Talk:Traditional marriage/Archive 1

Target of Redirection
It might make more sense for this to redirect to Traditional marriage movement. Sdsds 07:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Core desat  02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how this term is used. "Traditional marriage" is mainly used by people who wish to create the illusion that, in older and better times, marriage was always a certain way. Sadly for them, there are many different marriage traditions. Some ancient traditions include, for example, polygamy. The use of the term is often political, somewhat like "intelligent design." Their use is intended to create in the mind of the listener or reader a value judgement about the topic, and about an opposing view. (Same-sex marriage in one case, evolution in the other.) By sending the reader directly to marriage, this (scholarly) understanding of the term is lost. On the other hand, Traditional marriage movement allows a reader really interested in marriage to get to that topic with only a single added link. Please, let's go back to Traditional marriage movement! Sdsds 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm going to switch it back unless there is an objection? --John Kenneth Fisher 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The right thing to do here is to make an RFD discussion. I will start one.  Mango juice talk 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okey-doke. --John Kenneth Fisher 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * this should really redirect to a definition of traditional marriage within the traditional marriage movement. Traditional marriage movement Mrdthree (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase traditional marriage is found in the dictionary. The 2008 websters refers to traditional marriage in definition 1.2. It is a POV to ignore that in western countries there is a traditional definition of marriage: the union between one man and one woman []

I agree with this conclusion, if not with the means by which it was reached. Wikipedia should convey to its readers that many people live in cultures where the notion of marriage is limited to one-man/one-woman relationships. (sdsds - talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition
Merriam Webster defines traditional marriage as "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; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage". Stop reversing a legitimate edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.0.154 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually you're wrong. Here is Merriam-Webster on marriage and they define it both as being in a union with a person of the opposite sex or of the "same sex like that in a traditional marriage." UBER  ( talk ) 16:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "like that in a traditional marriage". You stand corrected. An encyclopedia must have information based upon objective fact and not the way you want the world to be seen through your ideological or postmodernist filter. You know exactly how traditional marriage is defined in the west and there's no sense in engaging in obscurantism. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of the passage is that it obscures the meaning of "traditional marriage" as it implies that same-sex couples can also be included. Either way, Merriam-Webster is not the final authority on this issue, and you need to refer to the individual articles for the appropriate sources. UBER  ( talk ) 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Traditional marriage has one definition in this case, and it does not include same sex marriage. You are violating NPOV. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the current disambig page does not say it includes same sex marriage! -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The dispute is concerning the incorrect usage of "Traditional marriage...may refer to: a phrase used by opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States to promote marriage between a man and a woman". It should read "Traditional marriage refers to...Marriage between a man and a woman". Since the Marriage article contains a same sex marriage section, it could be inferred that traditional marriage may same sex marriage, though it clearly does not. This entry makes the distinction very clear, even before someone goes to the Marriage article. There is an entire, almost irredeemably biased article on same sex marriage. I find it troubling that a mere restatement of objective fact about traditional marriage causes an article to be "protected". This appears to be a political act on the part of "editors" and "administrators". 63.228.0.154 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If someone looks up the phrase "traditional marriage", it's because they've heard the phrase used in the context of opposition to same-sex marriage. This page should simply redirect to opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. There's no ambiguity.Dosbears (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, in theory only, is not a platform for your or "UberCryxic"'s ideology. I quoted a source, another editor restated it. When you realized I won the argument, you try another angle of attack. Ignoring objective fact, you or the other editor, or an administrator of like ideology will just keep threatening me until my IP is blocked. That is apparently how it goes on Wikipedia. What a pathetic disgrace. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are six editors reverting you, and none are reinstating the changes you made. Frankly it is correct that "traditional marriage" is a prhase used by supporters of the same sex edits to denote the difference between male-female, and same-sex marriages. A disambiguation page such as this one lists all possible options, not just the most commonly used ones. Before commenting on other users you should review your own bias towards this subject. However, seeing your previous edits i fear you will deem me just another "UberCryxic" follower which immediately makes my opinion void. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another appeal to authority argument, which does not change the objective definition of traditional marriage. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it does not include only dictionary definitions (although as it stands, the disambig page isn't contradicting the dictionary definition anyway - it is just placing it in context). If the concept of "Traditional marriage" is used in different contexts to emphasize different issues, and those issues are notable, then they should be included in Wikipedia. The phrase "traditional marriage" has come to greater prominence since same-sex relationships have become officially recognized in various parts of the world, in order to distinguish those relationships from "the union of a man and a woman" - in fact, before non-traditional relationships were recognized, the term "traditional marriage" really wasn't used - it was just "marriage". And so if Wikipedia is intended to be encyclopedic, then it needs to cover that context too. As for "Another appeal to authority argument", it isn't, it is appeal to consensus, which is how Wikipedia works. If you really wish to pursue this further, I suggest you start an RFC here, and we can see who supports and who opposes your wishes - going on editor count, it looks like about 6 to 1 against you at the moment, but there may be others who haven't edited and might wish to add their voices to the consensus -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again - a fallacious counterargument using an appeal to authority. I couldn't care if 6, 12, or 24 "editors" say other wise - the objective definition of traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. You have no valid counterargument. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never, ever, ever seen the term traditional marriage used to describe any thing except, well, traditional marriage. I see no harm in calling a spade a spade. - Schrandit (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the current disambig page is not defining it any other way - it is just adding context to how it is used and by whom -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "A phrase used by opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States to promote marriage between a man and a woman". That is the current wording, and it is is incorrect. "Traditional marriage" is defined as a marriage between a man and a woman. The existence of the current wording of "phrase used by opponents of same sex marriage" is a definition according to the author's political views and not according to objective fact or usage. The definition must be changed to adhere to standards of objectivity. On Wikipedia it is referred to as "NPOV". 63.228.0.154 (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, you're wrong on factual grounds, as traditional marriage has never been defined as being "between a man and a woman." Per this article, it's American right-wing propaganda. "Traditional marriage," which is just a buzz phrase that means absolutely nothing, has featured a union between a man and several women, a woman and several men, a man and a woman (what you're talking about), and multiple variations in between done for all kinds of different reasons. I am not going to waste my time anymore with you. You refuse to acknowledge basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines even after I advised you to seriously consider them. Your disruption will lead to nowhere on Wikipedia. UBER  ( talk ) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are editing this "article" based upon your personal, political opinions - and I quote you directly: "Per this article, it's American right-wing propaganda". That is a political bias, and interferes with the objective, factual definition of traditional marriage - that being one of between a man and a women. "dosbears" has a "LGBT" box on that users talk page, so I believe I know what that editor's politics are, and that interferes with objective fact as well. You have evidenced your own direct violation of the often-quoted NPOV rule. You are in violation of that rule. It is you who fail to practice the rules you are sanctimoniously lecturing me about. YOU are refusing to follow your own rules. You are a damned hypocrite. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

neutral language for a disambiguation page and following guidelines
Per Disambiguation dos and don'ts I am again trying to remove some slanted edits. For instance the main blue link in the second listing is piped to a different article altogether. It says "* A phrase used to distinguish marriage between one man and one woman from other configurations ..." but the link is to Christian views on marriage. That is against Disambiguation dos and don'ts. There is also no reason to list anything as a see also unless it is reasonably thought a reader would come to this page looking for something else by the same name. Hopefully the editor who is resisting this neutral approach and who invited conversation will explain any additions and changes they wish to effect before simply reverting needed clean-up. 71.139.24.229 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see what you mean - it would've been easier if you had said you objected to piping. I believe the "See Also" was consensus and I suspect other editors may be reverting that. The "1 man 1 woman" was also consensus and per WP:DABNOT I'm going to add "A short description of the common gept to neral meaning"... per consensus. Gender roles actually doesn't have much to say about marriage. However, Nuclear family touches on gender roles and marriage.  Better, yes? Lionel (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I took off the dictionary definition, it was simply inaccurate and we're not suppose to use them. The phrase's current currency refers to one man one woman marriage but even that is counter to Biblical and Mormon practice where those traditions included multiple wives and women were treated as property. I don't see "nuclear family" which is a well defined concept as an easily confused search term leading people here. 71.139.24.229 (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Article
This phrase has only recently been employed to define man/woman definition, perhaps we need an article to help define the uses of the phrase over time? Destiny S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny spear (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

explanation of oedipus' RfC
The term "traditional marriage" as used in discussions of marriage in western, predominantly/historically christian, countries -- and, specifically, the United States -- is not a neutral term and should not be used without explanation/contextualization.

the term "traditional marriage" as used in wikipedia articles about groups and individuals who oppose same-sex unions (particularly those active in the U.S.) is not a neutral term -- when it is used by such persons and groups, it refers to the orthodox and evangelical christian concept of "traditional marriage", which is between one man and one woman, permenantly, until death. globally, there are myriad forms of "traditonal marriage", therefore, it is imperative that wikipedia -- as a global, neutral source -- specify precisely what is meant by those who use the phrase "traditional marriage" to advance a very narrow point-of-view, which implies that orthodox christian marriage is the "default", "normal" and "immutable" familial arrangement...

the meaning and connotations of the phrase "traditional marriage" used in this way, are self-evident only to those who live in cultures where the term "traditional" equals "christian". therefore, every wikipedia article which refers to "traditional marriage", where what is meant is a "traditional/orthodox western christian definition of marriage", should use a more neural term to explain what is being advocated by the advocates of "traditional marriage", particularly in regards to persons and groups operating in the united states... if wikipedia is to be truly neutral and universally understood, it is imperative that the term "traditional marriage" either be explained/contextualized, or replaced by an alternate term, such as:


 * traditional Christian definition of marriage
 * orthodox Christian definition of marriage

personally, i prefer the term "orthodox Christian definition of marriage", as there are an ever-increasing number of christian denominations who have expanded their understanding of marriage...

the wikipedia entry for "traditonal marriage" provides a rock-solid basis for a wiki-wide consideration of a nomenclature change/clarification... therefore, the traditional marriage disambiguation page should be retained and used as a pointer to the myriad types of "traditional marriage" which exist throughout the world... oedipus (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * HUH? This isn't a question, it's a WP:SOAPBOX position, and a misuse of the WP:RFC process.  I request that an uninvolved admin close this, or that GJR do so.  Feel free to reopen it following the instructions at WP:RFC (short version: Ask a simple question, with minimal editorializing and in as neutral a way as possible.   While I sympathize with your "don't push your religious PoV on me" position (more than you know), and also appreciate the intercultural issue (polygamy is "traditional" in plenty of cultures, even a few Western ones like traditional mormonism and secular polyamory), your actual suggestion isn't valid anyway, since not everyone who holds what is here called a "traditional marriage" view is Christian at all.  Many are Jews or whatever, and many irreligious. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  02:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What he said ^^^  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Close, reform and resubmit in a neutral manner with a specific question or proposal that can be commented on. Personaly I don't see how this could possibly be supported as it is highly unencyclopedic for us as editors to determine any such definitions.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

why this a valid RfC
please note that i am advocating:


 * 1) that the traditional marriage disambiguation page be retained;
 * 2) that the term "traditional marriage" should be avoided when used to describe attempts to legally define marriage using specific, narrowly-defined religious strictures and restrictions, and should be replaced by a wikipedia-community-derived consensus term that contextualizes in neutral terms that which it is which the advocates of what they controversially and misleadingly term "traditional marriage"...

i am not insisting on use of the terms i suggested -- they are merely suggestions -- what i want is community consensus on either an alternate to the use of the term "traditional marriage" as it is used to describe a socio-political movement, particularly that centered in the U.S., or community-defined contextualizing text that indicates that the "tradition" in "traditional" marriage is self-described and self-referrential...

@SMcCandlish: how is this a misuse of RFC? it is a request to use neutral language when referring to those who refer to their cause as "defense of traditional marriage" -- the question is, in such cases, what is meant by "traditional marriage"? traditional to whom, according to whom? the presence of the traditional marriage disambiguation page supports my position that a request for neutral alternative to this term when discussing U.S. opponents of same-sex marriage, is a legitimate need... the reason the RFC appears here is that (a) it concerns the use of the term "traditional marriage"; (b) supports the continued existence of a "traditional marriage" page which acknowledges the fact that there are a plethora of traditional marriage configurations which occur throughout the world; and (c) asks for community feedback and consensus on a term which acurately and neutrally describes what it is which self-proclaimed advocates of "traditional marriage" mean when they use that term to insist that their understaning/definition of marriage be legally binding on all citizens...

as for "traditional marriage" being a "juedo-christian" concept, to which definition of traditional jewish marriage are you referring? levitical marriage? mosaic marriage? marriage according to the rules spelled out in the book of numbers? there are those who claim justification for multiple marriage by citing jewish scriptures, so when someone advocates "traditional marriage" in the U.S. they are not advocating a judeo-christian idea, but are, instead, advocating a very specific christian-based understanding of the concept of marriage... that is not POV, that is a fact -- therefore, wikipedia's use of the term "traditional marriage", wherever it is used in discussions of legal definitions of marriage -- especially in the U.S. -- should either use a suitably neutral or a contextualizing term... that is hardly screaming from a soapbox, but rather pointing out a need and proposing a solution...

@Amadscientist: why is it "highly unencyclopedic for us as editors to determine any such definitions"? unless terms are clearly defined, they are meaningless... use of the term "traditional marriage" without contextualization is highly ambiguous and does not benefit anyone, let alone the wikipedia project...  in order to truly be neutral, extremely ambiguous terms such as "traditional marriage" need to be contextualized whenever used, especially when such a term has become hyperpoliticized in the U.S. political context, it is necessary to explain who and why that this is of specifc concern to the use of the term in connection with opposition to a legal definition of marriage as anything other than a monogomous, heterosexual, permanant arrangement, based upon a selective reading of biblical sources... oedipus (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No one is commenting on the validity of your arguement. The problem with the RfC is that it is not formatted correctly.  You should read up on how to start an RfC and ask a very specifc question in a neutral fashion.  I'm sure someone at Helpdesk would help you draft an RfC if you ask.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I kinda was actually. Its utter nonsense to request the Wikipedia community vote on whether or not to slap a label of christianity (or any other label) on the term.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This really sounds like the OP is offended by the term when discussing "same sex marriage" and feels the term "traditional marriage" is syaing "Normal marriage". So....now we have to pretend the term doesn't exist and ban its use when summarizing "same sex marriage"? Its just absurd. Tradition doesn't mean anything more than a long term practice, but the OP wants that to be redefined. That is very unencyclopedic and we don't do that at Wikipedia. There is a clear bias and agenda here and I think its innappropriate to base the discussion on political ideaology.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Little_green_rosetta: i did read the RfC guidance and help document, and i did ask a very specific question -- it seems to me that your complaint is that it is too specific... this is a 3-part issue, and i did take quite some time distilling my request down to what i thought was the proper balance between clarity, brevity and comprehensiveness -- not every item can be contained in a cookie cutter -- many issues are far to large to fit into a cookie cutter and instead need a cake-pan... how would you suggest i reformat my RfC? -- i do want help because i do think that i am addressing three important issues for the community to address... the problem i encountered is capturing the nuances of the argument in the description of the argument so as to make the arguent as complete as possible...  also, i thought that splitting my request into multiple RfCs would dillute the request, which -- as i stated -- is a three-fold request... oedipus (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist please read my actual comments -- i am asking only that the contextualization be applied to those who use the term "traditional marraige" to push for a specific legal definition of marriage based on a specific limited interpretation of christianity... i am futhermore advocating that the traditional marriage diambiguation page be retained in recognition of the fact that the term "tradional marriage" only has meaning in reference to a particular culture or socio-religious interpretation, and hence, when used to describe wrangles over the legal definition of marriage in the U.S. in particular, this be acknowledged through community consesus on contextualizing verbiage or universal use of an alternate term when referring to organizations and individals promoting a specific interpretation of marriage as a legally binding definition of marriage on all persons... oedipus (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words...you have an agenda. Its simply advocacy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist did you remove the rfc markup from this page? why? oedipus (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a noninvolved administrator did.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: no, i do not have an agenda, but you apparently do... why do you object to contextualizing what "tradional marriage" means in the context of the U.S. legal debate over legal definitions of marriage? pointing out that "tradional marriage" is not a self-evident descriptor to someone not from the U.S. or familiar with the culture wars surrounding the issue would understand, is not advocating an agenda, it is articulating the obvious...

wikipedia has a disambiguation page that points inquirers to various forms of "traditional marriage", one of which points to discussion of the "traditional marriage movement" in the U.S.; the term "traditional marriage" as applied to the debate over legalized forms of marriage in the U.S. is used by those who advocate a specific form of marriage, based on a specific understanding of specific religious texts... this needs to be made clear to wikipedia users who are not residents of the U.S. or who are not familiar with the context of the terminology used in the U.S. debate...  the point is that "traditional marriage" means marriage according to a certain tradition, and the parameters of that tradition need to be defined when the term "traditional marriage" is used in the specific context of justifying a legal basis for limiting marriage based on specific interpretations of religious proscriptions, so when the term "traditional marriage" is used to describe advocates and initatives of the self-described "traditional marriage movement" it either be uniformly contextualized or that a uniform consensus based alternative phrase be used in all such articles... oedipus (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are waaaay overthinking this. As a tradition, marriage is considered "traditionaly" to be between a man and a woman" hence we also have the term, "Same sex marriage". What you appear to be attempting is to redfine "traditional marriage" as a purely religious context. I object to that. As for as advocacy editing...you made that clear that you are advocating such a redefinition.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, okay. I agree that we shouldn't be saying "traditional marriage" in Wikipedia's voice, and I frequently rephrase it when I find it, but I'm not sure why this is an RFC. RFCs generally take place in order to get more input on existing disputes. Is there somewhere where users are debating the inclusion of the phrase "traditional marriage"? And if so, why is the discussion here and not there? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use any phrase that isn't used in the references unless it is a common usage and I do believe "Traditional marriage" as a term or phrase does fall into that category.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: who defines common usage? in the U.S. and other western traditionally-christian countries, what you call traditional marriage, is -- by definition -- a religion-based institution... why your reluctance to acknowledge the fact? i am not the one redefining terms -- "traditional marriage" is a term which is consciously used by its proponents in the U.S. in order to give their perpsective the authority of relgious sanction... this is the same semantic problem when one has to choose between two "common usage" terms, such as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" -- both have intentional connotations, and neither is intended to be a neutral description of the issue...  should we call the estate tax the "death tax" just because it is a term in "common usage"? what about the use of racial and ethnic slurs? surely they are in "common usage"... your objections do not make objective sense, and are reflective only of your personal prejudices...  "traditional marriage" in isolation is a meanigless phrase to many; moreover, many will not be aware of the explicit connotations of the term and why it is used by proponents of a particular legal argument...  the purpose of a reference work is to be as unambiguous as possible, and this RfC (consult the following section for its reformulation) seeks to address not only the ambiguity in a specific use of the term "traditional marriage" but to provide non-U.S. residents with the context necessary to understand why the term is used by its advocates and why others find the use of the term disingenuous, at best... oedipus (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I take it you are not an American if you don't understand the seperation of church and state. In the US, marriage is not a religious institution it is a civl institution.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I am shocked by the misconception that "pro____" is the same as "traditional______".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Amadscientist: why do you assume i am not american? i find it extrodinarily strange that you should jump to the conclusion that i am not an american because it is precisely because i am an american that i feel this issue needs to be addressed honestly... and speaking of seperation of church and state, why is the state allowed to vest the power of joining together individuals in marriage to religious entities, when marriage is a civil contract, no matter where it is conducted...  true seperation of church and state would mean civil unions for all, and marriage (in its "common usage") for those who want them as a ceremonial sanctification of their union...  legally recognized marriage in a religious institution is a relic of the pre-18th century history of the U.S. (the same history and tradition which has left us with the blue laws that keep many from shopping on sundays and which prevent the U.S. from publicly innaugurating the president even when the constitutionally mandated inauguration date falls on a sunday), and has no place in a society which constitutionally seperates the functions of church and state...

and what is the source of your perplexity at my comparrison between the use of the terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" and "traditional marriage"? they are terms intended to send socio-cultural signals (also known in the vernacular as "dog whistles") which seek to claim an irrefutable high ground for the advocates position -- how can one possibly be "anti-life" or "anti-choice" (check out the polling data -- depending upon which term one uses, the outcomes are consistently vastly different, showing approximately equal support for both supposedly "pro-" positions)

use of the term "traditional marriage" by the proponents of a narrowly religously-defined legal definition of marital unions is not only misleading, it is dishonest... the term is not merely a descriptor -- it is an attempt to set the parameters of the discussion through intentionally divisive semantics, rather than a neutral description of what is being advocated by those who coined and use the term "traditional marriage"... oedipus (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. Some editors get offended if you assume they are American. You seem to have an rather odd sense of what this subject is about. In the United States of America, we do not place marriage in the hands of the religious institutions. Regardless of what church weds you, the couple must have a license. I can marry my partner in a number of churches but the state and federal government have established the union to be a civil matter requiring their recognition for all benifits. This entire discussion is in regards to whether or not the term "Traditional marriage" should be redfined against sources per a Wikipedia standards that simply do not exist and never will. Any and all terms are actually defined by the sources used and I find this entire proposal to be original research and advocacy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Amadscientist: the beauty of america (and the internet as well) is that you and i can have diametrically opposed ideas about everything...  the issue isn't who issues the liscence, but who defines marriage and upon what is that definition based... the term "traditional marriage" was defined as a dog-whistle term by opponents of same-sex marriage, who base their objections to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds...  and the religous grounds they cite -- as discussed above -- are a very specific interpetation of christian doctrine...  this is a secular country, and the idea that religion should form the basis of social institutions, rather than simply inform them, is simply wrong, and is not condoned by an objective reading of the constitution...  a self-describing group of religious traditionalists should not be able to define the law -- they are free to inform discussion of the law, participate in public debate, but to insist that their religion-based conception of marriage is the basis for the secular legal structure of marital unions is both fallacious and un-american by any and every definition of the term...  you can believe in what you want and get married how and where you want, but no one has the right to impose their religious proscriptions on secular law...  "traditional marriage" is a nebulous concept, and to insist that "traditional marriage" has any intrinsic meaning outside of the self-definition given to it by groups in the U.S. and other historically-christian countries, is nonsense...  sure, one can call an individual like James Dobson and advocate of "traditional marriage", but not without the quotes and not without a contextualizing explaination that this is a self-definition, along with an explanation of what "traditional marriage" means when used by those such as dobson...  traditional marriage means "marriage customs as practiced within a specific tradition" NOT "a limited religious-based conception of what should legally constitute marriage for all citizens" which is what they are advocating, by attempting to seize the moral high ground by using the nebulous term "traditional marriage"...  hence the need for contextualization and/or an alternate phrase to use in place of a highly-charged self-definition  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJR (talk • contribs) 07:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you are becoming clearer the more you post however, you claim: "the term "traditional marriage" was defined as a dog-whistle term by opponents of same-sex marriage, who base their objections to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds... ". That really isn't accurate. It assumes the origin is religious based all argument towrds it and its history are religious based and is exclusive to opponants of "same sex marriage" or, the more neutral term, "Marriage Equality". So I propose we look into two issues. First, the origins of the term and second, who (in reliable sources) uses the term.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Amadscientist: have you found any evidence of the use of the term "traditional marriage" before it was applied to opposition to same-sex marriages? i've been searching through archives of the leading advocates of "traditional marriage" for quite some time before posting to this talk page, and i cannot find an instance where the term is not used to refer to religio-biblical restrictions on marriage...  what i might be able to show (with some help -- i am blind and would need assistance locating, going through and scanning old printed materials in my possession) is that such groups used more inelegant terms than "traditional marriage" in the 1980s and early 1990s, and that the switch to the term "traditional marriage" led to a drastic decline in overtly homophobic rhetoric from the some of the most vociferous opponents of marriage equality... (yes, i realize that that sentence crosses over into the "original research" but if i were able to locate and scan documents, could i not somehow use them as sources?  they are, after all, materials produced and distributed by "family values" organizations, and i could provide PDFs for verfication purposes) please note: i am not claiming that all opposition to marriage equality is religion-based, but i AM claiming that those who oppose marriage equality under the banner of "traditional marriage" do so quite openly (to those who share a common socio-historical background) on the basis of their understanding and interpretation of specific religious texts...  this is all that i am attempting to get addressed through my RfC -- well, that and preservation of the "traditionl marriage" disambiguation page... (oh, and as for common usage words such as same-sex marriage versus marriage-eqality, please consult my reply to your comments under the revised RfC section) oedipus (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I think OrangeMike meant to close this RfC as malformed (see the edit history) but I think he might have goofed. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 05:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He may have left the discussion becuase it is onging.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Rosecelese: it is an issue that often is logged on talk pages concerning individuals such as James Dobson and other out-spoken advocates of what they call "traditional marrige", and is also a topic of discussion on this talk page (some have suggested that the disambiguation page be replaced by a page that simply redirects to the "traditional marriage movement" article... the reason i chose to address it here is that i thought i best to log the issue here and then to reference the RfC in the talk pages for any article that uses the "traditional marriage" verbiage to indicate a specific position in the legal arguments over the legal definition of marriage...  i have also fielded a lot of questions from non-native english speakers about what exactly is meant by "traditional marriage", and i firmly believe that the use of a partisan-defined term such as "traditional marriage", whose meaning may be "self-evident" to those who live in or have a high level of familiarity with that society, need to be contextualized for the benefit of all who use wikipedia...  i am not criticizing anyone, merely trying to provide necessary clarity to a reflexively used term which consciously carries great socio-cultural baggage   hope that makes sense -- let me know what you think... oedipus (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@GJR/oedipus: I have zero interest in getting into an argument with you here about why that was a malformed RfC, since I already indicated why, as have others. You've turned this page into a lot of back-and-forth, editor-by-editor arguments that are not really germane to the problem here, which is the alleged issue of "traditional marriage" being a very non-neutral term that WP should not promote as if it had no baggage or wasn't a conservative attempt to commandeer the word "traditional" away from all traditions but those they value. That's in my opinion a real issue. Why this or that RfC wasn't helpfully worded is just process-related noise. Don't focus on it, or you lose the interest of others rapidly. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  02:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2013
Christian views on marriage should be listed, to go with the Islamic views on marriage currently on the page. Often when people think of "traditional" marriage, they think of marriage in a Christian context.

StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems fair, so Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Recommended article Introduction
The phrase, or term of traditional marriage was first published in an academic journal entitled "Traditional Legal Marriage and Alternative Family Forms" circa 1975. The author argues that "The law imposes an unwritten marriage contract on all men and women who enter legal marriage. This traditional marriage contract recognizes the husband as head of the family, holds the husband responsible for support, and holds the wife responsible for domestic and child care services." Since then, the phrase itself draws intese social, political, and religious debate. (Self edit) Patriot1010 (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Examples should not be allowed, at all, as this would just result in an edit war of various people trying to promote their point of view, and eliminate their oppositions point of view. A reader can simply google the phrase to see the rancor.


 * If anyone can find an article that coins the phrase prior to 1975, by all means, lets add it. Patriot1010 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I just don't know how we would limit a misuse of such an article for political purposes.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article, so an introduction isn't necessary. I can see that we might want to combine and separate the "Christian views on marriage" and "opposition to same-sex marriage" ideas to clarify specifically that some use the term to talk about gender roles, but it's ultimately a disambiguation page that doesn't need a lot of prose. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)