We're still nibbling away at the religionists.

[Hope]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

By doing what you apparently can't, Vlad - thinking about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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Hardly......as if different ideas on marriage are superceded by the current secular humanist/antitheist one.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.

[Shaker]

Hardly......as if different ideas on marriage are superceded by the current secular humanist/antitheist one.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).

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

I'm not surprised that you've never been to any weddings, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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. 

[Bubbles]

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 
 
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!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hence the NSS were complaining their opinions weren't being dinged into childrens heads too.

 


Ones as bad as the other 
 
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.

[Shaker]

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