Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on November 28, 2015, 02:38:07 PM
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/11/high-court-rules-against-education-secretary-for-leaving-non-religious-views-out-of-new-re-gcse
The determination of religionists to ding religion into the heads of our children, especially the young ones.
ippy
-
I'm all for secular humanism to be taught in schools. It will end the number of numpties who mistake secularism for secular humanism. A con perpetrated by the NSS and BHS which has led some to mistakingly labour under the delusion of being somehow a protector of religious rights while seeking to destroy religion.
Ippy.....nibbling away at religionists makes you sound like some kind of parasite.
-
I'm all for secular humanism to be taught in schools. It will end the number of numpties who mistake secularism for secular humanism. A con perpetrated by the NSS and BHS
British Home Stores? The bastards >:(
-
British Home Stores? The bastards >:(
Sorry....it seems society isn't an apt phrase for British Humanists...........................................It should be Association.
My not terribly good.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/11/high-court-rules-against-education-secretary-for-leaving-non-religious-views-out-of-new-re-gcse
The determination of religionists to ding religion into the heads of our children, especially the young ones.
ippy
ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?
-
ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?
I don't know if ippy does but I do:
http://www.christiansinparliament.org.uk/members-stories/rt-hon-nicky-morgan-mp/
Tons more if you want them.
-
ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?
The bigot who Cameron thought should be equality minister.
http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-Nicky-Morgan-explains-voted/story-18148357-detail/story.html
I think that [gay marriage] was one of the issues people, especially those who asked me to vote against, found hardest to accept and it also tied in with my own Christian faith too.
-
Add Squeaky to the list ;)
Surprised you didn't know already, Hope - the Equalities Minister having been openly against equal marriage was in the papers and everything.
-
The bigot who Cameron thought should be equality minister.
http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-Nicky-Morgan-explains-voted/story-18148357-detail/story.html
Thanks for that SV. I had a feeling that I'd heard something - but had never seen anything written.
-
Surprised you didn't know already, Hope - the Equalities Minister having been openly against equal marriage was in the papers and everything.
I was aware that she was agin gay marriage, but then I know several gays who have no faith at all who have been against the idea for years.
-
To return to the OP itself, I and most religious folk I know have no problem with non-religious ideas being taught in that section of the school curriculum. They regularly are in my experience. Rather like the idea of the disestablishing of the CofE, where most opposition seems to come from MPs and those not from the CofE, it is often those who don't hold any religious belief who seem most keen that the status be retained.
-
I was aware that she was agin gay marriage, but then I know several gays who have no faith at all who have been against the idea for years.
Grand. Were any of them Equalities Minister?
-
Grand. Were any of them Equalities Minister?
No, and they didn't believe that this was an issue for the Equalities Minister, because they didn't and still don't see it as an equalities issue, a view that I agree with them on.
-
No, and they didn't believe that this was an issue for the Equalities Minister, because they didn't and still don't see it as an equalities issue, a view that I agree with them on.
Not that it matters hugely since the matter is now done and dusted, but how could it possibly not be an equalities issue? Do explain.
-
The appointment of Morgan was astonishing enough; that she couldn't put aside her prejudices in order to do her job properly should be a resignation matter, surely.
-
Not that it matters hugely since the matter is now done and dusted, but how could it possibly not be an equalities issue? Do explain.
The folk I referred to regarded heterosexual relationships and therefore marriage on a very different level to homosexual relationships and argued that homosexual marriage was therefore not equal to heterosexual.
Now, that was a view that I understand they had held for many years, certainly since before I knew them and likely before the topic of gay marraige became popular.
-
The folk I referred to regarded heterosexual relationships and therefore marriage on a very different level to homosexual relationships and argued that homosexual marriage was therefore not equal to heterosexual.
Why on earth would they or indeed anybody hold such a bizarre attitude?
-
The appointment of Morgan was astonishing enough; that she couldn't put aside her prejudices in order to do her job properly should be a resignation matter, surely.
It was almost as daft an appointment as her appointment to the Education post. Don't think I've agreed with a single thing she has said since that appointment.
-
Why on earth would they or indeed anybody hold such a bizarre attitude?
Why do you believe it to be a bizarre attitude? Is it because you disagree with them?
-
It was almost as daft an appointment as her appointment to the Education post. Don't think I've agreed with a single thing she has said since that appointment.
I don't know of any examples of her personal beliefs standing in brazen conflict with her position as Education Secretary as they did when she was Equalities Minister, however.
-
Why do you believe it to be a bizarre attitude? Is it because you disagree with them?
I would find it impossible to disagree more than I do; what's bizarre is why anyone would think that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are "on a very different level" to each other and not equal.
-
I would find it impossible to disagree more than I do; what's bizarre is why anyone would think that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are "on a very different level" to each other and not equal.
Well, I can't speak for their reasoning, but perhaps they feel that homosexual relationships are superior to heterosexual ones. Perhaps they feel that it is unfair (to a child) to intentionally bring one up in a single-gender family.
I suspect that they would find your thinking no less bizarre than you think theirs.
-
Well, I can't speak for their reasoning, but perhaps they feel that homosexual relationships are superior to heterosexual ones.
You seem to be locked in a cycle of repetition - you've already said as much; I'm interested to know why anyone would hold such a peculiar belief.
Perhaps they feel that it is unfair (to a child) to intentionally bring one up in a single-gender family.
Obviously such people would be unaware of the evidence that children raised thusly do no worse and every bit as well as those raised with opposite-sex parents.
I suspect that they would find your thinking no less bizarre than you think theirs.
People with odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs always say that.
-
... I'm interested to know why anyone would hold such a peculiar belief.
There are plenty of gay people who opposed gay marriage - go out, find them and ask them.
Obviously such people would be unaware of the evidence that children raised thusly do no worse and every bit as well as those raised with opposite-sex parents.
Not sure that there are any longitudinal studies to prove or disprove this assertion, Shakes.
People with odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs always say that.
So, since you believe that their opinion to be bizarre, it clearly shows that you are prone to "odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs".
-
There are plenty of gay people who opposed gay marriage - go out, find them and ask them.
I don't need to - I'm already aware of them. What matters is whether somebody is against something for themselves but is happy for others to avail themselves of it if they want to (which is typically the attitude I saw in gay people who opposed equal marriage - they were uninterested rather than actively hostile, regarding it as superfluous) or whether somebody thinks their opposition to something is such that they're entitled to try to forbid it others. Many opponents of equal marriage fell into the latter category.
Not sure that there are any longitudinal studies to prove or disprove this assertion, Shakes.
You could always have a look.
So, since you believe that their opinion to be bizarre, it clearly shows that you are prone to "odd, obnoxious, pernicious and discriminatory beliefs".
No, as I'm not seeking to discriminate against those who hold such beliefs, as were some of those on the opposing side who opposed the introduction of equal marriage. Merely finding something bizarre is not discriminatory. Nor are my beliefs odd, given that there was clear majority support for equal marriage before it was introduced. In such a situation the minority opinion would be the odd one, wouldn't it.
-
ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?
Enjoy having a look Hope, I wasn't looking.
Ippy
-
Enjoy having a look Hope, I wasn't looking.
Ippy
You're a bit behind the curve, ippy.
-
You could always have a look.
Don't need to, Shakes. The number of children who have grown up in such a situation are pretty small, and the number who have been followed into adulthood even less. There wouldn't be a sufficient number to provide a valid sample.
-
You're a bit behind the curve, ippy.
Beats being permanently behind the curve, Hope.
ippy
-
Why on earth would they or indeed anybody hold such a bizarre attitude?
I think you sound doomed to a life of wondering why people don't think exactly like you , the again I don't think you would have given the matter half a thought until it became an antitheist issue.
-
The bigot who Cameron thought should be equality minister.
http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Loughborough-MP-Nicky-Morgan-explains-voted/story-18148357-detail/story.html
Own up Squeeky. Tell me that your interest in this issue wasn't it's antitheist potential.
-
ippy, do you have any evidence that Nicky Morgan - Education Secretary - is in any way a person of faith?
Where have you been Hope.
She is well known as a prominent Christian. That said she doesn't appear to have brought her faith position into her ministerial responsibilities too much. Thankfully she isn't Eric Pickles who seemed to consider his ministerial position as an opportunity to further religious aims.
-
The appointment of Morgan was astonishing enough; that she couldn't put aside her prejudices in order to do her job properly should be a resignation matter, surely.
I'm not a tory and rarely stand up for them, but I think there needs to be some clarification.
She voted against gay marriage in 2013, in a free vote, before she became a minister. She became equalities minister in 2014. Sure there is a big question over whether she was the right person for the job but she didn't actually vote against gay marriage at the time she was a minister.
-
I'm not a tory and rarely stand up for them, but I think there needs to be some clarification.
She voted against gay marriage in 2013, in a free vote, before she became a minister. She became equalities minister in 2014. Sure there is a big question over whether she was the right person for the job but she didn't actually vote against gay marriage at the time she was a minister.
How can an Osbornite/Cameronite be an equalities minister anyway?
-
How can an Osbornite/Cameronite be an equalities minister anyway?
Actually one of the very few things that Cameron has done as PM that I deeply approve of and will probably have a positive and lasting legacy for him is his decision (which seemed largely personal) to push through equal marriage.
-
Actually one of the very few things that Cameron has done as PM that I deeply approve of and will probably have a positive and lasting legacy for him is his decision (which seemed largely personal) to push through equal marriage.
I wonder whether that was to grab the votes of an untapped well heeled demographic though.
-
I wonder whether that was to grab the votes of an untapped well heeled demographic though.
No - he lost votes because of it if I recall correctly
-
No - he lost votes because of it if I recall correctly
Really.....which and how many?
-
No - he lost votes because of it if I recall correctly
I think it is pretty difficult to determine whether a single policy gains or loses you votes in a general election, because even for those that might tell opinion polls that they are more or less likely to vote for a party due to a single issue, when there is finally a choice at a general election based on a range of policies and personalities the importance of that single issue often fades.
So I doubt very much that Cameron's decision to back equal marriage would have been 'political' - i.e. calculated to gain votes. And certainly he got a lot of flack from a very vocal 'anti' minority of reactionaries within his own party.
So I genuinely think he supported equal marriage on principle, because he recognised it to be the right thing to do, rather than for narrow partisan political gain.
I suspect that history will think pretty poorly of Cameron as PM, but there will be probably 2 highlights, one political and the other changing the social landscape.
The political being winning a second general election with an increased vote share having been PM for a full term - that's pretty well unprecedented.
And the social change - well of course allowing gay couples to marry, which I have no doubt in years to come society will look back in horror at a time when gay couples were banned from getting married.
-
And the social change - well of course allowing gay couples to marry, which I have no doubt in years to come society will look back in horror at a time when gay couples were banned from getting married.
And that straight couples were not allowed to have civil partnerships.
-
And that straight couples were not allowed to have civil partnerships.
I doubt it as civil partnerships are only a very recent development in the broad sweep of history and I have no doubt too that they will either vanish pretty soon as a concept or will be extended to opposite gender couples. So their presence and inequality (which is effectively only really an issue since equal marriage was allowed) will be at best a footnote in history.
And besides where are all the people up in arms, campaigning for civil partnerships to be available to heterosexual couples. I agree that they should be, but this is hardly a big issue.
-
I doubt it as civil partnerships are only a very recent development in the broad sweep of history.
Yes just like gay marriage.
Only a recent concern and one for the people on this forum chiefly and merely for it's potential for antichristian mischief.
-
Yes just like gay marriage.
There is no such thing as 'gay marriage' - there is only marriage, which has now been extended to allow same sex couples to get married.
And marriage has been around for rather longer than a few years, as I'm sure you will appreciate
-
Yes just like gay marriage.
No, Vlad - marriage has been around for a very very long time indeed. The point is that it's taken until very recently for people in secular liberal democracies, what Popper called open societies - most of them anyway - to stop and think about it and realise that it's injust to restrict it to opposite-sex couples only.
only a recent concern and one for the people on this forum chiefly and merely for it's potential for antichristian mischief.
You'll have some evidence for that? There's no doubt at all however that the post-Enlightenment decline of religious adherence in the West has seen a corresponding rise in the primacy of the individual and concepts of human/civil rights.
-
Indeed, I will say that Vlad is right that equal marriage was a relatively recent concern. The reason for that is that in living memory homosexuality could be prosecuted for sexual activity, and only 25 years ago we had the Tories introducing Clause 28, so the fight on those areas took precedent.
Given the two beautiful marriage of my gay friends I attended last year were a both of religious couples one Christian couple and one Jewish, I fail to see anything that would allow his rather pathetic portraying thi as being about antiChristian
-
There is no such thing as 'gay marriage' - there is only marriage,
You mean civil marriage. I am not obliged to recognise your reductionism.
I support the right of all to a civil marriage.
I do not trivialise the importance of civil partnership.
-
There's no doubt at all however that the post-Enlightenment decline of religious adherence in the West has seen a corresponding rise in the primacy of the individual and concepts of human/civil rights.
LOL.
-
You mean civil marriage. I am not obliged to recognise your reductionism.
I support the right of all to a civil marriage.
I do not trivialise the importance of civil partnership.
Not really, although even civil marriage has been around since the 1830s.
But the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 doesn't in any way limit extension of marriage to same sex couples purely to civil marriage. Sure it provides an opt out for religious organisations, but that isn't the same as it being limited. So religions are able to chose to extend their own marriage rules to include same sex couples. And there are some religious organisations that are already providing marriage to same sex couples. Now the obvious anomaly is the CofE where parliament is required to change the rules, but even then that isn't really an unmovable blanket ban.
So if we track forward 100 years I'd be pretty confident that many religious organisations will have changed their views in the face of same sex marriage being commonplace and will have started to offer their own religious ceremonies to same sex couples.
So in summary you are wrong, this isn't merely about civil marriage as there are already, under the new law, religious same sex marriages taking place in the UK.
-
this isn't merely about civil marriage as there are already, under the new law, religious same sex marriages taking place in the UK.
Yes.....But holy matrimony is a matter for us not you
-
Yes.....But holy matrimony is a matter for us not you
You're welcome to it.
-
LOL.
Try forming a coherent argument, Vlad. You may get a taste for it.
-
Guess who's been to the pub this Sunday lunchtime ::)
-
Try forming a coherent argument, Vlad. You may get a taste for it.
Oh like the destruction of species which has been going on, Global warming, the return of economic inequality on a grand scale. The level of internet crime, modern slavery, etc, etc.
-
Oh like the destruction of species which has been going on, Global warming, the return of economic equality on a grand scale. The level of internet crime, modern slavery, etc, etc.
No, as those are nothing to do with the human/civil rights I mentioned. I was thinking along the lines of votes for women; decriminalisation of homosexuality and equal marriage; anti-discrimination legislation for women, ethnic minorities, the disabled and so forth; freedom of religious belief and practice; freedom of expression, etc You can even add animal welfare laws as an example of the same general historical trend asserting individual autonomy, the endeavour to counter discrimination and to protect the defenceless and disadvantaged.
-
No, as those are nothing to do with the human/civil rights I mentioned. I was thinking along the lines of votes for women; decriminalisation of homosexuality and equal marriage; anti-discrimination legislation for women, ethnic minorities, the disabled and so forth; freedom of religious belief and practice; freedom of expression, etc You can even add animal welfare laws as an example of the same general historical trend asserting individual autonomy and the endeavour to counter discrimination.
Trade union rights, rights to privacy, local democracy all going in reverse. and several of the things you mention above especially the peculiar understanding of freedom of religious belief and practice by Secular Humanists and New atheists which involves censorship of innocuous church activities. The rights of certain individuals to more law than others vis industrial tribunals.
-
Yes.....But holy matrimony is a matter for us not you
Which rather proves my point. If same sex marriage was only in a civil context then there would be no option for religious organisations to decide whether or not to extend their 'holy matrimony' to same sex couples. But that isn't the case - they do have that choice and already some religious organisations are conducting holy matrimony for same sex couples.
Marriage equality is not merely available within civil setting - it is already available in some religious settings and others have the choice to provide it should they chose.
-
Marriage equality is not merely available within civil setting - it is already available in some religious settings and others have the choice to provide it should they chose.
.....And again.....what has that got to do with you?
-
.....And again.....what has that got to do with you?
It has to do with me because firstly I am concerned with equality, and secondly because the law that provides the ability of religious organisation to choose or not to choose to extend holy matrimony to same sex couples is due to a law enacted by the government which represents everyone, not just religious people.
But that isn't really the point. You were implying that same sex marriage is only a civil marriage issue. It isn't, you are wrong - same sex marriage can take place in religious settings as part of religious marriage should those religious organisations choose to do so, and indeed some already have or are in the process of doing so.
-
It has to do with me because firstly I am concerned with equality, and secondly because the law that provides the ability of religious organisation to choose or not to choose to extend holy matrimony to same sex couples is due to a law enacted by the government which represents everyone, not just religious people.
But that isn't really the point. You were implying that same sex marriage is only a civil marriage issue. It isn't, you are wrong - same sex marriage can take place in religious settings as part of religious marriage should those religious organisations choose to do so, and indeed some already have or are in the process of doing so.
How does a religious issue affect you though?
-
How does a religious issue affect you though?
I will answer your question once you have retracted your earlier view that same sex marriage was only a civil marriage issue, as indicated in reply 45.
You are engaging in the classic diversionary tactic - throw an irrelevant side issue into the mix to avoid having to admit you were wrong on an earlier point.
-
I will answer your question once you have retracted your earlier view that same sex marriage was only a civil marriage issue, as indicated in reply 45.
You are engaging in the classic diversionary tactic - throw an irrelevant side issue into the mix to avoid having to admit you were wrong on an earlier point.
Ah well, it looks as though my question will have to go unanswered.
-
Ah well, it looks as though my question will have to go unanswered.
Actually I have already answered it - see reply 57.
Your evasion is duly noted. Clearly the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 covers both civil marriage and marriage within religious settings, so it isn't merely a matter for civil marriage.
Also, of course, it has to be said that marriage, any marriage, in the UK must be sanctioned by the secular law. No religious organisation is permitted to conduct marriage except with authorisation from the civil authorities.
-
Also, of course, it has to be said that marriage, any marriage, in the UK must be sanctioned by the secular law. No religious organisation is permitted to conduct marriage except with authorisation from the civil authorities.
Bingo............... I knew we'd get to you trumpeting secular power over religion sooner or later.......However the idea of a man in a bowler, raincoat with a small toothbrush moustache and papers representing the ''civil authorities'' serving notice on God about what the by laws are is highly comical.
-
Bingo............... I knew we'd get to you trumpeting secular power over religion sooner or later.......However the idea of a man in a bowler, raincoat with a small toothbrush moustache and papers representing the ''civil authorities'' serving notice on what the by laws are God is highly comical.
What are you on about - this is hardly new - for a wedding to be legally binding it has to follow rules set by the civil authorities, including that it is conducted by an authorised celebrant - authorisation, of course, granted by the civil authorities. This has pretty well always been the case, so why is this suddenly an issue for you.
Sure any religious organisation can try to set up 'marriages' but if they don't accord with and authorised by the civil law and civil authorities they aren't legally binding and aren't actually marriages at all.
-
What are you on about - this is hardly new - for a wedding to be legally binding it has to follow rules set by the civil authorities, including that it is conducted by an authorised celebrant - authorisation, of course, granted by the civil authorities. This has pretty well always been the case.
Certainly since January 1st 1837 [/pedant] ;)
-
Sure any religious organisation can try to set up 'marriages' but if they don't accord with and authorised by the civil law and civil authorities they aren't legally binding and aren't actually marriages at all.
Yes. but don't be running away with the idea that civil authorities equals Secularising authorities. ;) I'm sure the Lord's spiritual would have something to say about that.
-
Sure any religious organisation can try to set up 'marriages' but if they don't accord with and authorised by the civil law and civil authorities they aren't legally binding and aren't actually marriages at all.
So having waxed lyrical about marriage.....do you think that religious marriages aren't marriages at all?
-
I'm sure the Lord's spiritual would have something to say about that.
Don't worry, nobody will take any notice ;)
-
Don't worry, nobody will take any notice ;)
No one except New Atheists, The NSS and ''The Association''.....as the British Humanist Society has taken to call itself these days.
-
do you think that religious marriages aren't marriages at all?
If they are authorised under civil law according to the secular law of the land, then of course. If they aren't authorised under civil law then of course not - who on earth would consider that a 'marriage' that doesn't accord with civil law and isn't authorised is a 'marriage' - to isn't in anyone's book.
-
If they are authorised under civil law according to the secular law of the land, then of course. If they aren't authorised under civil law then of course not - who on earth would consider that a 'marriage' that doesn't accord with civil law and isn't authorised is a 'marriage' - to isn't in anyone's book.
Is ''secular law'' a recognised legal term or is that just a Stalinist fantasy?
Are you saying that a marriage is only legal if a secular humanist says it is?
-
Is ''secular law'' a recognised legal term or is that just a Stalinist fantasy?
It's usually just called 'the law,' Vlad.
Are you saying that a marriage is only legal if a secular humanist says it is?
No - if a secular government says it is ;)
-
Ir's usually just called 'the law,' Vlad.No - if a secular government says it is ;)
I'm glad you recognise we have one. I'd hate to think you would just want secular humanists to have power.
-
Is ''secular law'' a recognised legal term or is that just a Stalinist fantasy?
Are you saying that a marriage is only legal if a secular humanist says it is?
In this context the term 'secular' law is used to make a distinction with 'religious' law (or Canon law in the case of Christian organisations). So secular law is that enacted by the UK government or its devolved bodies, such as Scottish parliament etc. It is, of course, a very well accepted term. Call it the law of the land, civil law, government law - whatever.
Religious 'marriage' only has validity if it is authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term). If someone participates in a religious 'marriage' ceremony that is not authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term), then they aren't married - simple as that.
-
In this context the term 'secular' law is used to make a distinction with 'religious' law (or Canon law in the case of Christian organisations). So secular law is that enacted by the UK government or its devolved bodies, such as Scottish parliament etc. It is, of course, a very well accepted term. Call it the law of the land, civil law, government law - whatever.
Religious 'marriage' only has validity if it is authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term). If someone participates in a religious 'marriage' ceremony that is not authorised by and conducted according to the secular law, law of the land, civil law, government law (delete as applicable to select your favourite term), then they aren't married - simple as that.
As if that would change Christians who believe that holy matrimony is in the sight of God.
I'm loving your reaction when imagined secular humanist 'authority' is challenged.
-
If they are authorised under civil law according to the secular law of the land, then of course. If they aren't authorised under civil law then of course not - who on earth would consider that a 'marriage' that doesn't accord with civil law and isn't authorised is a 'marriage' - to isn't in anyone's book.
Actually, PD, I believe that one can go through a purely religious marriage, even here in the UK. It wouldn't be accepted by the secular authorities in regard of claiming married couples allowances, inheritance purposes or other such benefits - in fact, it would probably be on a par with the old idea of common-law marriage from a secular legal pov - but it would still be a legitimate marriage.
For instance, there are those, especially in oter countries, who have two 'wedding ceremonies'; one religious and one civil. The order of the two is sometimes dependent on the tradition of the country where the events take place, but I can think of people who have had a religious ceremony, gone on honeymoon, and then had their civil wedding 2 or 3 weeks later. There is nothing in British law that would invalidate the first ceremony in such a case.
-
Davey is a strange case. He gets upset at the term Gay marriage then starts using the term religious 'marriage' as if he doesn't believe religious marriage is proper.
I would like to see his working out and how he gets over these seemingly contradictory views.
-
By doing what you apparently can't, Vlad - thinking about it.
-
By doing what you apparently can't, Vlad - thinking about it.
Hardly......as if different ideas on marriage are superceded by the current secular humanist/antitheist one.
You guys are the one's confusing the terms civil, secular, and secular humanist.....in the British context.
At the moment I am civilly married but in the unlikely event yours and Davey's swivel eyed views that no marriage is valid unless a Secular Humanist validates it and I needed to get married again.
No doubt I'd have the real marriage in a field a la Braveheart and then nip down to the secular Humanist Branch office to get the bit of paper.
-
Hardly......as if different ideas on marriage are superceded by the current secular humanist/antitheist one.
You guys are the one's confusing the terms civil, secular, and secular humanist.....in the British context.
No, not really, since by law civil marriages are secular and are forbidden to have any religious component. Nobody's wittering on about secular humanism but you (again).
-
Actually, PD, I believe that one can go through a purely religious marriage, even here in the UK. It wouldn't be accepted by the secular authorities in regard of claiming married couples allowances, inheritance purposes or other such benefits - in fact, it would probably be on a par with the old idea of common-law marriage from a secular legal pov - but it would still be a legitimate marriage.
For instance, there are those, especially in oter countries, who have two 'wedding ceremonies'; one religious and one civil. The order of the two is sometimes dependent on the tradition of the country where the events take place, but I can think of people who have had a religious ceremony, gone on honeymoon, and then had their civil wedding 2 or 3 weeks later. There is nothing in British law that would invalidate the first ceremony in such a case.
Evidence please.
Sure you could call yourself married, but you wouldn't be. To be married you must have been through a ceremony that is authorised by and conducted according to the law of the land.
So for example prior to equal marriage coming into law plenty of gay couples who had been through civil partnerships described themselves as married - but they weren't because the ceremony they had been through wasn't marriage in the eyes of the law.
Simply saying you are something isn't sufficient when that something is specifically defined in civil law.
And on the 2 ceremonies, well it happens all the time, including in the UK for exactly the reason I said. Couples go through the civil marriage part (when their religious marriage celebrant etc isn't authorised) precisely because they recognise that if they only go through the religious wedding ceremony they will not actually be married unless they also go through the civil ceremony. Of course for the major religions, the ceremony combines the two so all is well without the need to go through a separate civil ceremony.
-
Evidence please.
And the very best of luck with that to you, Professor.
And on the 2 ceremonies, well it happens all the time, including in the UK for exactly the reason I said. Couples go through the civil marriage part (when their religious marriage celebrant etc isn't authorised) precisely because they recognise that if they only go through the religious wedding ceremony they will not actually be married unless they also go through the civil ceremony. Of course for the major religions, the ceremony combines the two so all is well without the need to go through a separate civil ceremony.
Indeed. In a standard C of E wedding the couple are not actually married until they have signed the register, i.e. have fulfilled the legal component of the proceedings.
-
Hardly......as if different ideas on marriage are superceded by the current secular humanist/antitheist one.
You guys are the one's confusing the terms civil, secular, and secular humanist.....in the British context.
Religious marriage is valid when it is authorised by and conducted in accordance with the civil law of the land (or secular depending on your choice of term). If not then it is not valid - simple.
There is no such thing as gay marriage, any more than there was such a thing as 'mixed race' marriage when south Africa allowed couples who were not of the same race to marry. There was simply marriage which became available to couples regardless of the race of the individual partners.
-
Religious marriage is valid when it is authorised by and conducted in accordance with the civil law of the land (or secular depending on your choice of term). If not then it is not valid - simple.
There is no such thing as gay marriage, any more than there was such a thing as 'mixed race' marriage when south Africa allowed couples who were not of the same race to marry. There was simply marriage which became available to couples regardless of the race of the individual partners.
But you agree that those happening in church or between believers were not marriages but 'marriages'.
-
Religious marriage is valid when it is authorised by and conducted in accordance with the civil law of the land (or secular depending on your choice of term). If not then it is not valid - simple.
I don't think validity is a legal term. Shouldn't you use the term legal?
In the Unlikely event that your weird views on it being wrong to talk about civil marriages but only marriage and then only marriages that are recognised civilly and that religious marriages are not marriages but 'marriages'.
......And I needed to get married, I'd have the proper marriage in the field a la Braveheart and then nip off to the Reggie to get the bit of paper from the Secular Humanist Bore.
-
But you agree that those happening in church or between believers were not marriages but 'marriages'.
To repeat until I am blue in the face:
Religious marriage is valid when it is authorised by and conducted in accordance with the civil law of the land (or secular depending on your choice of term). If not then it is not valid - simple.
Religious organisations recognise this, which is why, if possible, they ensure their premises and officiants are authorised under law to conduct valid marriages. And if not they ensure that couples include a civil ceremony as part of the process, because not to do so would mean they weren't married.
And couples recognise this too, which is why loads of couples have to go through a separate civil ceremony as part of the process - they realise that if they don't, well they won't be married.
So to put it simply:
1. Civil ceremony without a religious ceremony - married.
2. Civil ceremony with a religious ceremony that isn't authorised under law - married.
3. Religious ceremony that is authorised under the law - married.
4. Religious ceremony that isn't authorised under the law without a civil ceremony - not married.
Simple - strange that you seem unable to grasp such a simple concept, which is completely recognised and accepted by religious organisations in the UK.
-
yes But I don't see what a marriage at the local humanist association with Plastic red Gingham table clothes tin mugs of tea, ASDA fairy cakes and a few readings from The God Delusion followed by a quick and an embarrassing chorus of 'always look on the Bright side of life' has over a church wedding.
-
I'm not surprised that you've never been to any weddings, Vlad.
-
to put it simply:
1. Civil ceremony without a religious ceremony - married.
2. Civil ceremony with a religious ceremony that isn't authorised under law - married.
3. Religious ceremony that is authorised under the law - married.
4. Religious ceremony that isn't authorised under the law without a civil ceremony - not married.
Let me just put you straight....... God knows whose really married ;)
-
yes But I don't see what a marriage at the local humanist association with Plastic red Gingham table clothes tin mugs of tea, ASDA fairy cakes and a few readings from The God Delusion followed by a quick and an embarrassing chorus of 'always look on the Bright side of life' has over a church wedding.
It doesn't - and certainly in England humanists aren't authorised to conduct marriages under the law - so if you want a humanist wedding you will need to also go throughout the appropriate civil ceremony for your marriage to be valid.
Similar to many of the smaller religious organisations.
-
Let me just put you straight....... God knows whose really married ;)
Well while we wait for anyone to provide any evidence that God actually exists I think we should fall back on reality, in other words the law of the land.
And as an aside - whose God?
-
I don't think validity is a legal term. Shouldn't you use the term legal?
In this context legal and valid are synonymous. A legal marriage is valid. A valid marriage is legal. A marriage that isn't legal isn't valid.
Simple.
-
Well while we wait for anyone to provide any evidence that God actually exists I think we should fall back on reality, in other words the law of the land.
And as an aside - whose God?
I'm ok with the law of the land which deals with civil marriages.
-
Cat got your tongue or something Vlad?
I guess you recognise that you have nothing valid to add to the argument so you have, just for once decided to remain silent. Sensible chap.
-
Cat got your tongue or something Vlad?
I guess you recognise that you have nothing valid to add to the argument so you have, just for once decided to remain silent. Sensible chap.
How can one remain silent when we have a laddy.....yourself, who is unhappy with my statement that every one has a right to a civil marriage.....I don't see how you can have any problem with that...but no. On several posts you have asserted secular humanist power over Holy Matrimony. That, I'm afraid is not possible.
Now be a dear and just accept that I accept everybody's right to a civil marriage and not expect me to view it as more valid than Holy Matrimony. That is just you wanting dominion for which I would recommend an investigation into what looks like control freakery.
Finally I am not obliged to accept your notion that Law equals truth. You did not believe that when Gays were not allowed to be married and I doubt you believe it beyond a ploy to shore up your deranged non argument.
-
Now be a dear and just accept that I accept everybody's right to a civil marriage and not expect me to view it as more valid than Holy Matrimony. That is just you wanting dominion for which I would recommend an investigation into what looks like control freakery.
In the UK, since we are both UK based Vlad, legal marriage is a civil institution.
As such 'holy matrimony' has no legal validity since it is a non-legal notion that is an add-on for those who wish that sort of thing: just icing on the cake, but it is the civil element alone that is the only route to becoming legally married.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/11/high-court-rules-against-education-secretary-for-leaving-non-religious-views-out-of-new-re-gcse
The determination of religionists to ding religion into the heads of our children, especially the young ones.
ippy
Hence the NSS were complaining their opinions weren't being dinged into childrens heads too.
::)
The National Secular Society has repeatedly called for fundamental reform of the subject, including the inclusion of non-religious perspectives.
Ones as bad as the other :o
A gse in RE is teaching children about different religions....... Not asking them to believe in it......
Once again the NSS looks stupid and complains because they can't force their own opinions on children under the guise of teaching them about different religions.
It's about different religions.
The NSS need to get a life!
-
In the UK, since we are both UK based Vlad, legal marriage is a civil institution.
As such 'holy matrimony' has no legal validity since it is a non-legal notion that is an add-on for those who wish that sort of thing: just icing on the cake, but it is the civil element alone that is the only route to becoming legally married.
I cannot disagree with you that legal marriage is a civil institution.
I cannot disagree with you that holy matrimony has no legal validity.
What I disagree with is your petty but typical secular humanist insistence on people accepting your notion that those who go in for Holy Matrimony do so because it is just the icing on the cake and an add on.
That people yearn to be married by a government official and that the state's acknowledgement of there marriage with a bit of paper is what puts the magic into a marriage is just laughable.
After Manger Danger, Gordon, that a young bride yearns to have a file in a government department is one of your more potty notions.
-
Hence the NSS were complaining their opinions weren't being dinged into childrens heads too.
::)
Ones as bad as the other :o
A gse in RE is teaching children about different religions....... Not asking them to believe in it......
Once again the NSS looks stupid and complains because they can't force their own opinions on children under the guise of teaching them about different religions.
It's about different religions.
The NSS need to get a life!
Post of the week.
-
Once again the NSS looks stupid and complains because they can't force their own opinions on children under the guise of teaching them about different religions.
That's the Rose version of events, I guess ::)
-
I cannot disagree with you that legal marriage is a civil institution.
I cannot disagree with you that holy matrimony has no legal validity.
Excellent
What I disagree with is your petty but typical secular humanist insistence on people accepting your notion that those who go in for Holy Matrimony do so because it is just the icing on the cake and an add on.
In legal terms, and since marriage is a legally defined institution, those who opt for the 'holy' bit are no more married than those who don't.
That people yearn to be married by a government official and that the state's acknowledgement of there marriage with a bit of paper is what puts the magic into a marriage is just laughable.
So you say, but then most of your your comments are, Vlad - there (sic) there (sic).
After Manger Danger, Gordon, that a young bride yearns to have a file in a government department is one of your more potty notions.
Careful with all that straw!
-
Excellent
In legal terms, and since marriage is a legally defined institution, those who opt for the 'holy' bit are no more married than those who don't.
So you say, but then most of your your comments are, Vlad - there (sic) there (sic).
Careful with all that straw!
Vlad looks at watch.............
-
Vlad asks a grown up to run that big hand/little hand business past him one more time ...
-
In legal terms, and since marriage is a legally defined institution, those who opt for the 'holy' bit are no more married than those who don't.
Precisely, only in the legal sense - the sense by which someone relates to government. That has no influence on how they might relate to a deity.
-
Precisely, only in the legal sense - the sense by which someone relates to government. That has no influence on how they might relate to a deity.
Professor D. covered that in #90.
-
Precisely, only in the legal sense - the sense by which someone relates to government. That has no influence on how they might relate to a deity.
Many of those people aren't bothered about bronze aged ideas about powerful spirits, though, Hope. They're concerned with the culture and society in which they live, a culture which views marriage as the basis of a family, as something to aspire to.
Marriage means different things to different people, and the law defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like. Society the interprets that - and any changes in it - and exerts a social pressure based on the idea of marriage.
That's not a purely religious thing, although it can have religious overtones, and within some subcultures - say the Christian community - that religious element can be emphasised, but it's neither intrinsic nor necessary.
Marriage as a concept predates Christianity, and as a word is as open to reinterpretation to take it away from a purely religious view as it was to reinterpretation by the religious whilst it was a purely religious concept.
Times move on, concepts adapt to the new society.
O.
-
How can one remain silent when we have a laddy.....
My comment in reply 93 was due to the fact that you posted completely nothing originally in reply 92 although you subsequently edited it (check the timings if you don't believe).
Given the paucity of your argument I thought it rather apt that you had posted nothing at all, which is of course no less convincing as an argument to your usual posts.
-
You did not believe that when Gays were not allowed to be married and I doubt you believe it beyond a ploy to shore up your deranged non argument.
I thought that gay people should be allowed to get married prior to the law change. But I didn't think they were married prior to the introduction of equal marriage. The law sets the rules on marriage and if your ceremony is authorised by and conducted under that law then you are married, if not then you are not.
-
I'm ok with the law of the land which deals with civil marriages.
The law applies to all marriages not just those held within a civil setting. And has done since 1837 (as far as I am aware).
-
Many of those people aren't bothered about bronze aged ideas about powerful spirits, though, Hope. They're concerned with the culture and society in which they live, a culture which views marriage as the basis of a family, as something to aspire to.
Oh, I quite agree, O. That is why I said what I said. As a Christian, I'm not bothered about bronze aged ideas about powerful spirits
; I'm concerned about the day-to-day life of the late 20th/early21st Century, a period of time that I understand God to intimately involved in.
You may not think he is, and that's your prerogative, but then not everythin you think or belief is necessarily correct.
Marriage means different things to different people, and the law defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like. Society the interprets that - and any changes in it - and exerts a social pressure based on the idea of marriage.
Precisely, O. Society, through its laws, "defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like". That's just another way of saying what I said. There are, of course, those who regard those 'minimums' as just that, minimalist, and seek to life to a higher 'minimum' level.
That's not a purely religious thing, although it can have religious overtones, and within some subcultures - say the Christian community - that religious element can be emphasised, but it's neither intrinsic nor necessary.
Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract. The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.
Marriage as a concept predates Christianity, ...
I'm glad you've realised that - but have you also understood that it predates 'civil society' ... and as a word is as open to reinterpretation to take it away from a purely religious view as it was to reinterpretation by the religious whilst it was a purely religious concept.
I'm not convinced that civil society can amend the meaning of a term that long predates it as easily as you think. Perhaps you ought to consider whether civil society can amend the idea of 'law' (another concept that long predates the concept of civil society) as easily as that.
-
This is an interesting read:
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
The last paragraph is interesting in particular.
I just wonder at what point in time some people would want to freeze the concept of marriage?
Some people seem to be implying that the meaning of marriage is set in stone - whereas in fact it has been a changing, morphing beast throughout its existence.
-
This is an interesting read:
The last paragraph is interesting in particular.
I just wonder at what point in time some people would want to freeze the concept of marriage?
Some people seem to be implying that the meaning of marriage is set in stone - whereas in fact it has been a changing, morphing beast throughout its existence.
But only ever within a single gender-balance context.
-
But only ever within a single gender-balance context.
But not so according to the article quoted.
Although, even if that was the case, why you think that is an important point in favour of your argument I really can't see.
-
But only ever within a single gender-balance context.
Not necessarily, as trent's article will tell you. But let's suppose you're right for the sake of the argument; so what? That situation has now changed, quite rightly.
-
Precisely, O. Society, through its laws, "defines the minimum standards of what it entails in terms of legal entitlements, tax allowances, obligations and freedoms in court testimony and parental access and the like". That's just another way of saying what I said. There are, of course, those who regard those 'minimums' as just that, minimalist, and seek to life to a higher 'minimum' level.
Which is fine, they can hold themselves to whatever other surplus standards they wish - it's when they seek to try to impose that surplus standard to everyone else that we get a problem.
Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract. The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.
Is that your take on it? My take on history is that it was a way for religious institutions to exert power and authority over the wealthy by controlling the means they had of selling off their daughters to create the mergers and acquisitions of their time. It was given a religious veneer for appearances, but it was about authority, money and land, not faith. If it were a 'religious' contract, and not a civil one, it wouldn't have been pretty much exclusively for the wealthy, but for all of the 'faithful'.
I'm glad you've realised that - but have you also understood that it predates 'civil society' I'm not convinced that civil society can amend the meaning of a term that long predates it as easily as you think. Perhaps you ought to consider whether civil society can amend the idea of 'law' (another concept that long predates the concept of civil society) as easily as that.
Law is the codification of acceptable standards - the idea remains, but the content updates with time as various things are clarified or fall in or out of the remit of law. Similarly, marriage (or handfasting, or lifebonding, or whatever term you use for the joining of people into a family unit) is a concept, what is involved in that changes with time, from the financial arrangements of taking an unwanted daughter from someone's household through to the modern day.
O.
-
But only ever within a single gender-balance context.
A - you're wrong, there have been recognised single-sex joinings at various points through history in various cultures
B - once upon a time Western/Christian marriage was only ever within a single-race context. That changed, why shouldn't this?
O.
-
Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract. The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.
I think you need to do a little more research - historically in ancient times marriage was much more about cementing power and wealth in civil society and governed by that civil society than about religion. So for example look at marriage in ancient Rome or Greece or China - example of marriage within a civil rather than a religious context that pre-date Christianity.
I'm glad you've realised that - but have you also understood that it predates 'civil society'
Well that depends on how you define civil society - to me it means the laws and regulation put in place within a society to organise and control that society, so civil society is certainly older than Christianity and probably goes back to the very earliest organised human societies.
Don't forget that the term 'civil society' is generally regarded to have been coined by Aristotle, writing some 350 years before Jesus was born.
In reality marriage is synonymous with civil society - any society that develops a type of marriage and the ceremonies and rules that surround it, must be, by definition a civil society - so civil society can predate marriage, but I struggle to see how marriage can predate civil society as the former arises out of the latter.
-
The idea that Romans snd Greeks somehow separated the religious from the civil is the misnomer. It's simply nonsense to suggest that marriage the was one at the exclusion of the other, religious practice being so entwined with civil affairs.
-
So for example look at marriage in ancient Rome or Greece or China - example of marriage within a civil rather than a religious context that pre-date Christianity.
All good examples of how marriage was both a religious and civil process. One without the other wouldn't have taken place.
Well that depends on how you define civil society - to me it means the laws and regulation put in place within a society to organise and control that society, so civil society is certainly older than Christianity and probably goes back to the very earliest organised human societies.
Don't forget that the term 'civil society' is generally regarded to have been coined by Aristotle, writing some 350 years before Jesus was born.
In reality marriage is synonymous with civil society - any society that develops a type of marriage and the ceremonies and rules that surround it, must be, by definition a civil society - so civil society can predate marriage, but I struggle to see how marriage can predate civil society as the former arises out of the latter.
What's all this emphasis on 'pre-Christianity'? Only those with absolutely nil inkling are not aware that religious and civil marriage had been taking place for centuries, if not millennia before Christianity arrived on the scene. Note however, that - regardless how much cementing of power might have been taking place, it was done in the context of a religious ceremony.
-
B - once upon a time Western/Christian marriage was only ever within a single-race context. That changed, why shouldn't this?
I don't deny that, but then that was a development that wasn't originally within Christianity, suggesting that (as we see in a number of other areas, sadly) the church wasn't exempt from making mistakes.
-
The idea that Romans snd Greeks somehow separated the religious from the civil is the misnomer. It's simply nonsense to suggest that marriage the was one at the exclusion of the other, religious practice being so entwined with civil affairs.
Marriage in ancient Rome and Greece was a civil institution rather than a religious one. This is entirely different to the Judeo/Christian approach where marriage is seen as a religious institution, instituted by god. This is not the same at all.
So from Ermatinger's definitive 2 volume Enclyclopedia 'The world of ancient Rome' - in the initial section on marriage:
'Marriage in ancient Rome was a matter of legal distinctions and civil responsibilities but not religious.'
Were there religious elements during the ceremonies - well often yes, but these aren't in the same context as for Judeo/Christian weddings where religion is integral to the ceremony. In ancient Greece of Rome religion was largely restricted to the couple making offerings to the gods to bless the marriage or bring them good luck rather than being an integral part of the wedding itself. This is entirely different to the marriage being fundamentally in 'the eyes of god' and instituted by god.
Rather in Greece and Rome marriage was a civil institution - so perhaps the best comparison would be for a modern civil marriage where the couple also have a religious blessing of their marriage, but not a religious wedding.
-
All good examples of how marriage was both a religious and civil process. One without the other wouldn't have taken place.
You seem to be changing your tune.
Previously you were claiming that 'Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract. The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.'
Now you seem to be accepting that (at the very least) marriage has been 'civil' as long as it has been 'religious'. This seems to be a massive U-turn on your part.
The reality is that marriage is always a civil institution and always has been - it is also often a religious institution too, but not always - as indicated by most marriages in the UK today (over 70% are civil and not religious) and amongst many ancient societies such as those I indicated in my earlier posts.
-
This is entirely different to the Judeo/Christian approach where marriage is seen as a religious institution, instituted by god. ...
but these aren't in the same context as for Judeo/Christian weddings where religion is integral to the ceremony.
I find the unspoken assumption that the Judeo-Christian pattern of weddings is the only one that can be compared with the Greco-Roman form somewhat simplistic. After all, long before Greece or Rome came to prominence, the Hindus were marrying in a ceremony that has barely changed in the interim that was primarily religious and only secondarily civil. The same goes for the tribes of Europe and East Asia, and from what I have read for those of N. and S. America.
Marriage that involved religion has been in existence for millennia and the civil aspect has often been attached 'after the event', insofar as it was often a secondary aspect of the ceremony.
-
You seem to be changing your tune.
Previously you were claiming that 'Except that marriage was always first and foremost a religious, as opposed to a civil, contract. The balance has only changed in the last 2-300 years here in the West.'
PD, as the sentence I have underlined shows, I have never suggested that the religious and civil haven't gone hand in hand. What I have said is that the religious aspect took precedence until very recently - in historical terms - in the west and often retains its primacy in other parts of the world.
The reality is that marriage is always a civil institution and always has been - it is also often a religious institution too, but not always ...
Whereas all my sociological and anthropological reading would seem to suggest that the subjects of the phrases 'always' and 'but not always' are the other way round.
-
I find the unspoken assumption that the Judeo-Christian pattern of weddings is the only one that is compared with the Greco-Roman form. After all, long before Greece or Rome came to prominence, the Hindus were marrying in a ceremony that has barely changed in the interim that was primarily religious and only secondarily civil. The same goes for the tribes of Europe and East Asia, and from what I have read for those of N. and S. America.
Marriage that involved religion has been in existence for millennia and the civil aspect has often been attached 'after the event', insofar as it was often a secondary aspect of the ceremony.
Or the other way around as was the case in ancient Rome, Greece or China.
But there has always been a civil element to marriage because it is first and foremost a civil institution that impacts on how society considers married couples in law in comparison with unmarried ones. As I have said before there is often a religious element too - but not always - there is always a civil element.
-
PD, as the sentence I have underlined shows, I have never suggested that the religious and civil haven't gone hand in hand. What I have said is that the religious aspect took precedence until very recently - in historical terms - in the west and often retains its primacy in other parts of the world.
But that is simply non-sense seeing as there is no doubt that marriage in ancient Rome and Greece were primarily civil, although might have had secondary religious elements akin to the current blessing of a civil wedding.
The distinction today of course is that most marriages have no religious element - not just a secondary religious element. They are entirely civil. You nave failed to provide any evidence for the reverse equivalent - i.e. marriage that is entirely religious with no civil element.
-
I don't deny that, but then that was a development that wasn't originally within Christianity, suggesting that (as we see in a number of other areas, sadly) the church wasn't exempt from making mistakes.
Yes, but seeing as how marriage itself wasn't a development within the original church, why should you get some sort of proprietary say in where it goes?
The church wasn't exempt from making mistakes, you say - fine, but appreciate that in fifty years or so people are going to look back at the arguments against gay marriage whilst the plural marriage debate goes on and say 'well, sure, we got that one wrong, but this is different'.
O.
-
Yes, but seeing as how marriage itself wasn't a development within the original church, why should you get some sort of proprietary say in where it goes?
Marriage has always been 'owned' by society. Often religion has also played a role, particularly where a society is heavily influenced by religion, but that doesn't the fundamental point that marriage is a societal institution - it always was and still is.
-
But that is simply non-sense seeing as there is no doubt that marriage in ancient Rome and Greece were primarily civil, although might have had secondary religious elements akin to the current blessing of a civil wedding.
The distinction today of course is that most marriages have no religious element - not just a secondary religious element. They are entirely civil. You nave failed to provide any evidence for the reverse equivalent - i.e. marriage that is entirely religious with no civil element.
The only reason you need a civil element is because the state needs to know about it, to cover it ( or recognise it ) by law.
I have seen some articles ( Islam) questioning whether it is worth bothering getting the civil aspect as some Muslims felt being married in Gods sight was enough.
One example of a religious marriage where the civil element is missing is where Muslims have more than one wife.
The second wife, is married in religious terms only. The civil aspect is missing.
If they had a civil aspect they would be known as bigomy.
Civil law in theory only recognises such a thing because it happens ........ And it only accepts it because it is allowed for in the Islamic religion.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uk-legally-recognises-multiple-islamic-wives-121789.html
In the UK only the first wife gets the recognition under UK law, which is the civil aspect.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05051/SN05051.pdf
The law is slightly different in Scotland
http://www.cflp.co.uk/islamic-marriage-and-divorce/
It's gets complicated because some religious marriages are recognised and others arn't.......
This also has a knock on effect as to whether divorces are valid or not.......
:o
It's a bit " messy"
In some cases religious only marriages are accepted, if the people come from a country that does them without a need for a civil version in the same way.
-
Marriage has always been 'owned' by society. Often religion has also played a role, particularly where a society is heavily influenced by religion, but that doesn't the fundamental point that marriage is a societal institution - it always was and still is.
It's difficult, because if you go back far enough there isn't much distinction between civic and religious in many places. There are enough, though, where religion doesn't impinge on family structure celebration and validation that it's safe to say it has an existence independent of religion, certainly.
O.
-
It's difficult, because if you go back far enough there isn't much distinction between civic and religious in many places. There are enough, though, where religion doesn't impinge on family structure celebration and validation that it's safe to say it has an existence independent of religion, certainly.
O.
Indeed - but where society was effectively one governed by a religion then there is still society and therefore marriage remains a societal institution even if that is synonymous with a religious institution. One point that is important is that as far as I am aware marriage in pretty well all societies has certain element which demonstrate its societal importance. Namely that marriage itself is conducted in a public ceremony, with witnesses and recorded by that society (even if the recording is really the presence of the witnesses). If marriage existed outwith society then none of that would be necessary, but it seems to be universal. If marriage was merely between the couple and god, why is it necessary to include anyone else - yet they always are.
-
The only reason you need a civil element is because the state needs to know about it, to cover it ( or recognise it ) by law.
I have seen some articles ( Islam) questioning whether it is worth bothering getting the civil aspect as some Muslims felt being married in Gods sight was enough.
One example of a religious marriage where the civil element is missing is where Muslims have more than one wife.
The second wife, is married in religious terms only. The civil aspect is missing.
If they had a civil aspect they would be known as bigomy.
Civil law in theory only recognises such a thing because it happens ........ And it only accepts it because it is allowed for in the Islamic religion.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uk-legally-recognises-multiple-islamic-wives-121789.html
In the UK only the first wife gets the recognition under UK law, which is the civil aspect.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05051/SN05051.pdf
The law is slightly different in Scotland
http://www.cflp.co.uk/islamic-marriage-and-divorce/
It's gets complicated because some religious marriages are recognised and others arn't.......
This also has a knock on effect as to whether divorces are valid or not.......
:o
It's a bit " messy"
In some cases religious only marriages are accepted, if the people come from a country that does them without a need for a civil version in the same way.
Presumably we are talking about marriage in the UK here.
And the position is clear - a marriage is only valid if it is monogamous and must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949 (as amended), the Registration of Marriages Regulations 1986 and other related Acts (eg the Children Act 1989). So a second 'marriage' carried out in some religious ceremony is not valid - pure and simply.
There are come complexities with people who for married in another country where polygamy is legal, but that's a different issue.
So to state yet again:
Religious marriage is valid when it is authorised by and conducted in accordance with the civil law of the land (or secular depending on your choice of term). If not then it is not valid - simple. So:
1. Civil ceremony without a religious ceremony - married.
2. Civil ceremony with a religious ceremony that isn't authorised under law - married.
3. Religious ceremony that is authorised under the law - married.
4. Religious ceremony that isn't authorised under the law without a civil ceremony - not married.
People can claim until they are blue in the face that they have a valid marriage to their second polygamous wife following a ceremony in the UK but that isn't the case. And indeed if they tried to claim they were married to their second polygamous wife (or vice versa) in an official way they might get into deep water.
-
The thing is though, years ago religious and civil were pretty much the same thing.
For example adultery which had a religious prohibition, was also against the law ( civil).
So the state needed to know who was attached to who, so they could punish those who where breaking the Ten Commandments.
Nowadays it's more separate.
:)
-
The thing is though, years ago religious and civil were pretty much the same thing.
For example adultery which had a religious prohibition, was also against the law ( civil).
So the state needed to know who was attached to who, so they could punish those who where breaking the Ten Commandments.
Nowadays it's more separate.
:)
I think I have already dealt with this in previous posts. Where civil society and religion were synonymous an institution such as marriage is still a societal institution as well as a religious one.
So it is possible for marriage to be both a societal and a religious institution, it is possible for marriage to be purely an institution of civil society with no religious involvement (as is the case for most marriages in the UK today) - I am struggling to see how the reverse is possible - marriage being purely a religious institution with no societal component. It makes no sense.
-
I think I have already dealt with this in previous posts. Where civil society and religion were synonymous an institution such as marriage is still a societal institution as well as a religious one.
So it is possible for marriage to be both a societal and a religious institution, it is possible for marriage to be purely an institution of civil society with no religious involvement (as is the case for most marriages in the UK today) - I am struggling to see how the reverse is possible - marriage being purely a religious institution with no societal component. It makes no sense.
It does, because in a small community everyone knows who is married.
Once societies got bigger then they needed to keep records, which were centralised.
At one point, I'd have said ALL valid marriages were religious ones, because they were the only ones on offer.
As time has moved on, and more people have become less religious, the two have separated.
Now they are totally separate.
Society has changed to suit the people in it.
Many years ago the only people to get married in a registry office were either of a different faith or unacceptable to God for some reason ( divorced, pregnant etc) it was almost " shaming" to get married in a registry office.
People who got married in a registry office ...... Were dodgy in some way.
I got married in a registry office, back 30+ years ago, and up to a point I was aware of this attitude, because then it just about still existed, in that some people kept trying to find dodgy reasons I had to have a registry office wedding.
It was unconventional then....... Mainly used by divorced people and other such deviants ;)
However, I can be a deviant all on my own ;D
But even 30 years ago, it caused a few raised eyebrows.
It was, I think something set up to cater for those who were considered not either good enough or of a different religion.
Nowadays it's considered more normal, no one thinks you are a bit dodgy because you get married in a registry office.
I noticed the attitude, 30+ years ago though.
It seemed to almost be considered not a " proper" wedding.
Attitudes have changed so much in the last 30 years.
I can believe people in the past thought the only valid ones were religious ones, because the attitude of society was very different in the past.
The further back you go, the more pronounced I reckon the attitude was, in society, that only dodgy people got married in a registry office.
Any one else have a registry office wedding 30 years ago, and did you find the same prejudices I found?
-
I think I have already dealt with this in previous posts. Where civil society and religion were synonymous an institution such as marriage is still a societal institution as well as a religious one.
So it is possible for marriage to be both a societal and a religious institution, it is possible for marriage to be purely an institution of civil society with no religious involvement (as is the case for most marriages in the UK today) - I am struggling to see how the reverse is possible - marriage being purely a religious institution with no societal component. It makes no sense.
According to this, civil marriage is a fairly new thing
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/
Before then, all marriages were religious ones.
Until the middle of the 18th century marriages could take place anywhere provided they were conducted before an ordained clergyman of the Church of England. This encouraged the practice of secret marriages which did not have parental consent and which were often bigamous.
Irregular marriages
It also allowed couples, particularly those of wealthy background, to marry while at least one of the partners was under age. The trade in these irregular marriages had grown enormously in London by the 1740s.
In 1753, however, the Marriage Act, promoted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, declared that all marriage ceremonies must be conducted by a minister in a parish church or chapel of the Church of England to be legally binding.
Parental consent
No marriage of a person under the age of 21 was valid without the consent of parents or guardians. Clergymen who disobeyed the law were liable for 14 years transportation.
Although Jews and Quakers were exempted from the 1753 Act, it required religious non-conformists and Catholics to be married in Anglican churches.
Restrictions removed
This restriction was eventually removed by Parliament in the Marriage Act of 1836 which allowed non-conformists and Catholics to be married in their own places of worship.
It was also made possible for non-religious civil marriages to be held in register offices which were set up in towns and cities.
Minimum age
In 1929, in response to a campaign by the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, Parliament raised the age limit to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act. This is still the minimum age.
Civil partnership
In 2004 Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act which gave same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples. The Act also set out formal procedures for the dissolution of partnerships similar to divorce.
:o
( I find I learn a lot, posting on these message boards :)🌹)
-
Civil partnership
In 2004 Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act which gave same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples. The Act also set out formal procedures for the dissolution of partnerships similar to divorce.
This is not strictly true - it should more accurately read "...many of the same legal rights and responsibilities" . There were if I recall 7 or 8 differences (mostly minor - but at least one was disadvanatageous towards same sex couples) between marriage and civil partnerships.
This was the issue I had in mind:
Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.
The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.
For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund.
-
Marriage has always been 'owned' by society. Often religion has also played a role, particularly where a society is heavily influenced by religion, but that doesn't the fundamental point that marriage is a societal institution - it always was and still is.
Who get's married for the sake of society? Hast thou not experienced ''The bubble'' with just the two of you in it?
In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?
-
Who get's married for the sake of society?
Who these days gets married for the sake of a religion? A few, but a truly tiny minority.
In fact does anyone actually really get married for the "sake" of anything other than wanting to be married to a specific person, usually with the intention of it being for life?
In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?
No - if you hadn't noticed marriage and reproduction are separable entities.
-
Who get's married for the sake of society? Hast thou not experienced ''The bubble'' with just the two of you in it?
In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?
I would say that most people get married because they love each other and want to make a public, consensual commitment to each other that is recognised by society.
In the UK in a minority of cases there is an additional reason of being seen to be married in the eyes of god, but that is not instead of the above, but in addition to it. So recognition by society (in its broadest or a more narrow sense of community of friends and family) is a major part of the reason to get married for most people I would argue.
-
According to this, civil marriage is a fairly new thing
http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/lawofmarriage-/
Before then, all marriages were religious ones.
I think you need to look a bit further back in history.
As I and other have pointed out marriage in the ancient greco-roman civilisations was effectively a civil rather than a religious institution.
And actually the early Christian church largely ignored the institution of marriage which continued to be celebrated according to long-standing greco-roman civil traditions and outwith the Christian church and therefore the prevailing religion of the day. Indeed it wasn't until the 13thC that the christian church (certainly in the west, it occurred a little earlier in the east) fully embraced marriage as a religious institution - it was at that point that marriage was declared to be a sacrament.
Indeed as far as I am aware there aren't detailed accounts of anything resembling a Christian wedding ceremony until about the 9th Century and not until the 13th Century that marriage became a sacrament. So effectively until the 12th or 13thC in western europe, including Britain marriage was an institution largely embedded in non religious civil society, (effectively as a 'contract' between the couple) and not in the church at all.
-
In any case aren't you supposed to say it is for the sake of the Gene?
Why - I think it is mainly religious people who see marriage and procreation as inextricably linked.
To me marriage and having children are entirely different things and, of course, this is reflected in the civil marriage ceremony where there is no mention of children, unlike, for example, the RCC ceremony where the couple have to promise to try to have children and (and here is the rub) normally expected to promise to bring those children up as catholics, including in cases where one member of the couple isn't a catholic.
-
The reason civil partnerships were introduced was to give same sex couples the same protection in law as married ones, should they wish to have it. Now we have marriage equality.
-
Why - I think it is mainly religious people who see marriage and procreation as inextricably linked.
My experience is that said folk are the last to use that argument. In fact, the people who seem to raise the idea most are those who want to suggest that it is the religious folk who raise it most.
-
My experience is that said folk are the last to use that argument. In fact, the people who seem to raise the idea most are those who want to suggest that it is the religious folk who raise it most.
Don't talk rubbish.
One of the major arguments used by the religious anti-equal marriage brigade has always been that gay couples can't have children, thereby inextricably linking marriage and procreation.
Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies.
-
Don't talk rubbish.
One of the major arguments used by the religious anti-equal marriage brigade has always been that gay couples can't have children, thereby inextricably linking marriage and procreation.
Sorry, PD, but I of all the arguments I've seen from the religious in this regard, this particular one comes pretty low on the list. Its rather like the 'yuck factor' claim: most religious people had never even heard or thought of the concept until it was brought up on internet discussion boards as the chief reason why religious people opposed the idea of liberalising the laws on homosexuality.
Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies.
It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.
-
It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.
Though a curiously optional, dispensible part so long as heterosexuals are involved, apparently.
-
It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.
That isn't a universal view at all.
It may do in a religious context, it doesn't in a civil one - which lets not forget represents over 70% of the marriages in the UK.
-
That isn't a universal view at all.
It may do in a religious context, it doesn't in a civil one - which lets not forget represents over 70% of the marriages in the UK.
PD, your post makes absolute nonsense, because my comment was in response to the point that you made - namely "Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies".
-
Though a curiously optional, dispensible part so long as heterosexuals are involved, apparently.
Ironically, Shakes, just about every part seems to be optional in the current climate
-
PD, your post makes absolute nonsense, because my comment was in response to the point that you made - namely "Which isn't surprising given that it is front and centre in many religious wedding ceremonies".
So you accept that procreation is irrelevant in the context of civil marriage then and therefore is a null and void argument against equal marriage in civil ceremonies.
By the way it also a very poor argument for religious marriage, as I'm not aware of any religious organisation that bans couples who are infertile from marrying.
-
Ironically, Shakes, just about every part seems to be optional in the current climate
Every part except the desire of two people who love each other to share their lives, it seems.
-
By the way it also a very poor argument for religious marriage, as I'm not aware of any religious organisation that bans couples who are infertile from marrying.
Even the Catholics, who get around it in their usual hypocritical, ad hoc and self-serving ways.
-
Ironically, Shakes, just about every part seems to be optional in the current climate
Really?!?!
I thought that the following were non negotiable - which is correct as they are surely what marriage is about:
1. Between two people who are adults
2. In a loving relationship
3. Who declare their commitment to each other in a public and legal manner
4. With the intention that that commitment will be for life and excluding all others
Isn't that what marriage is all about.
-
By the way, Prof. Diddy, I know Mrs. Prof. Diddy is a Catholic and I didn't mean my prior post to be construed as an attack on ordinary lay Catholics but upon the Magisterium, the hierarchy, who create the rules the laity are expected to abide by. I'm sure you'll know as well as I do how widely at variance the two are, based on personal experience perhaps as well as more objective evidence.
-
Just to note Prof Diddy is a lovely piece of writing
-
Just to note Prof Diddy is a lovely piece of writing
He always is :)
-
Even the Catholics, who get around it in their usual hypocritical, ad hoc and self-serving ways.
my sainted mother isn't. Your post on the other hand?
-
my sainted mother isn't. Your post on the other hand?
See #154 ;)
-
See #154 ;)
Fair enough, there is too much generalization about people of faith positions on here, so the clarification is useful
-
By the way, Prof. Diddy, I know Mrs. Prof. Diddy is a Catholic and I didn't mean my prior post to be construed as an attack on ordinary lay Catholics but upon the Magisterium, the hierarchy, who create the rules the laity are expected to abide by. I'm sure you'll know as well as I do how widely at variance the two are, based on personal experience perhaps as well as more objective evidence.
ProfDiddy - like it ;)
-
Tickled me an all :)
-
http://profdiddy.blogspot.co.uk/
-
http://profdiddy.blogspot.co.uk/
Nope - doesn't look like me at all, seeing as he describes himself as uncool and he hasn't publish anything since 2005!!
-
Really?!?!
I thought that the following were non negotiable - which is correct as they are surely what marriage is about:
1. Between two people who are adults
2. In a loving relationship
3. Who declare their commitment to each other in a public and legal manner
4. With the intention that that commitment will be for life and excluding all others
Isn't that what marriage is all about.
1. How many marriages have you heard of that aren't between adults, let alone consenting adults?
2. Have you never heard of arranged marriage or convenience marriage?
4. Never heard of marriages that are very open in their nature from the very start?
So, as I said, 'in the current climate' even some 'religious' marriages seem to fail 3 of your 4 tests, let alone some non-religious ones.
-
Sorry, PD, but I of all the arguments I've seen from the religious in this regard, this particular one comes pretty low on the list. Its rather like the 'yuck factor' claim: most religious people had never even heard or thought of the concept until it was brought up on internet discussion boards as the chief reason why religious people opposed the idea of liberalising the laws on homosexuality.
Perhaps it's confirmation bias at play (on one or both of our parts), but my experience is pretty much exactly the opposite: the people that raise the 'yuck' factor argument and the 'won't somebody think of the children!!!' are those opposed to gay marriage. Those aren't exclusively religious, obviously, and I don't know if those particular arguments do or don't come from that religious segment of that side of the debate.
It plays a part in such ceremonies because it is one part of the whole package.
It's a part of the religious package, but it's not intrinsically a part of marriage - plenty of people (I suspect even some that go for religious marriages) get married with little or no intent (or capability) of having children.
O.
-
1. Between two people who are adults
I'm not intrinsically wedded (pardon the pun) to the idea that it has to be only two people, personally. I appreciate there are practical issues with that in terms of the current structure of the law, but I don't see an inherent ethical problem with the idea.
2. In a loving relationship
This is the bit that I'm sort of wavering on. In principle I think that's what marriage is about, but as a civil structure the benefits don't come from how people feel about each other, but from the stabilising capacity of the relationship within society. On the personal level it's about a loving relationship, ideally, but at the societal level it's about stability: that's why I find it so strange that the gay-marriage equality opponents seem to have gone quiet on divorce, which seems to me to be a much bigger threat to the social benefit of marriage than opening to other people does.
3. Who declare their commitment to each other in a public and legal manner
Depends what you mean by 'public' I guess. It needs to be witnessed by someone independent for the legal niceties, but beyond that...
4. With the intention that that commitment will be for life and excluding all others
Why? Why for life? We know that we grow as we age, and we don't necessarily grow in the same directions - whilst the idea of fixed-term marriages would impact the romance, I wonder what effect it would have on divorces and the like - would not feeling 'trapped' or like the deal was completed encourage people to work to keep it going, would a 'natural' end-point eliminate any of the often acrimonious displays that happen in a break-up?
And 'excluding all others'... in what sense? Sexually - is it about sex? The home? What it is about each other that encourages people to 'bond' themselves differs from couple to couple, and it's for them to decide what - if anything - they are going to keep separate from everyone else, I think.
O.
Isn't that what marriage is all about.
[/quote]
-
1. How many marriages have you heard of that aren't between adults,
Too many...
... let alone consenting adults?
Again, too many. Not the majority, by any stretch, but there are cultures in the world (and ours was one of them, not so long ago), and sub-cultures in the western world where women were expected to marry who they are told to marry, and where those decisions are made when the girls are barely into their teens.
4. Never heard of marriages that are very open in their nature from the very start?
Have you not? I think that speaks to your social circle, perhaps, but it doesn't mean such people aren't out there.
O.
-
Perhaps it's confirmation bias at play (on one or both of our parts), but my experience is pretty much exactly the opposite: the people that raise the 'yuck' factor argument and the 'won't somebody think of the children!!!' are those opposed to gay marriage. Those aren't exclusively religious, obviously, and I don't know if those particular arguments do or don't come from that religious segment of that side of the debate.
Over the years, I've read a number of reports/books/articles on the subject. Not one of the ones written by 'religious' authors (both pro- and anti-) got anywhere near to referring to the 'yuck factor', directly or by allusion. The issue of childbearing was obviously referred to, but it generally came halfway down any priority list (or lower). On the other side of the authorship divide, it tended to be the pro- group who would claim that the religious debate was exclusively based on either the yuck factor, or the childbearing issue or both.
It's a part of the religious package, but it's not intrinsically a part of marriage - plenty of people (I suspect even some that go for religious marriages) get married with little or no intent (or capability) of having children.
Even if only one couple gets married with the intent of having children, it is 'part of the whole package', O. That is precisely why I used that form of words.
-
Have you not? I think that speaks to your social circle, perhaps, but it doesn't mean such people aren't out there.
Sorry, O; I'll emphasise the question mark at the end of the question in future. Perhaps by underlining it or bolding it.
-
Why? Why for life? We know that we grow as we age, and we don't necessarily grow in the same directions - whilst the idea of fixed-term marriages would impact the romance, I wonder what effect it would have on divorces and the like - would not feeling 'trapped' or like the deal was completed encourage people to work to keep it going, would a 'natural' end-point eliminate any of the often acrimonious displays that happen in a break-up?
Fixed-term marriages? Are you suggesting that those of us who decide to remain with the same spouse for life exclusively would have to undergo X number of wedding ceremonies (depending on the fixed-term that is set by law) with all the expense that that would involve? ;)
-
Fixed-term marriages? Are you suggesting that those of us who decide to remain with the same spouse for life exclusively would have to undergo X number of wedding ceremonies (depending on the fixed-term that is set by law) with all the expense that that would involve? ;)
These days I'd imagine that you could just 'up' your marriage certificate on-line, and no doubt for a small fee - say £50 for 5 years but with a special offer of 10 years for £70 (provided of course you had a valid M.O.T) :)
Seriously though, I can't see why there couldn't be an option today for people getting married to obtain their marriage certificate on a similar basis to how a UK passport is obtained and without the need to turn up personally, albeit that I expect that many would still want some sort of event. Even we ever had fixed term marriages (which seems unlikely at present) the option to renew or just let the certificate expire could surely be done via an administrative process similar to how UK passports are currently acquired and renewed.
-
Fixed-term marriages? Are you suggesting that those of us who decide to remain with the same spouse for life exclusively would have to undergo X number of wedding ceremonies (depending on the fixed-term that is set by law) with all the expense that that would involve? ;)
#
It was just a concept suggestion, I'm not sure how the practicalities would work - personally I wouldn't want to limit people to having to have limited terms if they wanted to marry for life.
On the other hand, I wonder if there aren't some people out there who'd like the idea of renewing their vows on a periodic basis.
O.
-
1. How many marriages have you heard of that aren't between adults, let alone consenting adults?
2. Have you never heard of arranged marriage or convenience marriage?
4. Never heard of marriages that are very open in their nature from the very start?
So, as I said, 'in the current climate' even some 'religious' marriages seem to fail 3 of your 4 tests, let alone some non-religious ones.
Whether or not people are being honest in their vows is another matter. As you have pointed out people can lie regardless of the marriage being religious or civil, and indeed always have.
However, assuming honesty on behalf of the couple then these seem to me to be the core elements. The only slight change I might make is in relation to arranged marriages (although I am not convinced these should be permitted unless by the time of the marriage the couple are actually in a loving relationship) you could make a slight change to number 2, namely:
2. In a loving relationship or to commit to a loving relationship.
The problem with this and therefore my issue with arranged marriage is that unless a couple is already in a loving relationship I am not sure they can legitimately commit to love each other - how do they know this is possible if they aren't already in a loving relationship.
-
hmm .. because love and marriage are two entirely different things?
-
hmm .. because love and marriage are two entirely different things?
No they're not - they go together like a horse and carriage ;-)
Sorry - I'll get my coat.....
-
Even if only one couple gets married with the intent of having children, it is 'part of the whole package', O. That is precisely why I used that form of words.
Only if that particular version of marriage has a focus on children - in other words religious marriage.
In civil marriage it is no more 'part of the whole package' than buying a house together if that's what the newly weds plan to do, or perhaps spending Christmas together.
You still seem fixated in the mindset that marriage and children are somehow inextricably linked - outside of the religious, they aren't.
So to go into anecdote overdrive - I'm now in that 'gap' period of my life where I don't actually go to that many weddings (unlike in my late 20s and 30s when they came thick and fast. So over the last couple of years I've been invited to 6 weddings (unfortunately one I couldn't actually attend). They involved:
1. A couple who had been together for 20 years and decided they'd like to get married - they have no kids and have no intention of having them and are probably too old.
2. Parents of one of my 8-year old daughter's school friends. They already had 2 kids, with no intent of having more when they decided to get married.
3. A gay couple who were previously in a civil partnership but decided to get married under the new law.
4. A cousin - second marriage - already had a young child with his spouse at the time of the wedding.
5. Another cousin - no kids when married - had a child shortly after.
6. A couple who are evangelical christians - first child born 6 months after they were married.
Four of the six were civil ceremonies - wonder if you can pick to 2 church weddings?
Point being that the old-fashioned notion that if you get married you are expected thereafter to have kids and you are expected to be married if you have kids is long gone.
-
Definitely no sproglets in prospect for this happy couple:
http://goo.gl/MtpPYT
-
Only if that particular version of marriage has a focus on children - in other words religious marriage.
I know of several non-religious couples who had non-religious ceremonies who had their focus on children and wrote that into the service.
-
When one of my sisters a 'born again', and her equally very religious husband, married, if the procreation of children was mentioned once by the idiot pastor who married them, he must have mentioned it about 20 times in his overlong and boring sermon! Funnily enough they only had two kids, whereas I had three birth children, and then went onto adopt two more, another sister of mine had four children. My youngest sister, an Anglican priest, never wanted kids, nor did her husband, so they successfully ensured none were born to them.
-
I know of several non-religious couples who had non-religious ceremonies who had their focus on children and wrote that into the service.
But that is an optional addition specific for that couple, rather than something that is in any way necessary.
We wrote into our service the importance of tolerance and respect and also the importance of the example set by our own parents - completely optional - important to us, but not necessary and in many cases not appropriate.
I've been to plenty of civil weddings and I don't think 'potential' children have ever been mentioned - the only cases where children have been mentioned was where couples were marrying who already had kids and, of course, those kids were a key part of the ceremony.
-
I've been to plenty of civil weddings and I don't think 'potential' children have ever been mentioned ...
And with the exception of a prayer that can be included but doesn't have to be, the only mention in the whole of the Anglican Marriage Service is this (or comparable words depending on the version):
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love.
Interestingly, marriage is referred to as the foundation of family life - and the mention of children isn't one of compulsion but of general reality - the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.
-
When one of my sisters a 'born again', and her equally very religious husband, married, if the procreation of children was mentioned once by the idiot pastor who married them, he must have mentioned it about 20 times in his overlong and boring sermon! Funnily enough they only had two kids, whereas I had three birth children, and then went onto adopt two more, another sister of mine had four children. My youngest sister, an Anglican priest, never wanted kids, nor did her husband, so they successfully ensured none were born to them.
My mother who isn't particularly religious always told me marriage was to protect the children, which given the treatment given to children born outside marriage, in the past, it could well be.
She takes the veiw that children want to know who their dad is it gives them a sense of identity.
The thing is, I feel the whole discussion on marriage now takes on a whole new meaning, given the gay debate and gay marriage.
Lots of people feel marriage exists to protect children. Two people committing to each other publicly sets out responsibilities.
Rather than pooh pooing the idea, you could extend it to gay couples, in that it's a declaration of commitment to the idea of family and any children they may choose to adopt.
The trouble is people use the idea of marriage to protect the family as an excuse against gay couples who cannot bear children naturally.
However, it can still be something they commit to, and a public declaration to commitment to their family
I suppose I was just brought up with the idea marriage was to protect children.
It isn't a comment on those who can't or don't want to have children.
Some people I know, have children and don't agree with marriage, they are as entitled to their POV as I am.
But to me it's a commitment to a family unit, it could apply as much to a gay couple adopting as a hetrosexual couple adopting.
Some children do want to know who their dad is though, and I think people need to keep sight of that 🌹
-
My mother who isn't particularly religious always told me marriage was to protect the children, which given the treatment given to children born outside marriage, in the past, it could well be.
She takes the veiw that children want to know who their dad is it gives them a sense of identity.
The thing is, I feel the whole discussion on marriage now takes on a whole new meaning, given the gay debate and gay marriage.
Lots of people feel marriage exists to protect children. Two people committing to each other publicly sets out responsibilities.
Rather than pooh pooing the idea, you could extend it to gay couples, in that it's a declaration of commitment to the idea of family and any children they may choose to adopt.
The trouble is people use the idea of marriage to protect the family as an excuse against gay couples who cannot bear children naturally.
However, it can still be something they commit to, and a public declaration to commitment to their family
I suppose I was just brought up with the idea marriage was to protect children.
It isn't a comment on those who can't or don't want to have children.
Some people I know, have children and don't agree with marriage, they are as entitled to their POV as I am.
But to me it's a commitment to a family unit, it could apply as much to a gay couple adopting as a hetrosexual couple adopting.
Some children do want to know who their dad is though, and I think people need to keep sight of that 🌹
I'm inclined to think that there is no formula, I can see your point of view and I have a lot of sympathy with it.
All differing types of family units no matter what, some fail some are extraordinarily successful and most of the various shades of success and failure in between.
ippy
-
the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.
Do they? Evidence please.
You may be correct but it isn't self evident. Interestingly the biggest increase in marriages by age band is for people aged 60-69, and I doubt many of these couples are likely to be having children.
Also there is a trend towards couples coming together in stable relationships, having children and then getting married so your claim that 'the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people' would not apply to them as they would have already produced a new generation of people before getting married.
Also consider second and third etc marriages - in many cases the couple will have kids from earlier marriages (or relationships) but may not have children in this new relationship.
So you might be right but without evidence I don't think you can assume this - and that you appear to be assuming it suggests you are somewhat blinded by your marriage equals kids type mentality, which isn't the same for many, many people who see marriage equals two people committing to each other and kids equals a decision (or not, but lets not get into unplanned pregnancies) by a couple to have a child - those two not being necessarily related at all.
-
the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.
Do they? Evidence please.
You may be correct but it isn't self evident. Interestingly the biggest increase in marriages by age band is for people aged 60-69, and I doubt many of these couples are likely to be having children.
Hi PD, I remembered my post later in the evening and realised that I ought to have used the term 'couples' or something similar. I'm not talking about the couples who have children before marriage.
-
Do they? Evidence please.
You may be correct but it isn't self evident. Interestingly the biggest increase in marriages by age band is for people aged 60-69, and I doubt many of these couples are likely to be having children.Hi PD, I remembered my post later in the evening and realised that I ought to have used the term 'couples' or something similar. I'm not talking about the couples who have children before marriage.
So what are you talking about.
You claimed that 'the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.' and I am asking you for the evidence for this.
I suspect your rather narrow view on marriage and its relation to having children leads you to assume this statement must be true. It may be true but there is no reason to suppose somehow it must be true and if you make a clime of that nature you need to provide evidence to back it up.
-
So what are you talking about.
You claimed that 'the majority of marriages result in a new generation of people.' and I am asking you for the evidence for this.
As I said, I should have used a term such as 'partnerships' as opposed to marriages, but the figures on births and new claim for child benefit payments, etc. suggest that most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children. Of course there will be exceptions - those who loose a partner and/or (re)marry late in life, those who, for whatever reason decide not to have children.
I suspect your rather narrow view on marriage and its relation to having children leads you to assume this statement must be true.
Oddly enough, my view on marriage is and has always been broader than many of the people I've associated/worked with - that it is first and foremost something to do with companionship, and being a foundation for a family - whether that is a single generation family of two, or a family that caters for 2 or more generations. I've never really thought about where that understanding has come from, but I suppose its as a result of the teaching I have had in school, church and, probably above all, from my Christian parents.
OK, I'll agree that my family may have been slightly out of the run of the mill - whenever Dad was at home of a weekend (his work as the 'CEO' of the Church of England's youth work nationally meant that he was often away on official business of a weekend) we would have a discussion, sometimes heated, about just about anything under the sun over Sunday lunch. Sometimes, it would occur fairly naturally, sometimes it would come from a comment that Dad would make from a 'Devil's Advocate' pov. Talking to other people, religious or not, I've come across very few people who had this kind of preparation in their youth.
-
As I said, I should have used a term such as 'partnerships' as opposed to marriages, but the figures on births and new claim for child benefit payments, etc. suggest that most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children. Of course there will be exceptions - those who loose a partner and/or (re)marry late in life, those who, for whatever reason decide not to have children.
Clearly having children is typically associated with some form of partnership, whether very formal/stable through to a one-night stand. Sure there are some women who have children without a partner but that is, of course, rare.
But again I'd challenge you on the assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' - I don't think you can justify that claim. There are countless couples who move in together for all sorts of reasons that are nothing to do with a desire to have kids. Most notably, simply to want to live together - to be able to share all those lovely, yet often mundane things, to be able to wake up together without one of them being in the other's place etc.
Then there are those who are kind of 'test driving' the seriousness of their relationship - so at that point (moving in) they want to see whether they are compatible - if so, perhaps marriage or children or both might be on the agenda, but neither are at the point of moving in.
Then there are couples who recognise that living together makes economic (as well as emotional) sense. In our crazy property world if you are a couple a one bed flat makes a lot more sense financially than 2 one bed flats, or bedsits.
So I think you are getting you argument the wrong way up. Sure I imagine most couples who have kids have (at some earlier point) moved in together. But that isn't the same as claiming that most couples move in together because they want to have kids.
-
Worth noting too that nearly 50% of children born in the UK currently are born to parents who aren't married. And of course that is way beyond the levels of 'Daily Mail-type rant' unplanned teenage pregnancies. Very many of these will be completely planned and to stable couples, but couples who have made the decision not to get married, although from my experience a fair few of these couples may choose to get married years later.
-
Worth noting too that nearly 50% of children born in the UK currently are born to parents who aren't married. And of course that is way beyond the levels of 'Daily Mail-type rant' unplanned teenage pregnancies. Very many of these will be completely planned and to stable couples, but couples who have made the decision not to get married, although from my experience a fair few of these couples may choose to get married years later.
I don't think middle class professional people are that qualified to be talking about any aspect of the population in general since most of them abandoned the masses after secondary school and have not had much to do with them subsequently only viewing them through the debased lens of the media (run by professional middle class).
Only people who have been in the public services have any idea and I speak from that background as well as several years industrial experience.
Anyway that is a roundabout way of getting to the point that child rearing isn't or hasn't been a strong suit in the UK in general. With material gifting seen by many as a reasonable substitute for presence, time, effort or commitment.
The unpalatable truth is that people can be very destabilised if areas of familial stability collapse............something else public service workers and professionals could tell you.
-
But again I'd challenge you on the assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' - I don't think you can justify that claim.
OK, I'm making a number of assumptions, but 'educated' ones I would argue. Many studies suggest that a majority of women want children as do a majority of men. Studies also suggest that the majority of men and women want to enjoy a relationship with one (or more) other members of the species. After all, that is the prime way in which the human race continues from generation to generation.
Putting those two sets of data together it seems very probable that the living together and the having of children are matters that are discussed early in the process. After all, someone who wants to have children isn't going to want to get too far into a relationship before at least broaching the subject. Obviously, there are some relationships where the likelihood of either partner wanting chidren is very low, for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure that they in any way equal, let alone outnumber those where children are a consideration.
-
OK, I'm making a number of assumptions, but 'educated' ones I would argue. Many studies suggest that a majority of women want children as do a majority of men. Studies also suggest that the majority of men and women want to enjoy a relationship with one (or more) other members of the species. After all, that is the prime way in which the human race continues from generation to generation.
Putting those two sets of data together it seems very probable that the living together and the having of children are matters that are discussed early in the process. After all, someone who wants to have children isn't going to want to get too far into a relationship before at least broaching the subject. Obviously, there are some relationships where the likelihood of either partner wanting chidren is very low, for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure that they in any way equal, let alone outnumber those where children are a consideration.
No - you cannot make that leap.
Just because a woman wants children at some unspecified point in the future, and so does a man, you cannot assume that when they decide to move in together that they are doing so because they want children. That is a leap that makes no sense. I think it is extremely common for 2 people to move in together and definitely don't want to have children with each other at that point - and are probably taking precautions to avoid it.
So unless you can come to some evidence that as soon as couples move in together they stop using contraception I think your assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' is a pile of rubbish. Indeed if they are using contraception then it is pretty clear they don't want children at that time. Maybe that might change in the future, maybe not, but that is a separate matter.
-
So unless you can come to some evidence that as soon as couples move in together they stop using contraception I think your assertion that 'most people who choose to live together are also looking to have children' is a pile of rubbish. Indeed if they are using contraception then it is pretty clear they don't want children at that time. Maybe that might change in the future, maybe not, but that is a separate matter.
Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children. There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future. It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe. I have never even touched on the concept.
-
Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children. There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future. It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe. I have never even touched on the concept.
But if there is some rather vague aspiration to have kids at some point in the future with someone, who may or may not be the person they are moving in with how can you say they are moving in with someone because they are looking to have children.
No doubt most people aspire to live together with someone, yet when two people start going out together I don't think it is because they want to live together. I suspect a that point when they enter a relationship, although moving in together at some point in the future might be a possibility, that would be the last thing on their minds at that moment.
-
Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children. There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future. It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe. I have never even touched on the concept.
But you have to have some temporal proximity between the two.
Otherwise you could similarly claim that people get a job because they are looking to retire. I imagine most people want to have a job and career, and ultimately most people want to retire and the two are much more linked than living together and having children. Yet it would be barmy to claim that the reason someone gets a job is because they want to retire.
-
Whereas I would argue that using contraception doesn't make it clear that they don't want children. There may be a one or more of a whole host of reasons for not wanting children at a given time that doesn't mean that they don't intend to have children at some point in the future. It is you who seem determined to link the 'getting together' and the 'having of children' together within a limited timeframe. I have never even touched on the concept.
I don't think that was intended to be read as 'they don't want to have children at that point in time but are open to the idea of having them at some point', I think it was meant as 'when they get married, they have no intention of having children at all, and that sentiment might come over them later'.
O.