Talk:Marriage

I'm normally not one to complain, but I recently stumbled across this page and found a distinct lack of humour. I mean, a little misogyny is fun and all, but the tone comes across as genuinely angry men bitching about women, not people pretending to be such. Am I reading this wrong?--DbSurfeit 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Use a Woody Allen voice in your head, its funnier that way 80.3.64.11 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with DbSurfeit. What does the "average women's lifecycle", particularly that of a spinster, have to do with marriage?

I totally agree. Divorced men bitching about their ex-wives has never been high up on my list of things that are funny. I think if the focus was put more onto divorce in general, and not men whining about how crap their lives are, this article could have actual merit. Actually, the stuff on divorce should be in the article titled divorce. - Superlizard 07:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I inserted something about gay marriage... :) 68.44.179.40 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. It needs to have its own heading, not in the section about husband and wife.--71.12.14.61 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with DbSurfeit. Perhaps some of the earlier stuff by this user could be funny to some people (although it's not my cup of kittens), but by the end (i.e. Unhappy Men...) it's just unoriginal, embarrassing, and yawnish. If someone flags it too serious, will they get the same smackdown the rewrite template got last time? I'll do it! I will! --Strange but untrue 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Very unfunny, somebody should seriously edit this page. I'd do it, but I'm too busy earning a living to feed my 20 cats...

(On latest revert:) Old headings make more sense yes, but calling them funnier is like calling a dead dog funnier than a dead cat (cat, not kitten - stop sniggering!). Pleeeeeease somebody attack this article with a spork until it runs away and/or deflates with a representative whining noise? Honestly, soon I will try to do it myself, and then we'll all have to look at something as funny as a dead budgie instead... --Strange but untrue 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Married Men: Post here if you hate your life" - is where most of the quotes in the middle section came from. They were posted on the Fucked Company messageboards. Shame its no longer available. There were lots more that were much funnier. Is it possible to extract it from googles cache?

Why might "Marriage is awfully gay"? It looks like some twerp from high school would put in for fun, or at what he thinks is funny. Its not funny, its not even corny, it just, well... LAME! Yes! Lame in capital letters! And an self-styled "Uncyclopedian of the Month" thinks he can revert my edit because he or she or it thinks its "long-winded for no comedic effect". Who is he to judge what is comedic or not? Since the user who calls himself "Strange but untrue" thought fit to revert my edit, perhaps he can explain what is so wonderful about "Marriage is awfully gay"? BreakDancer 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I like the small "dog's point of view" section. I hope it is never removed. The picture of the dog wearing glasses is also hillarious. Roman Dog Bird 06:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I loved this article (even though it was a bit serious at times). Uncyclopedia has a lot of dumb shit that isn't even coherent and full of bad grammar, and its always refreshing to read an article like this. Plus the picture of the fat lady / creepy guy is hilarious. KrevNasty 18:02, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I saw recently that many quotes were removed from the beginning, and while it is true that most weren't funny, and this article does have too much bitching by angry (ex)husbands, the Oscar Wilde quote was an actual Oscar Wilde quote, something very few here articles have. And while it did consist of bitching (bigamy is having one wife too many, monogamy is the same) it does have wit, something maybe eleven uncyclopedia articles have, maybe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.77.45.31 (talk • contribs)

It's 2023 and the Intro has become disjointed, as though a dozen Anons got most of the way through the Intro and decided to add their own observation, somewhere/anywhere, no matter whether it repeated a theme already stated. Mr. 204, yes, it is a plus if an Oscar Wilde quote can both be an actual Oscar Wilde quote and relate to the article. You are right, most of our Wildeisms are because someone thought he was writing a comic book, not an encyclopedia, imagined a wisecrack, and suddenly needed the name of an utteror to stick it on. Spıke 🎙️21:09 16-Jan-23