Marriage: Revision history

12 November 2009

• curprev 17:3417:34, 12 November 2009‎ RodnoseRave talk contribs‎ 80,952 bytes +6‎ Upon further consideration, I believe that it is no breach of "neutrality" if the word civil is included. If you dispute this, please mention it on the discussion page.
• curprev 17:2917:29, 12 November 2009‎ RodnoseRave talk contribs‎ 80,946 bytes +14‎ No edit summary
• curprev 17:2417:24, 12 November 2009‎ RodnoseRave talk contribs‎ 80,932 bytes −6‎ "Almost all" is too strong a word choice for what is trying to be said.
• curprev 17:1717:17, 12 November 2009‎ RodnoseRave talk contribs‎ 80,938 bytes +8‎ No edit summary
• curprev 17:1317:13, 12 November 2009‎ RodnoseRave talk contribs‎ 80,930 bytes −70‎ No edit summary
• curprev 17:0117:01, 12 November 2009‎ Jeffrey Mall talk contribs‎ 81,000 bytes +9‎ Undid revision 325461788 by RodnoseRave- Keep it on the talk page, no need to disrupt article
• curprev 16:5916:59, 12 November 2009‎ RodnoseRave talk contribs‎ 80,991 bytes −9‎ Please see discussion page before reverting this change.
• curprev 03:2203:22, 12 November 2009‎ Dayewalker talk contribs‎ 81,000 bytes −10‎ I see no consensus for this change, please continue the discussion on the talk page.
• curprev 03:2003:20, 12 November 2009‎ Fastily talk contribs‎ m 81,010 bytes +10‎ Reverted edits by Fastily (talk) to last version by TXTXTXTXTX7
• curprev 03:2003:20, 12 November 2009‎ Fastily talk contribs‎ m 81,000 bytes −10‎ Reverted edits by TXTXTXTXTX7 to last revision by Seraphimblade (HG)
• curprev 03:2003:20, 12 November 2009‎ TXTXTXTXTX7 talk contribs‎ 81,010 bytes +10‎ If you would, please refrain from reverting this and go to the discussion page to argue any other proposal for this lead sentence.
• curprev 03:0803:08, 12 November 2009‎ Seraphimblade talk contribs‎ 81,000 bytes −37‎ Reverting, I do not see a consensus to change this. Please feel free to join the discussion.
• curprev 02:5802:58, 12 November 2009‎ TXTXTXTXTX7 talk contribs‎ 81,037 bytes +27‎ Do not change the first sentence before looking over the latest section in the discussion page for a consensus has more or less been reached.
• curprev 02:5602:56, 12 November 2009‎ TXTXTXTXTX7 talk contribs‎ 81,010 bytes +10‎ No edit summary

11 November 2009

• curprev 17:0617:06, 11 November 2009‎ Jeff3000 talk contribs‎ m 81,000 bytes +75,239‎ Reverted edits by 168.11.195.2 (talk) to last version by Jeff3000
• curprev 17:0617:06, 11 November 2009‎ 168.11.195.2 talk‎ 5,761 bytes −75,239‎ No edit summary Tag: blanking
• curprev 01:3801:38, 11 November 2009‎ Jeff3000 talk contribs‎ m 81,000 bytes +432‎ Reverted edits by 72.174.18.60 (talk) to last version by Cathardic

10 November 2009

• curprev 23:5923:59, 10 November 2009‎ 72.174.18.60 talk‎ 80,568 bytes −432‎ →‎Islam
• curprev 20:1720:17, 10 November 2009‎ Cathardic talk contribs‎ 81,000 bytes −24‎ reverting to version by Mysdaao... you can't just say "consensus won't be reached, so lets do it my way"
• curprev 20:1520:15, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 81,024 bytes +1‎ No edit summary
• curprev 20:1320:13, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 81,023 bytes +10‎ No edit summary
• curprev 20:0820:08, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 81,013 bytes −6‎ I know that my edit needs consensus before being executed but the problem is that that consensus will never be reached. Not even voting is allowed in discussion forums.
• curprev 20:0520:05, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 81,019 bytes +19‎ No edit summary
• curprev 20:0220:02, 10 November 2009‎ Mysdaao talk contribs‎ 81,000 bytes +6‎ →‎Definitions: Readding word "often" which is not controversial and does not need to be reverted
• curprev 20:0120:01, 10 November 2009‎ Mysdaao talk contribs‎ 80,994 bytes −8‎ Reverting controversial change that has no consensus. Please note that 3RR is by person, not account, so it is still a violation of 3RR if you continue to make these edits anonymously
• curprev 19:5819:58, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 81,002 bytes −12‎ No edit summary
• curprev 19:5719:57, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 81,014 bytes +6‎ No edit summary
• curprev 19:5519:55, 10 November 2009‎ 140.180.35.227 talk‎ 81,008 bytes +4‎ No edit summary
• curprev 19:4819:48, 10 November 2009‎ 140.180.35.227 talk‎ 81,004 bytes +10‎ No edit summary
• curprev 19:3819:38, 10 November 2009‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎ 80,994 bytes −14‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ffdsajkl101. (TW)
• curprev 19:3219:32, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 81,008 bytes +14‎ No edit summary
• curprev 19:3019:30, 10 November 2009‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎ 80,994 bytes −2‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ffdsajkl101; Not true these days. (TW)
• curprev 19:2819:28, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 80,996 bytes +2‎ Please see the discussion forum before you revert this edit.
• curprev 19:2619:26, 10 November 2009‎ Mysdaao talk contribs‎ 80,994 bytes −2‎ I have read and responded to your comment. This change will be controversial and should be discussed first.
• curprev 19:2119:21, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 80,996 bytes +2‎ I know what you are saying, but see my comment on the discussion page before you go back to the old revision.
• curprev 19:1719:17, 10 November 2009‎ Mysdaao talk contribs‎ 80,994 bytes −2‎ Undid revision 325096063 by Ffdsajkl101 (talk). Marriages are not always between a man and a woman, so individuals is more appropriate
• curprev 19:1219:12, 10 November 2009‎ Ffdsajkl101 talk contribs‎ 80,996 bytes +2‎ No edit summary

7 November 2009

• curprev 10:3610:36, 7 November 2009‎ Hardyplants talk contribs‎ 80,994 bytes +171‎ →‎Same-sex marriage: the souce uses relationships and not marriage our text is incorrect and "same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome," is from page 16 - improve the ref.
• curprev 10:0210:02, 7 November 2009‎ Hardyplants talk contribs‎ 80,823 bytes +239‎ →‎Christianity: add one more ref .
• curprev 09:4909:49, 7 November 2009‎ Hardyplants talk contribs‎ 80,584 bytes +101‎ This is correct. A number of early Christian writings cover marriage, namely because the Gospels talk about it - note the book of revelation and the city of God as the bride of Christ.
• curprev 06:4506:45, 7 November 2009‎ Linestarz talk contribs‎ 80,483 bytes −101‎ →‎Christianity: removed uncited and explicity inaccurate statement, the church did not consider such a sacrament until 1215
• curprev 06:4206:42, 7 November 2009‎ Linestarz talk contribs‎ 80,584 bytes −126‎ →‎Same-sex marriage: duplicate
• curprev 06:4106:41, 7 November 2009‎ Linestarz talk contribs‎ 80,710 bytes +407‎ →‎Same-sex marriage
• curprev 06:4106:41, 7 November 2009‎ Linestarz talk contribs‎ 80,303 bytes +3‎ →‎Same-sex marriage: source says marriages

1 November 2009

• curprev 01:5501:55, 1 November 2009‎ 2Wikid talk contribs‎ m 80,300 bytes −470‎ It’s good as a supportingref for aprior statement, but I see no purpose in quoting it in the article.

31 October 2009

• curprev 14:2914:29, 31 October 2009‎ Tobby72 talk contribs‎ 80,770 bytes +675‎ →‎Financial considerations

30 October 2009

• curprev 06:4106:41, 30 October 2009‎ Bejinhan talk contribs‎ 80,095 bytes −1‎ →‎Rights and obligations: per request on talk page

26 October 2009

• curprev 19:4519:45, 26 October 2009‎ Icarus3 talk contribs‎ 80,096 bytes −1‎ Undo edit: Because there is so much controversy to the opening sentence, and this change has not been discussed, I am reverting it without prejudice. Please discuss first.
• curprev 19:3719:37, 26 October 2009‎ A8UDI talk contribs‎ 80,097 bytes +1‎ better. =)
• curprev 19:2719:27, 26 October 2009‎ Wknight94 talk contribs‎ m 80,096 bytes 0‎ Protected Marriage: Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)))