Talk:Criticism of marriage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concern with article tone and bias

I downloaded the reference that the first paragraph cites and it makes no mention of any of the claims on page 12 (the page it cites). The whole paragraph takes an incredibly biased and (at this point) unsubstantiated view of marriage. It seems to say 'marriage benefits people in every way, but here's a couple crackpots who don't get it anyway'. I'm new to wikipedia. I attempted to erase the whole paragraph but there's not an "edit" button for it, only sections underneath it. Download reference number 1 and see for yourself, page 12 is about early cohabitation, and actually contains data that shows young marriages have a higher instance of receiving government aid, a claim that seems to fly in the face of the rosy picture given by the opening section. ----Chris4943 chrismcdaniel@ymail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris4943 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tax Liability

I suggest someone add a marriage tax argument against marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.143.130 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Marriage strike

Since the "marriage strike" article was deleted... can we at least expand the "men's movement" section of this article to include a bit more information. For example some of the quoted reasons and statistics from the old Marriage strike article. Maybe also some of the alternatives to marriage that men have been interested in which were also discussed in the other article. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for expanding it, as long as it's not given undue weight. It is ok if this section grows longer than the other sections, because the other sections should be expanded too. Now, the statistics from Marriage strike seemed to have been cherry-picked to support the idea of a male marriage strike. That is original synthesis, and not ok. General statistics about declining marriage rates could have a separate section in this article, because it is relevant to all arguments against marriage. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There were some general stats in the marriage strike article that we could use. Also, even if they are used to reflect a male point of view. I feel that should be ok since these stats are going to be placed under the "men's movement" subsection. No? If not, then what's the point of even having a men's movement section.... or a women's movement section either if we're not allowed to describe each viewpoint? I looked in the history and I'm not able to access the pervious versions of the Marriage strike article to retrieve any of the stats. Is there anyway we could do this? Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The "men's movement" subsection should be about opinions that we can attribute to prominent members of the men's movement, not the opinions of male wikipedians. An administrator get get the previous version for you. I should have saved the code, but I didn't realize the AfD would close so soon. Google also has a cached version from Sep 29: [1] --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is quoted from a published work should be technically up for grabs for citation. Anyone who publishes opinion on the male viewpoint of this topic can be considered a "prominent member of the men's movement" for the purpose of the wikipedia article. This is normal wiki protocol/practice. If the men's viewpoint is going to be scrutinized to the point of being effectively blocked from contributing then we should be seeing an equal scrutinization of the feminist view. To not do so would be biased and unfair. Hopefully we will be able to expand all sections of this article as you stated perviously. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did the Marriage Strike article get removed? I feel it was a serious blow by the society of large angry women who secretly run the world Paskari (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Criticism of marriage?

I suggest we move this to Criticism of marriage. Then this article can contain more about people and organizations who criticizes marriage and not just the arguments. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be an active article either? Was it merged with Arguments against marriage as well? Jwri7474 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism of marriage" never existed as an article. I'm suggesting to rename this article to "Criticism of marriage". --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I will make the move now. No reason it would be controversial. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy

I removed the section on clerical celibacy. The fact that Catholic and Orthodox bishops and Western Catholic priests don't get married is not in any way a criticism of marriage. —Angr 07:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In future, please discuss the removal before taking any actions. Paskari (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of contempory views of marriage

I am currently working on this section and will be footnoting it and referencing it as I have time. It is going to be expanded. Thanks.DMSBel (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to add more to it or help out with the citations DMSBel (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And remember changes to current content should be discussed here first. Thanks DMSBel (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you believe in women "submitting" to men, and that their failure to do so in the modern world is what "selfish" translates to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1