This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Apparently the governors of Oklahoma think so - they're trying to ban atheist marriages.
More here: http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/17/oklahoma-is-banning-atheists-from-getting-mar...
The link appeared on my Facebook care of the British Humanist Association, who are (amongst other things) campaigning for humanist marriages to be legal in England as they are in Scotland.
More here: http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/17/oklahoma-is-banning-atheists-from-getting-mar...
The link appeared on my Facebook care of the British Humanist Association, who are (amongst other things) campaigning for humanist marriages to be legal in England as they are in Scotland.
In reply to Tall Clare:
I do find all these sort of arguments quite amusing. Everyone is fighting their corner, the irony being that the narrative of whichever cause they are signed up to is broadly the same story. Only the terminology differs.
Is there a term to describe someone who is neither religionist or atheist or anywhere particularly in between?
I do find all these sort of arguments quite amusing. Everyone is fighting their corner, the irony being that the narrative of whichever cause they are signed up to is broadly the same story. Only the terminology differs.
Is there a term to describe someone who is neither religionist or atheist or anywhere particularly in between?
Post edited at 13:41
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
My eldest son was married last Autumn in England, I don't recall God bothering the proceedings much?
My eldest son was married last Autumn in England, I don't recall God bothering the proceedings much?
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
You can have a civil ceremony in England and then have a humanist blessing if you want, but you can't have a marriage ceremony performed by a humanist celebrant. Civil ceremonies don't have anything to do with religion.
You can have a civil ceremony in England and then have a humanist blessing if you want, but you can't have a marriage ceremony performed by a humanist celebrant. Civil ceremonies don't have anything to do with religion.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Yeah - that is what I thought. But using that term, would involve planting my flag in a camp and thus defining my position which I would have to rigorously defend like all the other 'ists'. But I can't be arsed. Is there a term for an agnostic that can't be arsed?
> Agnostic?
Yeah - that is what I thought. But using that term, would involve planting my flag in a camp and thus defining my position which I would have to rigorously defend like all the other 'ists'. But I can't be arsed. Is there a term for an agnostic that can't be arsed?
Post edited at 13:46
1
1
In reply to ByEek:
If you are religeous, you believe there is a god (or God)
If you are atheist you don't
What is there in between those ? believing there is a bit of a god ?
If you are religeous, you believe there is a god (or God)
If you are atheist you don't
What is there in between those ? believing there is a bit of a god ?
1
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
Aptheist is closer although in many cases "superior to both" is the real answer.
I am not sure I follow the logic of Rep Johnson when he says there is no need for the state to be involved whilst supporting a bill which does just that.
Surely if god doesnt like something a few well placed lightning bolts will make sure we know.
> Agnostic?
Aptheist is closer although in many cases "superior to both" is the real answer.
I am not sure I follow the logic of Rep Johnson when he says there is no need for the state to be involved whilst supporting a bill which does just that.
Surely if god doesnt like something a few well placed lightning bolts will make sure we know.
1
1
In reply to GrahamD:
When you stand back from the argument between atheists and religionists, you discover that they are basically arguing about the same thing. i.e. both believe they are right but neither can prove conclusively that the other is wrong.
> If you are religeous, you believe there is a god (or God)
> If you are atheist you don't
> If you are atheist you don't
> What is there in between those ? believing there is a bit of a god ?
When you stand back from the argument between atheists and religionists, you discover that they are basically arguing about the same thing. i.e. both believe they are right but neither can prove conclusively that the other is wrong.
1
In reply to dissonance:
Ha! He doesn't do that any more. Instead, He takes down your website!
> Surely if god doesnt like something a few well placed lightning bolts will make sure we know.
Ha! He doesn't do that any more. Instead, He takes down your website!
In reply to Tall Clare:
That smacks largely of angels dancing on pinheads, tbh. If you want religious, do religious, if you don't ... don't. What does having a 'humanist celebrant' bring to the party?
(Actually my nephew had such a wedding in Glasgow this winter, the humanist celebrant made a bit of a mess of it tbh. Though not entirely relevant to the business in hand, she mentioned how pleased she was to be in Scotland and how she would take the opportunity to climb Snowdon.)
That smacks largely of angels dancing on pinheads, tbh. If you want religious, do religious, if you don't ... don't. What does having a 'humanist celebrant' bring to the party?
(Actually my nephew had such a wedding in Glasgow this winter, the humanist celebrant made a bit of a mess of it tbh. Though not entirely relevant to the business in hand, she mentioned how pleased she was to be in Scotland and how she would take the opportunity to climb Snowdon.)
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Some people want a bit more than a civil ceremony and choose to believe in a humanist way of doing things. That's all. Unless you're someone who likes to find the negative in anything that isn't black or white, it's hard to find much to disagree with about humanism, really.
Some people want a bit more than a civil ceremony and choose to believe in a humanist way of doing things. That's all. Unless you're someone who likes to find the negative in anything that isn't black or white, it's hard to find much to disagree with about humanism, really.
2
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
Currently only christian weddings are recognised in law in the uk other than Civil ceremonies. With that in mind, allowing the humanists to have their ceremonies recognised in law would disadvantage other religions more than they are already. I think the Humanists have it wrong and I don't support them in their quest to have 'their' ceremonies recognised and not others. we should be fighting to have ALL ceremonies recognised, not just the ones that happen to have the most seats in the House of lords.
Currently only christian weddings are recognised in law in the uk other than Civil ceremonies. With that in mind, allowing the humanists to have their ceremonies recognised in law would disadvantage other religions more than they are already. I think the Humanists have it wrong and I don't support them in their quest to have 'their' ceremonies recognised and not others. we should be fighting to have ALL ceremonies recognised, not just the ones that happen to have the most seats in the House of lords.
Post edited at 14:07
In reply to Tall Clare:
I suspect many people like the idea of church, because it's a nice building, many are great pieces of architecture. But, don't want to be physically married by some hypocritical bloke in a dress, telling them do as I say, not as I do.
Why can't we just kick religion into history and use all these building for something purposeful.
You can apply the same rules or baptism etc. too.
I suspect many people like the idea of church, because it's a nice building, many are great pieces of architecture. But, don't want to be physically married by some hypocritical bloke in a dress, telling them do as I say, not as I do.
Why can't we just kick religion into history and use all these building for something purposeful.
You can apply the same rules or baptism etc. too.
1
In reply to ByEek:
Well being pretty rationalist and firmly atheist, I don't pretend to be right, I just accept that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that god exists.
However, atheists generally agree that should contrary evidence come to light, then we will change our point of view. That's the difference - believers in god basically refuse to accept any other point of view despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - they have faith that flies in the face of accepted facts. Atheists are willing to change their 'belief', but only on presentation of evidence - so 'belief' is probably the wrong word.
> When you stand back from the argument between atheists and religionists, you discover that they are basically arguing about the same thing. i.e. both believe they are right but neither can prove conclusively that the other is wrong.
Well being pretty rationalist and firmly atheist, I don't pretend to be right, I just accept that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that god exists.
However, atheists generally agree that should contrary evidence come to light, then we will change our point of view. That's the difference - believers in god basically refuse to accept any other point of view despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - they have faith that flies in the face of accepted facts. Atheists are willing to change their 'belief', but only on presentation of evidence - so 'belief' is probably the wrong word.
11
In reply to ByEek:
Of course most atheists can't be arsed to get into this argument in the first place.
Of course most atheists can't be arsed to get into this argument in the first place.
5
In reply to Tall Clare:
'Some people want a bit more than a civil ceremony ...' Hmmm, bit of a value judgement sneaked out there, I think. Civil ceremonies can be pretty bl**dy good, and as meaningful/symbol laden as you like.
There's nothing not to like in humanism, I suppose, until it starts to act like a religion perhaps? But I shan't pursue the matter further.
'Some people want a bit more than a civil ceremony ...' Hmmm, bit of a value judgement sneaked out there, I think. Civil ceremonies can be pretty bl**dy good, and as meaningful/symbol laden as you like.
There's nothing not to like in humanism, I suppose, until it starts to act like a religion perhaps? But I shan't pursue the matter further.
In reply to Tall Clare:
No. An agnostic is someone who says that we can't possibly know whether god exists or doesn't exist. It's quite a strong position on knowledge, not a fudge or an "in between" point of view.
> Agnostic?
No. An agnostic is someone who says that we can't possibly know whether god exists or doesn't exist. It's quite a strong position on knowledge, not a fudge or an "in between" point of view.
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
That's the issue, it does come across as very much like a religion in that they are trying to push their agenda to further their standing. The Humanist wedding thing is just one example - they, if true humanists, should be fighting for equality of recognition in marriage - A muslim wedding is just as sacred to them as a christian one is to Chritians and a humanist wedding...? well, I find it a bit pointless when you can have a civil ceremony that is non-denominational.
> There's nothing not to like in humanism, I suppose, until it starts to act like a religion perhaps? But I shan't pursue the matter further.
That's the issue, it does come across as very much like a religion in that they are trying to push their agenda to further their standing. The Humanist wedding thing is just one example - they, if true humanists, should be fighting for equality of recognition in marriage - A muslim wedding is just as sacred to them as a christian one is to Chritians and a humanist wedding...? well, I find it a bit pointless when you can have a civil ceremony that is non-denominational.
1
1
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I think the opposite should be true. We should be fighting to have NO ceremonies recognised. Formally separate the religious/whatever ceremony and the state paperwork.
> we should be fighting to have ALL ceremonies recognised
I think the opposite should be true. We should be fighting to have NO ceremonies recognised. Formally separate the religious/whatever ceremony and the state paperwork.
3
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
I heard on Radio 4 yesterday that 84% of the world are religious!
> Apparently the governors of Oklahoma think so - they're trying to ban atheist marriages.
> The link appeared on my Facebook care of the British Humanist Association, who are (amongst other things) campaigning for humanist marriages to be legal in England as they are in Scotland.
I heard on Radio 4 yesterday that 84% of the world are religious!
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
I assume they mean non-religious when they say atheist.
Surely an atheist marriage would involve a declaration that god does not exist, seems a bit out of place to me.
I assume they mean non-religious when they say atheist.
Surely an atheist marriage would involve a declaration that god does not exist, seems a bit out of place to me.
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I agree, both parties in many cases.
> You've got me wondering about who are the hypocrites now.
I agree, both parties in many cases.
In reply to dissonance:
I would agree, but you need to separate the head of the church, from appointing her government first. Then boot out all the bishops from the house of lords and so forth.
> I think the opposite should be true. We should be fighting to have NO ceremonies recognised. Formally separate the religious/whatever ceremony and the state paperwork.
I would agree, but you need to separate the head of the church, from appointing her government first. Then boot out all the bishops from the house of lords and so forth.
1
In reply to ByEe
. Is there a term for an agnostic that can't be arsed?
That would be a non practising agnostic
. Is there a term for an agnostic that can't be arsed?
That would be a non practising agnostic
3
In reply to Tall Clare:
I agree, I like the Humanist Association, and it's nice to mark an occasion like a wedding.
> Some people want a bit more than a civil ceremony and choose to believe in a humanist way of doing things. That's all. Unless you're someone who likes to find the negative in anything that isn't black or white, it's hard to find much to disagree with about humanism, really.
I agree, I like the Humanist Association, and it's nice to mark an occasion like a wedding.
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
Who decides who a religious celebrant is? If loons like Scientologists are allowed to marry people, can't a humanist simply say they are a "minster of religion" to satisfy legal requirements and officiate? Or would they find that hypocritical?
Who decides who a religious celebrant is? If loons like Scientologists are allowed to marry people, can't a humanist simply say they are a "minster of religion" to satisfy legal requirements and officiate? Or would they find that hypocritical?
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
These things are always subjective, of course, for the people for whom a civil ceremony isn't 'enough', a humanist wedding can be just the thing.
How do you mean in act like a religion?
> 'Some people want a bit more than a civil ceremony ...' Hmmm, bit of a value judgement sneaked out there, I think. Civil ceremonies can be pretty bl**dy good, and as meaningful/symbol laden as you like.
These things are always subjective, of course, for the people for whom a civil ceremony isn't 'enough', a humanist wedding can be just the thing.
> There's nothing not to like in humanism, I suppose, until it starts to act like a religion perhaps? But I shan't pursue the matter further.
How do you mean in act like a religion?
Post edited at 17:08
1
In reply to Timmd:
Asking for special status to marry people perhaps? I can see the potential problems. What next- a Man U supporters wedding ceremony?
> How do you mean in act like a religion?
Asking for special status to marry people perhaps? I can see the potential problems. What next- a Man U supporters wedding ceremony?
1
In reply to Timmd:
Nothing wrong with a bit of religion, with the hatching, matching and dispatching, and generally suggesting being good is better than being bad. It's when they insist on bringing god into things it gets a bit alienating.
(Marriage, obviously, should be for anyone daft to want to give it a go.)
Nothing wrong with a bit of religion, with the hatching, matching and dispatching, and generally suggesting being good is better than being bad. It's when they insist on bringing god into things it gets a bit alienating.
(Marriage, obviously, should be for anyone daft to want to give it a go.)
In reply to Timmd:
Well, like asking for different treatment because of their beliefs for instance. The whole idea of a 'humanist minister' seems slightly odd - from the little I know wouldn't the correct word for such a person be a ... person?
Well, like asking for different treatment because of their beliefs for instance. The whole idea of a 'humanist minister' seems slightly odd - from the little I know wouldn't the correct word for such a person be a ... person?
1
In reply to MG:
Why not have a Man U supporters wedding ceremony?
If people deciding to spend their lives together is a an expression of human love, and they're Man U football supporters too, it could be something which makes their day extra special.
I couldn't see any people who call themselves humanists having a problem with it, philosophically or in principle.
I can see legislative problems with lots of different groups wanting their own kind of ceremony, but not philosophical ones.
It strikes me that the Humanist association is looking for a way for non religious ceremonies to be recognised as being on a equal footing with religious ones. If humanist ceremonies do start to take place, I'd be very surprised if the people carrying out the ceremony would have a problem with a Man-U theme to the occasion*. Humanist ceremonies could be the gateway for more variation in how unions are celebrated.
*For the record, my Mum's funeral was a humanist celebration of her life, and we were given complete freedom to have it just as we wanted it. If we'd wanted a football theme I'm in no doubt at all they would have let us have one.
> Asking for special status to marry people perhaps? I can see the potential problems. What next- a Man U supporters wedding ceremony?
Why not have a Man U supporters wedding ceremony?
If people deciding to spend their lives together is a an expression of human love, and they're Man U football supporters too, it could be something which makes their day extra special.
I couldn't see any people who call themselves humanists having a problem with it, philosophically or in principle.
I can see legislative problems with lots of different groups wanting their own kind of ceremony, but not philosophical ones.
It strikes me that the Humanist association is looking for a way for non religious ceremonies to be recognised as being on a equal footing with religious ones. If humanist ceremonies do start to take place, I'd be very surprised if the people carrying out the ceremony would have a problem with a Man-U theme to the occasion*. Humanist ceremonies could be the gateway for more variation in how unions are celebrated.
*For the record, my Mum's funeral was a humanist celebration of her life, and we were given complete freedom to have it just as we wanted it. If we'd wanted a football theme I'm in no doubt at all they would have let us have one.
Post edited at 19:09
In reply to MG:
I would find that a tad hypocritical. A humanist celebrant is not a minister of religion.
(Though, tbh, I'm not entirely sure what they bring to a wedding ceremony that a registrar doesn't.)
Being bible-belt America and all, I suspect the religious loons behind this are the kind who have no truck with evolution, and science generally. If they feel things like marriage should be denied the non-religious on general principles it seems only fair they should reciprocate by handing in their mobile phones, computers, cars...
> Who decides who a religious celebrant is? If loons like Scientologists are allowed to marry people, can't a humanist simply say they are a "minster of religion" to satisfy legal requirements and officiate? Or would they find that hypocritical?
I would find that a tad hypocritical. A humanist celebrant is not a minister of religion.
(Though, tbh, I'm not entirely sure what they bring to a wedding ceremony that a registrar doesn't.)
Being bible-belt America and all, I suspect the religious loons behind this are the kind who have no truck with evolution, and science generally. If they feel things like marriage should be denied the non-religious on general principles it seems only fair they should reciprocate by handing in their mobile phones, computers, cars...
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
That's a very good point. I think the Humanist Association is more seeking for weddings carried out by a non religious persons to be seen as equal to religious weddings, they want to elevate non religious unions ( because there's a (possibly dwindling) perception they're second rate ) rather than make humanism special, which would be something at odds with being a humanist, I would have thought.
To be honest I'm not too fussed either way, personally. I guess I might be in the future if I decide I want to spend the rest of my life with somebody, but that's academic at the mo.
> Well, like asking for different treatment because of their beliefs for instance. The whole idea of a 'humanist minister' seems slightly odd - from the little I know wouldn't the correct word for such a person be a ... person?
That's a very good point. I think the Humanist Association is more seeking for weddings carried out by a non religious persons to be seen as equal to religious weddings, they want to elevate non religious unions ( because there's a (possibly dwindling) perception they're second rate ) rather than make humanism special, which would be something at odds with being a humanist, I would have thought.
To be honest I'm not too fussed either way, personally. I guess I might be in the future if I decide I want to spend the rest of my life with somebody, but that's academic at the mo.
Post edited at 19:13
1
In reply to Timmd:
As someone who was married 7 years ago in a totally secular civil ceremony, I'm failing to understand in what way it was somehow inferior to a religious ceremony, I married my fiancée, we affirmed vows in front of our family and friends and made a public commitment that was recognised in the eyes of the law. And then everyone got drunk and danced a ceilidh.
I've been to plenty of religious weddings too of many different faiths and denominations - each was in varying degrees special to the people there but from a legal perspective they're all the same. So the only elevation of 'status' is surely in people's minds?
> .....is more seeking for weddings carried out by a non religious persons to be seen as equal to religious weddings, they want to elevate non religious unions
As someone who was married 7 years ago in a totally secular civil ceremony, I'm failing to understand in what way it was somehow inferior to a religious ceremony, I married my fiancée, we affirmed vows in front of our family and friends and made a public commitment that was recognised in the eyes of the law. And then everyone got drunk and danced a ceilidh.
I've been to plenty of religious weddings too of many different faiths and denominations - each was in varying degrees special to the people there but from a legal perspective they're all the same. So the only elevation of 'status' is surely in people's minds?
In reply to yorkshireman:
I'm just trying to explore why they could be wanting Humanist ceremonies, you make some valid points. All status is in people's minds, I guess.
I'm just trying to explore why they could be wanting Humanist ceremonies, you make some valid points. All status is in people's minds, I guess.
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
We seemed to have drifted from the point, which is that by passing that law they are attempting to ban gay marriage. I hope that it wont be successful.
We seemed to have drifted from the point, which is that by passing that law they are attempting to ban gay marriage. I hope that it wont be successful.
1
In reply to yorkshireman:
Because if you want a humanist ceremony you have to have both their ceremony and then the civil ceremony as well.
Which I can see might annoy some people.
> As someone who was married 7 years ago in a totally secular civil ceremony, I'm failing to understand in what way it was somehow inferior to a religious ceremony
Because if you want a humanist ceremony you have to have both their ceremony and then the civil ceremony as well.
Which I can see might annoy some people.
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
I have no problem agreeing with much of what humanists say. It's the believing in it bit that I struggle with.
> Some people want a bit more than a civil ceremony and choose to believe in a humanist way of doing things. That's all. Unless you're someone who likes to find the negative in anything that isn't black or white, it's hard to find much to disagree with about humanism, really.
I have no problem agreeing with much of what humanists say. It's the believing in it bit that I struggle with.
In reply to Timmd:
My point isn't whether people should or should not have certain "themes" in their wedding but whether we really want ManU (or whatever) certificated wedding officiants.
My point isn't whether people should or should not have certain "themes" in their wedding but whether we really want ManU (or whatever) certificated wedding officiants.
1
In reply to seankenny:
That's not a position on knowledge or certainty, it's a proposition about god's predicates.
How can anyone possibly know that, (given if one god exists it's likely that there is an infinite amount) the one thing we can know is that all gods share one distinctive property, that of being unknowable? Even the strongest atheist would allow that if we ever meet a god we can be fairly sure that they exist, it would seem a bit bizarre to meet a bearded figure at the pearly gates and to continue to insist that it was impossible to decide if it existed or not.
More fudge than a fudge factory in Dorset at the height of the great fudge glut.
> No. An agnostic is someone who says that we can't possibly know whether god exists or doesn't exist. It's quite a strong position on knowledge, not a fudge or an "in between" point of view.
That's not a position on knowledge or certainty, it's a proposition about god's predicates.
How can anyone possibly know that, (given if one god exists it's likely that there is an infinite amount) the one thing we can know is that all gods share one distinctive property, that of being unknowable? Even the strongest atheist would allow that if we ever meet a god we can be fairly sure that they exist, it would seem a bit bizarre to meet a bearded figure at the pearly gates and to continue to insist that it was impossible to decide if it existed or not.
More fudge than a fudge factory in Dorset at the height of the great fudge glut.
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
I think some people would want to claim that you weren't really married.
I was at a talk by a professor of theology last year and, completely off topic, it strayed onto the issue of gay marriage. The guy was actually economically far left, way to the left of the Labour party and some of his stuff would put the socialist workers to shame, but religiously he was extremely conservative. His wife was high up in the bells and smells high church but was opposed to women bishops on theological grounds and the explanation they gave for being anti gay marriage was based on extremely complex theological grounds. It was pointed out to him that they ought to believe that civil marriages weren't valid and he was quite happy with that. Unfortunately it came up in the Q+A and there wasn't time to examine it in much detail.
It boiled down to the idea that god has to sanctify the act of coitus, so unmarried sex isn't about chastity as a virtue, it's against god. Chastity is a result of that, not the cause.
There's a similar thinking behind a concept in Shia Islam, nikah mut'ah, which allows for temporary marriage, often used for people away from home for a long time so they can have sanctified sexual relations.
> You can have a civil ceremony in England and then have a humanist blessing if you want, but you can't have a marriage ceremony performed by a humanist celebrant. Civil ceremonies don't have anything to do with religion.
I think some people would want to claim that you weren't really married.
I was at a talk by a professor of theology last year and, completely off topic, it strayed onto the issue of gay marriage. The guy was actually economically far left, way to the left of the Labour party and some of his stuff would put the socialist workers to shame, but religiously he was extremely conservative. His wife was high up in the bells and smells high church but was opposed to women bishops on theological grounds and the explanation they gave for being anti gay marriage was based on extremely complex theological grounds. It was pointed out to him that they ought to believe that civil marriages weren't valid and he was quite happy with that. Unfortunately it came up in the Q+A and there wasn't time to examine it in much detail.
It boiled down to the idea that god has to sanctify the act of coitus, so unmarried sex isn't about chastity as a virtue, it's against god. Chastity is a result of that, not the cause.
There's a similar thinking behind a concept in Shia Islam, nikah mut'ah, which allows for temporary marriage, often used for people away from home for a long time so they can have sanctified sexual relations.
1
In reply to ByEek:
I do not think atheists want to disprove the existence of deities. We just don't believe in them. Ok, we might be cornered by creationists wanting to disprove scientific arguments and thereby forced into opposition, but that is more a matter of them being missionaries in a modern sense. Luckily it is a matter of arguments these days. I don't think my ancestors would have been christened without being threatened, persecuted, tortured and/or killed.
> When you stand back from the argument between atheists and religionists, you discover that they are basically arguing about the same thing. i.e. both believe they are right but neither can prove conclusively that the other is wrong.
I do not think atheists want to disprove the existence of deities. We just don't believe in them. Ok, we might be cornered by creationists wanting to disprove scientific arguments and thereby forced into opposition, but that is more a matter of them being missionaries in a modern sense. Luckily it is a matter of arguments these days. I don't think my ancestors would have been christened without being threatened, persecuted, tortured and/or killed.
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
People want more than a simple civil ceremony, which, at its most basic, is simply making a public affirmation (not an oath; that requires a deity).
They want some symbolic ritual.
Two atheist friends invented their own ceremony, pulling rituals from the marriage ceremonies of many cultures. It was lovely.
People want more than a simple civil ceremony, which, at its most basic, is simply making a public affirmation (not an oath; that requires a deity).
They want some symbolic ritual.
Two atheist friends invented their own ceremony, pulling rituals from the marriage ceremonies of many cultures. It was lovely.
In reply to MG:
This is just about the legal status of the celebrant though really isn't it. If you want you can have a Man U supporters wedding ceremony, I'm pretty sure you can get married at Old Trafford.
As things stand the state does give certain groups special status.
> Asking for special status to marry people perhaps? I can see the potential problems. What next- a Man U supporters wedding ceremony?
This is just about the legal status of the celebrant though really isn't it. If you want you can have a Man U supporters wedding ceremony, I'm pretty sure you can get married at Old Trafford.
As things stand the state does give certain groups special status.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Technically, its the legal status of the building.
If its classified as a religious building then you can get a registrar to attend the service regardless of the celebrants legal status.
Although they can be authorised in their own right I think it still only counts as a religious service in the right building with the exception of Quakers and Jews
C of E vicars automatically count as authorised I think.
> This is just about the legal status of the celebrant though really isn't it.
Technically, its the legal status of the building.
If its classified as a religious building then you can get a registrar to attend the service regardless of the celebrants legal status.
Although they can be authorised in their own right I think it still only counts as a religious service in the right building with the exception of Quakers and Jews
C of E vicars automatically count as authorised I think.
1
In reply to dissonance:
Exactly. 'Marriage' *should* be only for the religious - since they're so bloody touchy about the word, they can keep it IMO. Everyone should have access to the state paperwork ('civil partnership' would be a sensible term, but that now has totally gay connotations) and everyone should be able to do whatever ritual thing they like, within reason. Confusing the two things - a legal contract and a load of mystical/sentimental/ritual blah - is completely unhelpful, and elevating certain forms of mystical/sentimental/ritual blah above others and granting them legal status and weight is simply unfair.
> I think the opposite should be true. We should be fighting to have NO ceremonies recognised. Formally separate the religious/whatever ceremony and the state paperwork.
Exactly. 'Marriage' *should* be only for the religious - since they're so bloody touchy about the word, they can keep it IMO. Everyone should have access to the state paperwork ('civil partnership' would be a sensible term, but that now has totally gay connotations) and everyone should be able to do whatever ritual thing they like, within reason. Confusing the two things - a legal contract and a load of mystical/sentimental/ritual blah - is completely unhelpful, and elevating certain forms of mystical/sentimental/ritual blah above others and granting them legal status and weight is simply unfair.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Couldn't agree more. The sooner atheists and their kin stay away from churches the better. The demarcation lines will become more obvious.
Couldn't agree more. The sooner atheists and their kin stay away from churches the better. The demarcation lines will become more obvious.
In reply to marsbar:
Ditto.
> We seemed to have drifted from the point, which is that by passing that law they are attempting to ban gay marriage. I hope that it wont be successful.
Ditto.
In reply to ByEek:
The whole 'athiest' word is a religionist conspiracy to frame the argument in their terms by using categories which are based on their god theory. The actual argument isn't about what you currently believe about the god theory or any other theory it is about how you go about deciding what to believe. It is about faith versus reason.
You might as well call people in the rational camp 'a teapot-ists' because they don't currently believe there are teapots flying round Saturn. If a NASA spacecraft took a picture of a teapot flying round Saturn they would become teapotists, similarly if someone came up with convincing evidence there was a god then a rational person would become a theist. What they refuse to do is believe in god - or anything else - on faith.
> When you stand back from the argument between atheists and religionists, you discover that they are basically arguing about the same thing. i.e. both believe they are right but neither can prove conclusively that the other is wrong.
The whole 'athiest' word is a religionist conspiracy to frame the argument in their terms by using categories which are based on their god theory. The actual argument isn't about what you currently believe about the god theory or any other theory it is about how you go about deciding what to believe. It is about faith versus reason.
You might as well call people in the rational camp 'a teapot-ists' because they don't currently believe there are teapots flying round Saturn. If a NASA spacecraft took a picture of a teapot flying round Saturn they would become teapotists, similarly if someone came up with convincing evidence there was a god then a rational person would become a theist. What they refuse to do is believe in god - or anything else - on faith.
2
In reply to winhill:
It allows for men to 'marry' prostitutes for an hour at a time in Iran where prostitution is illegal, too.
> There's a similar thinking behind a concept in Shia Islam, nikah mut'ah, which allows for temporary marriage, often used for people away from home for a long time so they can have sanctified sexual relations.
It allows for men to 'marry' prostitutes for an hour at a time in Iran where prostitution is illegal, too.
Post edited at 00:23
In reply to seankenny:
To quibble, that's not actually true as Huxley defined the word.
Huxley was responding to people who claimed a personal revelation of God's existence. They said that they knew that God existed because they were in personal contact with him.
Huxley replied that he had no such revealed knowledge (a-gnostic, no revealed knowledge, cf "gnosticism"). Thus, he, Huxley, had to judge the matter on the evidence around him and come to conclusions about the existence of gods from the evidence in nature.
One could also say that agnosticism entails never knowing with absolute certainty whether gods exist (they could always be hiding), but it certainly doesn't prevent having opinions nor does it prevent lack of belief (= atheism).
Thus agnosticism is a *process* not a conclusion. Most atheists consider that they are also agnostics, in the sense that Huxley defined the word.
> No. An agnostic is someone who says that we can't possibly know whether god exists or doesn't exist. It's quite a strong position on knowledge, not a fudge or an "in between" point of view.
To quibble, that's not actually true as Huxley defined the word.
Huxley was responding to people who claimed a personal revelation of God's existence. They said that they knew that God existed because they were in personal contact with him.
Huxley replied that he had no such revealed knowledge (a-gnostic, no revealed knowledge, cf "gnosticism"). Thus, he, Huxley, had to judge the matter on the evidence around him and come to conclusions about the existence of gods from the evidence in nature.
One could also say that agnosticism entails never knowing with absolute certainty whether gods exist (they could always be hiding), but it certainly doesn't prevent having opinions nor does it prevent lack of belief (= atheism).
Thus agnosticism is a *process* not a conclusion. Most atheists consider that they are also agnostics, in the sense that Huxley defined the word.
2
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Yes, because the world needs more of this attitude!
Surely believers want to love thy neighbour, and maybe try to convert the heathens?
I've no quibble with people who choose to believe - I've got atheist, Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends, some very devout, some completely non-practising. They know I think their beliefs are ludicrous* but we both respect each others right to a differing opinion, and my relationships with them are based on what they are like as people, not what religion they belong to.
Besides, churches are a great place to walk inside and cool down on a really hot summer's day, and have some great architecture to gawp at. I even owned an apartment in London which was in a converted church, complete with communal bike storage in the crypt and everything - so religion has its uses
*in the sense that on any rational level believing in the supernatural contrary to any evidence is simply unsuportable
> Couldn't agree more. The sooner atheists and their kin stay away from churches the better. The demarcation lines will become more obvious.
Yes, because the world needs more of this attitude!
Surely believers want to love thy neighbour, and maybe try to convert the heathens?
I've no quibble with people who choose to believe - I've got atheist, Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends, some very devout, some completely non-practising. They know I think their beliefs are ludicrous* but we both respect each others right to a differing opinion, and my relationships with them are based on what they are like as people, not what religion they belong to.
Besides, churches are a great place to walk inside and cool down on a really hot summer's day, and have some great architecture to gawp at. I even owned an apartment in London which was in a converted church, complete with communal bike storage in the crypt and everything - so religion has its uses
*in the sense that on any rational level believing in the supernatural contrary to any evidence is simply unsuportable
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Ahhh, Coel. Knew you'd be along at some point, like a moth to a flame. Or some other, possibly less flattering insect-based metaphor.
Anyhow, you are incorrect, but the manner you're incorrect - the appeal to an original authority, the desire to buttress a belief ("there is no god") with an intellectual justification about what we can and can't know - as with so many of your arguments, it has all the hallmarks of a true believer. And as such, it is pointless arguing with you and I won't waste my time in doing so.
Ahhh, Coel. Knew you'd be along at some point, like a moth to a flame. Or some other, possibly less flattering insect-based metaphor.
Anyhow, you are incorrect, but the manner you're incorrect - the appeal to an original authority, the desire to buttress a belief ("there is no god") with an intellectual justification about what we can and can't know - as with so many of your arguments, it has all the hallmarks of a true believer. And as such, it is pointless arguing with you and I won't waste my time in doing so.
2
In reply to seankenny:
But Coel didn't say "there is no god", lack of belief in god doesn't equal belief in a lack of god. But you know that.
But Coel didn't say "there is no god", lack of belief in god doesn't equal belief in a lack of god. But you know that.
5
In reply to all:
We appear to have drifted away from the OP a little. we aren't talking about the philosophical argument of what it means to be atheist/agnostic and everything in between. it's about the recognition of marriage ONLY if it is Christian in nature or Civil ceremony.
I don't think it matters where one chooses to get married or by whom (as long as they are qualified to do so) and ALL marriages should be recognised as equal. Obviously there are marriage issues in some cultures surrounds forced and arranged marriages and sham marriages but they are not the issue of the institution (though they should be aware of such issues) but of the culture in which these crimes are committed.
Arguing over who believes what is pointless - people can believe what they want and where they want as long as it's not pushed on to the general public.
We appear to have drifted away from the OP a little. we aren't talking about the philosophical argument of what it means to be atheist/agnostic and everything in between. it's about the recognition of marriage ONLY if it is Christian in nature or Civil ceremony.
I don't think it matters where one chooses to get married or by whom (as long as they are qualified to do so) and ALL marriages should be recognised as equal. Obviously there are marriage issues in some cultures surrounds forced and arranged marriages and sham marriages but they are not the issue of the institution (though they should be aware of such issues) but of the culture in which these crimes are committed.
Arguing over who believes what is pointless - people can believe what they want and where they want as long as it's not pushed on to the general public.
Post edited at 10:21
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Care to explain the difference for those of us lacking your (and Coel's) intellectual sophistication?
Care to explain the difference for those of us lacking your (and Coel's) intellectual sophistication?
1
In reply to seankenny:
So you don't even understand the distinction that Sir Chasm made? At the same time as pronouncing on the meaning of "agnosticism" and high-handedly declaring me wrong?
> Care to explain the difference for those of us lacking your (and Coel's) intellectual sophistication?
So you don't even understand the distinction that Sir Chasm made? At the same time as pronouncing on the meaning of "agnosticism" and high-handedly declaring me wrong?
2
In reply to seankenny:
Not really, you come across as a reasonably intelligent chap but if you can't understand that perfectly simple sentence I'm not going to waste my time doing so.
> Care to explain the difference for those of us lacking your (and Coel's) intellectual sophistication?
Not really, you come across as a reasonably intelligent chap but if you can't understand that perfectly simple sentence I'm not going to waste my time doing so.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Come come, you look as if you're afraid of being tripped up!
> Not really, you come across as a reasonably intelligent chap but if you can't understand that perfectly simple sentence I'm not going to waste my time doing so.
Come come, you look as if you're afraid of being tripped up!
1
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
But the question is what makes someone qualified. I think it should hinge on being in the employment of the Local Authority in the appropriate role, supported by the appropriate training. And nothing else will do.
This would be the intention of tearing away religion's stranglehold on marriage. Making certain religious officials qualified to do the work of the local government is where the crux of the issue lies. Who's in, who's out, who's marriage is a proper marriage, who's is "merely" a civil partnership - we don't need this crap.
> I don't think it matters where one chooses to get married or by whom (as long as they are qualified to do so)
But the question is what makes someone qualified. I think it should hinge on being in the employment of the Local Authority in the appropriate role, supported by the appropriate training. And nothing else will do.
> and ALL marriages should be recognised as equal.
This would be the intention of tearing away religion's stranglehold on marriage. Making certain religious officials qualified to do the work of the local government is where the crux of the issue lies. Who's in, who's out, who's marriage is a proper marriage, who's is "merely" a civil partnership - we don't need this crap.
1
1
In reply to seankenny:
Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.
For example: We might choose to have a discussion on whether intelligent life exists on Kepler-22b. If I were to ask you directly whether you believed such life existed, you would probably answer no, you would go on to explain that there was (currently) no way of knowing, and as such there was no evidence to make such a claim; even though such a statement may turn out to be true. You can see that this does not leave you open to criticism on the basis that you are taking a dogmatic and unsupported position on the subject.
In essence, that is the atheist position wrt god(s).
> Care to explain the difference for those of us lacking your (and Coel's) intellectual sophistication?
Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.
For example: We might choose to have a discussion on whether intelligent life exists on Kepler-22b. If I were to ask you directly whether you believed such life existed, you would probably answer no, you would go on to explain that there was (currently) no way of knowing, and as such there was no evidence to make such a claim; even though such a statement may turn out to be true. You can see that this does not leave you open to criticism on the basis that you are taking a dogmatic and unsupported position on the subject.
In essence, that is the atheist position wrt god(s).
Post edited at 11:22
In reply to seankenny:
No idea what the wider argument is about (well aright it looks like a pointless semantics srap), but
If you don't believe in God, it does not follow that you believe there is no God, ie you can tick the 'Don't know' box.
> Care to explain the difference for those of us lacking your (and Coel's) intellectual sophistication?
No idea what the wider argument is about (well aright it looks like a pointless semantics srap), but
If you don't believe in God, it does not follow that you believe there is no God, ie you can tick the 'Don't know' box.
Post edited at 11:27
1
In reply to MarkJH:
With one very important caveat. Although it is highly unlikely (from a probability perspective) that there is intelligent life on Kepler-22b, we know from thousands of years of scientific inquiry, observation and discovery that it is at least a possibility that we can entertain.
The existence of god/afterlife/fairies etc is currently impossible based on all our known rational scientific understanding, so the logic and justification behind answering 'no' to these two questions is very different.
> Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.
> For example: We might choose to have a discussion on whether intelligent life exists on Kepler-22b. If I were to ask you directly whether you believed such life existed, you would probably answer no....
> In essence, that is the atheist position wrt god(s).
With one very important caveat. Although it is highly unlikely (from a probability perspective) that there is intelligent life on Kepler-22b, we know from thousands of years of scientific inquiry, observation and discovery that it is at least a possibility that we can entertain.
The existence of god/afterlife/fairies etc is currently impossible based on all our known rational scientific understanding, so the logic and justification behind answering 'no' to these two questions is very different.
In reply to Tall Clare:
How about this? Any "god", sky fairy or other spiritual power that doesn't want people to get married can stop them in person, rather than sending puny mortals to do its pathetic bidding?
How about this? Any "god", sky fairy or other spiritual power that doesn't want people to get married can stop them in person, rather than sending puny mortals to do its pathetic bidding?
1
1
In reply to Tall Clare:
Humanist celebrant?! Isn't this like turning non-belief into a belief form?
> You can have a civil ceremony in England and then have a humanist blessing if you want, but you can't have a marriage ceremony performed by a humanist celebrant. Civil ceremonies don't have anything to do with religion.
Humanist celebrant?! Isn't this like turning non-belief into a belief form?
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit round Saturn or that 2,000 years ago someone rose from the dead or that someone who went into a room by themselves room carrying a coin and came out claiming they tossed it 20 times and every single time it came up heads was lying. But based on the data available all these statements are highly improbable.
So my position is not so much 'don't know' as 'almost certainly not'.
> If you don't believe in God, it does not follow that you believe there is no God, ie you can tick the 'Don't know' box.
I can't prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit round Saturn or that 2,000 years ago someone rose from the dead or that someone who went into a room by themselves room carrying a coin and came out claiming they tossed it 20 times and every single time it came up heads was lying. But based on the data available all these statements are highly improbable.
So my position is not so much 'don't know' as 'almost certainly not'.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
Humanists do not believe in gods, but they do believe in humanity.
Humanists have a whole set of beliefs about humans and about human society, and might well like to celebrate their wedding with a celebrant of a similar world-view, what is so strange about that?
> Humanist celebrant?! Isn't this like turning non-belief into a belief form?
Humanists do not believe in gods, but they do believe in humanity.
Humanists have a whole set of beliefs about humans and about human society, and might well like to celebrate their wedding with a celebrant of a similar world-view, what is so strange about that?
In reply to yorkshireman:
I don't think that's true. They're just additions that add no substantive value to a description of the world - although they do add emotional value to many.
For me the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is one that crops up a lot: the agnostic is bothered by the logical possibility of the existence of god, and sees that to be "rational" you're obliged to be interested in what's logically possible. A more pragmatic or scientific (as opposed to philosophical) idea of what "rational" means is different. Just because something's logically possible, and someone has proposed it, or millions of people believe in it for reasons that have good explanation, doesn't mean it's worthy of acknowledgement in terms of what's a part of reality and what's not. In this scientific world view, you don't have time to worry about whether things are logically possible or not, it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether something is useful in describing the underlying objective reality. If it isn't, it doesn't exit (this isn't a logically watertight assertion, it's taking a pragmatic view on whether it's worth acknowledging). God (etc) falls into this category. As rational scientists, we don't bother acknowledging the logical possibility of God's existence and declaring it unknowable, because it's pointless. By the same token we'd have to take an interest in everything else that someone had suggested might exist but adds no value to our understanding of reality.
The philosopher, searching for a logically complete and consistent position on everything is just going to have to spend the rest of his life sitting on his arse befuddled by the whole thing, because this kind of deductive thinking is absolutely useless in understanding anything or getting on with life. Which is why I tend to roll my eyes in response to those who believe that agnosticism is a more rational position than atheism. They're not wrong, they've just got a daft definition of 'rational'.
> The existence of god/afterlife/fairies etc is currently impossible based on all our known rational scientific understanding
I don't think that's true. They're just additions that add no substantive value to a description of the world - although they do add emotional value to many.
For me the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is one that crops up a lot: the agnostic is bothered by the logical possibility of the existence of god, and sees that to be "rational" you're obliged to be interested in what's logically possible. A more pragmatic or scientific (as opposed to philosophical) idea of what "rational" means is different. Just because something's logically possible, and someone has proposed it, or millions of people believe in it for reasons that have good explanation, doesn't mean it's worthy of acknowledgement in terms of what's a part of reality and what's not. In this scientific world view, you don't have time to worry about whether things are logically possible or not, it doesn't matter. All that matters is whether something is useful in describing the underlying objective reality. If it isn't, it doesn't exit (this isn't a logically watertight assertion, it's taking a pragmatic view on whether it's worth acknowledging). God (etc) falls into this category. As rational scientists, we don't bother acknowledging the logical possibility of God's existence and declaring it unknowable, because it's pointless. By the same token we'd have to take an interest in everything else that someone had suggested might exist but adds no value to our understanding of reality.
The philosopher, searching for a logically complete and consistent position on everything is just going to have to spend the rest of his life sitting on his arse befuddled by the whole thing, because this kind of deductive thinking is absolutely useless in understanding anything or getting on with life. Which is why I tend to roll my eyes in response to those who believe that agnosticism is a more rational position than atheism. They're not wrong, they've just got a daft definition of 'rational'.
Post edited at 11:55
1
1
In reply to MG:
Why not? Why would that be worse than going to a registry office, or be undesirable in it's own way?
It'd still be people marking & celebrating that they're getting together...
> My point isn't whether people should or should not have certain "themes" in their wedding but whether we really want ManU (or whatever) certificated wedding officiants.
Why not? Why would that be worse than going to a registry office, or be undesirable in it's own way?
It'd still be people marking & celebrating that they're getting together...
Post edited at 14:41
1
In reply to Timmd:
Because it would devalue and trivialise the idea of marriage. Rather than a serious, public commitment between two people, it would become just another commercial "experience".
Maybe you find Elvis themed drive through marriage ceremonies as available in Las Vegas fine, for example. I don't
Because it would devalue and trivialise the idea of marriage. Rather than a serious, public commitment between two people, it would become just another commercial "experience".
Maybe you find Elvis themed drive through marriage ceremonies as available in Las Vegas fine, for example. I don't
In reply to Timmd:
There's nothing to prevent Man U supporters becoming registrars (some probably are already), so I can't really see what your problem is.
There's nothing to prevent Man U supporters becoming registrars (some probably are already), so I can't really see what your problem is.
In reply to MG:
The simple solution to this "in or out" debate, when it comes to people's cultural tastes, is that everything is out. The documents are signed as prescribed by a single law, and what you do in addition to that to give it your own personal flavour is your own damned business that the state has absolutely no involvement in (unless someone calls the police).
> Because it would devalue and trivialise the idea of marriage. Rather than a serious, public commitment between two people, it would become just another commercial "experience".
> Maybe you find Elvis themed drive through marriage ceremonies as available in Las Vegas fine, for example. I don't
The simple solution to this "in or out" debate, when it comes to people's cultural tastes, is that everything is out. The documents are signed as prescribed by a single law, and what you do in addition to that to give it your own personal flavour is your own damned business that the state has absolutely no involvement in (unless someone calls the police).
In reply to MG:
It's your subjective opinion that it would devalue and trivialise marriage.
Wouldn't you agree that how solid a couples' relationship and love for one another is more important when they get married than whether they go to a registry office or through an Elvis drive-through (or where ever else), surely the solidity of the relationship is much much more important than the style of the marriage?
> Because it would devalue and trivialise the idea of marriage. Rather than a serious, public commitment between two people, it would become just another commercial "experience".
It's your subjective opinion that it would devalue and trivialise marriage.
> Maybe you find Elvis themed drive through marriage ceremonies as available in Las Vegas fine, for example. I don't
Wouldn't you agree that how solid a couples' relationship and love for one another is more important when they get married than whether they go to a registry office or through an Elvis drive-through (or where ever else), surely the solidity of the relationship is much much more important than the style of the marriage?
Post edited at 16:13
In reply to Timmd:
Yes, sorry, I'll stop having opinions.
I reckon they will be some connection between the two. At a guess Elvis weddings don't last very long, typically.
> It's your subjective opinion that it would devalue and trivialise marriage.
Yes, sorry, I'll stop having opinions.
> Wouldn't you agree that how solid a couples' relationship and love for one another is more important when they get married than whether they go to a registry office or through an Elvis drive-through (or where ever else),
I reckon they will be some connection between the two. At a guess Elvis weddings don't last very long, typically.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
He seemed to stop posting after people started taking the piss in referring to him in posts in threads where he wasn't already posting, and responding very strongly to his posts, I thought.
Hopefully it's that, and he isn't ill or something. I find him annoying sometimes, but ill health is no fun.
> Not sure - where's Bruce when you need him?
He seemed to stop posting after people started taking the piss in referring to him in posts in threads where he wasn't already posting, and responding very strongly to his posts, I thought.
Hopefully it's that, and he isn't ill or something. I find him annoying sometimes, but ill health is no fun.
1
In reply to MG:
You said 'It will devalue marriage', so I simply pointed out that is a subjective opinion.
If you want to post in a 'humph' style when somebody points out something you post is a subjective opinion?
It would be interesting to find out. Whatever the truth about Elvis weddings, it doesn't change the fact that a marriage is as meaningful as the commitment of both people involved is, rather than the style, though.
To say otherwise could give weight to the argument that only religious marriages are valid (for people who hold that opinion).
> Yes, sorry, I'll stop having opinions.
You said 'It will devalue marriage', so I simply pointed out that is a subjective opinion.
If you want to post in a 'humph' style when somebody points out something you post is a subjective opinion?
> I reckon they will be some connection between the two. At a guess Elvis weddings don't last very long, typically.
It would be interesting to find out. Whatever the truth about Elvis weddings, it doesn't change the fact that a marriage is as meaningful as the commitment of both people involved is, rather than the style, though.
To say otherwise could give weight to the argument that only religious marriages are valid (for people who hold that opinion).
Post edited at 16:26
In reply to Timmd:
' it doesn't change the fact that a marriage is as meaningful as the commitment of both people involved is, rather than the style, though. '
Well the only 'fact' that is obvious to me is that the style is a reflection of what the participants feel. If somebody's style is to have a casual wedding, where few friends and relatives are invited, put together on a whim, then one could reasonably infer that the marriage may not be getting off to the most auspicious start.
Just my opinion, mind...
' it doesn't change the fact that a marriage is as meaningful as the commitment of both people involved is, rather than the style, though. '
Well the only 'fact' that is obvious to me is that the style is a reflection of what the participants feel. If somebody's style is to have a casual wedding, where few friends and relatives are invited, put together on a whim, then one could reasonably infer that the marriage may not be getting off to the most auspicious start.
Just my opinion, mind...
In reply to Tall Clare:
I think the state should offer partnership contracts, and the religions should offer marriages as they define them. Then you can take one, both, or neither
I think the state should offer partnership contracts, and the religions should offer marriages as they define them. Then you can take one, both, or neither
2
In reply to MikeTS:
I would be against the "one" bit since should be civil + religious or civil.
Otherwise you can end up with people thinking the religious service gives the legal protection and finding out the hard way it doesnt when a divorce or death happens.
> I think the state should offer partnership contracts, and the religions should offer marriages as they define them. Then you can take one, both, or neither
I would be against the "one" bit since should be civil + religious or civil.
Otherwise you can end up with people thinking the religious service gives the legal protection and finding out the hard way it doesnt when a divorce or death happens.
1
In reply to dissonance:
It would have to be clear that only the state version provides legal protections. And you can take it or leave it. With or without the religious form.
> I would be against the "one" bit since should be civil + religious or civil.
> Otherwise you can end up with people thinking the religious service gives the legal protection and finding out the hard way it doesnt when a divorce or death happens.
It would have to be clear that only the state version provides legal protections. And you can take it or leave it. With or without the religious form.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
With the exception of the "put together on whim" bit I would see that as exactly the opposite. To me it would say the wedding was about them and their feelings for one another above all else whereas a big flashy wedding with all the trimmings seems to be more about showing off to friends and relatives than an expression of two individuals devotion to one another.
> If somebody's style is to have a casual wedding, where few friends and relatives are invited, put together on a whim, then one could reasonably infer that the marriage may not be getting off to the most auspicious start.
With the exception of the "put together on whim" bit I would see that as exactly the opposite. To me it would say the wedding was about them and their feelings for one another above all else whereas a big flashy wedding with all the trimmings seems to be more about showing off to friends and relatives than an expression of two individuals devotion to one another.
1
In reply to dissonance:
I'd go for the civil procedure as being the legally binding marriage, and make the religious bit the ritual part I mentioned earlier; no legal significance, but maybe much more personal significance. Pick your ritual of choice, be it Catholic mass, Elvis chapel or ManU.
I'd go for the civil procedure as being the legally binding marriage, and make the religious bit the ritual part I mentioned earlier; no legal significance, but maybe much more personal significance. Pick your ritual of choice, be it Catholic mass, Elvis chapel or ManU.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Seems to be plenty of support for this sensible position on this thread, yet I can't see it being politically palatable. Especially not with those f^cking Bishops still hanging around in the Lords, god only knows what for. In a hundred years or so it might even be policy!
> I'd go for the civil procedure as being the legally binding marriage, and make the religious bit the ritual part...
Seems to be plenty of support for this sensible position on this thread, yet I can't see it being politically palatable. Especially not with those f^cking Bishops still hanging around in the Lords, god only knows what for. In a hundred years or so it might even be policy!
In reply to Coel Hellier:
So it's
But what makes this 'Humanist Celebrant' any different to any other person off the street with a particular world view?
So it's
> Humanists do not believe in gods, but they do believe in humanity.
> Humanists have a whole set of beliefs about humans and about human society, and might well like to celebrate their wedding with a celebrant of a similar world-view, what is so strange about that?
But what makes this 'Humanist Celebrant' any different to any other person off the street with a particular world view?
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
The Humanist Celebrant will be practised and trained at devising and conducting an appropriate ceremony that is in-line with the beliefs and world view of the couple. Typically they would meet beforehand and discuss the ceremony. Those who have attended humanist weddings or funerals, conducted by such a person, have often been impressed and moved by the event.
The registry office would not do any of that, they'd just marry you in a short and functional manner. Thus many people would prefer to be married by a celebrant of their choice. It is quite wrong, as now, that you can only do that by asking a religious minister and getting a ceremony with religious content.
> But what makes this 'Humanist Celebrant' any different to any other person off the street with a particular world view?
The Humanist Celebrant will be practised and trained at devising and conducting an appropriate ceremony that is in-line with the beliefs and world view of the couple. Typically they would meet beforehand and discuss the ceremony. Those who have attended humanist weddings or funerals, conducted by such a person, have often been impressed and moved by the event.
The registry office would not do any of that, they'd just marry you in a short and functional manner. Thus many people would prefer to be married by a celebrant of their choice. It is quite wrong, as now, that you can only do that by asking a religious minister and getting a ceremony with religious content.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Slightly off topic, but it's also fairly wrong, in my opinion, that religions hold the monopoly on some aspects of the ceremony that have a fair amount of cultural significance, you can't say the traditional "in sickness and in health etc." vows for instance, which until after "til death do us part" don't have any overt religiosity to them, outside a religious service. Separating out the legal and ceremonial parts of the ceremony would hopefully involve sorting that out as well, so individual couples can make a commitment to each other in whichever way they want and end up with the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage.
Slightly off topic, but it's also fairly wrong, in my opinion, that religions hold the monopoly on some aspects of the ceremony that have a fair amount of cultural significance, you can't say the traditional "in sickness and in health etc." vows for instance, which until after "til death do us part" don't have any overt religiosity to them, outside a religious service. Separating out the legal and ceremonial parts of the ceremony would hopefully involve sorting that out as well, so individual couples can make a commitment to each other in whichever way they want and end up with the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage.
In reply to kestrelspl:
This is pure protectionism on the part of the religions: "If you want religious content, you need to come to us".
This is pure protectionism on the part of the religions: "If you want religious content, you need to come to us".
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
No it's not, it's a reflection of the style of wedding they want to have. Blimey, why do people on UKC tend to be so judgemental?
If the two people getting married are both life long fans of Elvis, it could be the most meaningful wedding they could have (for them).
Different strokes for different folks...
> ' it doesn't change the fact that a marriage is as meaningful as the commitment of both people involved is, rather than the style, though. '
> Well the only 'fact' that is obvious to me is that the style is a reflection of what the participants feel. If somebody's style is to have a casual wedding, where few friends and relatives are invited, put together on a whim, then one could reasonably infer that the marriage may not be getting off to the most auspicious start.
> Just my opinion, mind...
No it's not, it's a reflection of the style of wedding they want to have. Blimey, why do people on UKC tend to be so judgemental?
If the two people getting married are both life long fans of Elvis, it could be the most meaningful wedding they could have (for them).
Different strokes for different folks...
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...