children may be legal for such couples).

Really??? What is the relavence of this statement to "Marriage vows"... Under the marriage topic I can understand, under the discussion of marriage vows I can not. This is more like Proselytizing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctroutwi (talk • contribs) 10:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is subject here which needs attention but is difficult for many editors to write about. As a general point some fuller description of the practice in the USA would be useful in the article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the issue does not need to be discussed when referencing Marriage vows (nor the discussion regarding procreation and adoption)... again, an item that should be part of the "Marriage" articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctroutwi (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Relevant if there are new traditional vows (see various church standard dogma) developing for same sex couples. Prior user didn't properly phrase his challenge to the articles completeness and neutrality.


 * Relevant if part of larger discussion of the background/history of marriage vows. Traditional marriage vows and the earliest colonization of North American by southern Europeans are fairly contemporary events.

Marriage is an evolving subject of modern history and the institution and vows continue to evolve.


 * Someone else needs to dig up the references to talk about how marriage vows and formal church ceremony are a fairly recent addition (500-600 years) to church dogma and doctrine. Marriage vows are not a part of the bible nor did early Christians immediately or directly adopt historical Judean practices. The modern church-authorized marriage vows and ceremonies spring from growing church ambitions in secular politics during the renaissance period. Prior to that marriages were primarily common-law with very local cultural observances or actual business contracts between nobles and other wealthy families. Early marriage roles of the church were mainly as an optional blessing of the prosperity of marriage success and formal blessing ceremonies primarily limited to the wealthiest. Note that many Protestant churches are gradually returning to the idea of church marriage as merely blessing ceremonies rather than church having legal binding powers. This gradually became more common and then entrenched among the nobility especially with the impact of the early crusades. King Henry (famous wife changer and founder of Anglican church) was actually rebelling against a fairly new papal bull which suddenly gave the church complete power over marriages and most importantly which noble marriages would occur. This development of Christian church involvement in marriage can then be compared to the historical roots in Judaism. It should be noted that much of modern Judean practice has been remolded to be in compliance with dominant Christian lead laws of the land. Nor was all ancient Judean practice equal in interpretation but often factional in what "putting a wife aside" meant and allowed. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality generally stems from lack of historical and cultural context. This article lacks any effort at giving context, though its probably due to laziness like my own (not fixing it myself)72.182.15.249 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Earlier edit of 29-04-11
"However, today, this version has generally been abandoned, as it is sexist and out-of-date, for a modern version." is not encyclopedic. If something similar was included it would need a reliable source at the minimum. It also lacks neutrality.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article needs some work:
It would be much appreciated if someone could find some information on the following to contribute to this article on wedding vows:
 * the history of the wedding vow NEED MORE SUBSTANCE
 * the etymology of the phrase "wedding vow" OPTIONAL
 * cultural differences of the wedding vow NEED MORE SUBSTANCE
 * cultural equivalents of the wedding vow in non-Western countries OPTIONAL
 * purpose of the wedding vow OPTIONAL (MAY INCLUDE THE REASON FOR BEGINNING THE TRADITION, IF ANY)
 * if possible, general formatting of a wedding vow SO FAR, SO GOOD
 * related link: wedding vow renewal IMPORTANT
 * if possible, wedding vow expiration date (I'm not sure on this part, but if a wedding vow can be renewed, then it has got to have an expiration date.) OPTIONAL

Sneazy (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * These vows do not have expiration dates; renewal of wedding vows is something some married people want to do. In many countries it is necessary to have a civil ceremony as well as a religious one because the stte only recognizes the legality of the civil one, e.g. Hungary.N.B. The history of the Western Church's sacrament of matrimony is described in the section above.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Church of England usually offered couples a choice.
«the Church of England usually offered couples a choice»: this paragraph is problematic since it appears to summarize some 450 years of church weddings in the Church of England. The marriage services in the prayer books of 1549, 1662 and 1928 and more recent compilations are better sources.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Couple making vows
I do not see why the two persons cannot be described as a couple as they have already agreed that they shall be married to each other. Legally they are not married until all the conditions either of the state and / or the religious body have been fulfilled; if taking of vows is part of the process of becoming married the two persons are acting of their own will and not under the orders of parent or guardian.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Limited coverage.
As the article stands now, it would better be titled "Christian marriage vows in England" and would not provide complete coverage of even that limited topic. If it is to be titled "Marriage vows", it should cover a broader range of countries, cultures and religions. For example, in Judaism, while the couple do not make vows to one another -- since taking an oath or vow is strongly discouraged -- the husband gives his wife a binding contract or promissory note, formulated in ancient Aramaic according to strict religious requirements, which details all of his monetary and non-monetary obligations to her. I have read that in Hinduism the marriage rite includes a pledge of mutual obligations. I am sure the same is true of many other religions as well. Davidhof (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oxford or Harvard commas
This article uses the writing convention known as the Oxford or Harvard comma, in which a long list of "and" things includes a comma before the "and", as for example in "old, new, borrowed, and blue." Editors should not change this arbitrarily, but should first agree any consensus for change here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And how was I supposed to know this? As I was taught in school years and years ago, in general grammar sense commas are never used directly before the word "and", only used in lists? Since when did this become an exception to the rule? Consensus is not really necessary for a very small change like this either.  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  21:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to know it because it was pointed out to you, repeatedly. It's not so much an 'exception to the rule,' as it's a matter of style, not grammar. As such, the Manual of Style's preference for consistency is the key, whether the use of the serial comma is maintained or abandoned. Perhaps when this was pointed out to you you should have considered the information provided rather than rudely telling me to 'go away.' Then you'd've known. 192.252.224.6 (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The information which answers your questions here was given you again and again, clearly and politely, and by two different editors, on your talk page. But instead of reading it you deleted it, and now you wonder why you didn't know it! I have given the gist of it again above here and an IP editor has kindly provided a link to an explanatory essay. I hope this helps. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)