Do You?
Yes
Do You?
Yes
Good. You’re married. Kiss her.
The Princess wasn’t atheist - she was Druish.
Define west? Are you talking Western Europe? And by having it blessed by the Gods would seem to indicate a sacramental definition. Gods wont “bless” a marriage that doesnt meet the definition.
May?
I think we should add that back in the time we are talking, Marriage was a contract of ownership, and today it doesnt meet that. That being said,
This country basically accepted the “Church’s” definition of marriage as civil law. This is why the Church gets all uptight when the Government wants to define it. The real issue here (at least to me) is the separation of Church and State. I dont want the Church defining our law. I also dont want our Government defining Scripture. These are roads we dont want to travel.
My previous post solves the issue politically. The end result is this, same sex couples arent acknowledged under the law in a Civil Uniion. They dont get the same rights for taxes, next of kin, beneficiary designation.
By creating a Civil Union recognition, the Church is no longer a part of the discussion, and they can shove their bigotry.
If however, people expect the Government to force the Church to recognize same sex couples, they are sniffing airplane glue.
Really? She didnt look Druish…
He is agnostic? I wonder, did anyone burn a ? in your front lawn?
That’s nice to hear – when my folks got married, neither her church or his temple – both pretty liberal congregations for the times – would do it if they other didn’t convert. They ended up going to the UU.
Exactly wrong. Many states allow same sex couples to form civil unions. These are insufficient. The word means something, and people don’t want to be civilly unionized. We want to be married. By simply changing the name of civil marriage to something else, you claim you’re solving the problem, when actually you’re making it worse by ensuring that queers, as well as those of us who aren’t connected to a religious institution, can never partake in marriage, which is a civil institution.
Your insistence that because marriage is derived from religious history it must therefore be eternally bound to religion is incorrect as a matter of fact, law, and history. Western culture is almost totally a product of religious historical influence. But culture is not religion. And the institution of marriage is an important cultural signifier that is – I can assure you from personal experience – not adequately substituted by a legally similar institution expressly prohibited from using the name.
No one expects that, and the government is nowhere actually doing that. By perpetuating this myth, you’re doing more harm than good. (Also ignoring that many churches do indeed recognize same sex marriages. Some churches did it before any states did.)
–Cliffy
I got married in Borough Hall. My husband got married 3 months later in his parent’s Baptist church.
Lots of these responses are if only one is a non believe but if you’re both agnostic/athiest/nonbeliever, you get either a Justice of the Peace or a friend who is “certified” in that particular state. I’ve been to one wedding where a friend married the couple and it was the most intimate, friendly, real wedding of them all. I mean, c’mon, a priest or somebody nobody knows? That’s just bizarre.
We haven’t officially asked a particular friend who can marry people to do it but he’ll likely say yes when we do.
But now that I read this I want said rabbi 
Yep the Gold Coast does a roaring trade in traditional Western Style Japanese weddings. I have attended one and it was a weird mash up of cultures!
In a gazebo in a lovely park on a gorgeous summer day with one set of parents and my son in attendance. The officiant was a pagan (maybe Wiccan, I’ve no idea) whom we knew through my work for a festival promoter. At the time, I think I considered myself agnostic, but I enjoyed being around pagans. Neither of us white, nor dressed formally. I wore a short-sleeve blue cotton dress with a flower print. My mate wore a vest, shirt and casual slacks. I was visibly pregnant! :eek: We were already engaged and had been living together for years before we found out and bumped up the marriage while my mom was in town visiting. Actually, we did it on the cheap and quick, and I don’t regret that in the least.
Though there was no Christian reference at all and vaguely spiritual ritual (we did a handfasting binding), it took. We are still happily married, for 14 years now, in a traditional, monogamous marriage with a kid and a dog (no white picket fence though). Didn’t need to invoke some magical dude in the sky to make it work.
I don’t remember whether we said “forever” or anything like that in our vows and I personally don’t think marriage should necessarily last forever. I think if two people at some point are not both thriving in a marriage, it’s probably best to cut losses and move on. No sense dragging out pain and unhappiness. However, I do believe in my marriage and I’d like to think it is a lasting thing. I suppose that’s why I got married: because he was the one I saw myself being happy with for a very long time.
There’s an atheist perspective for you.
Why is it bizarre? It’s not like I need a friend of mine to get my driver’s license. Same thing. Piece of paper that allows you some privileges that you didn’t have before. To me that’s it.
^This exactly. Granting the right to have a similar institution but with a different name isn’t addressing the initial injustice and does not offer true equality.
Absolutely. Y’know, if they combined courthouse marriages and the DMV, the counties could save themselves some money, but it would take a lot more time and paperwork to get married :D.
The minister, while a very pleasant lady, was the least important person at my wedding. Her role could have been filled by anybody with the legal right to perform a wedding. I never saw her again and the church closed down in a couple of years due to lack of interest.
??
I only know of a few atheists, or at least that I know are atheist, don’t really ask about most peoples beliefs. But some of them aren’t even married, they just stay boyfriend/girlfriend and don’t really believe in marriage. Maybe it has something to do with their atheism or it could be a coincedence. Either way, marriage has become a joke to some people so that could also be a reason why they probably won’t ever marry.
So - really love your car, do you? (Cue Queen song here.) 
See below
Again, Western Europe? Western Babylon? Western Pennsylvania?
Many of the “Civil” governments were indeed tied to the “Church”. The laws written were taken from that influence. Marriage being once of them.
I cant remember the name of the Civilization, but in a previous discussion, a gentlemen made the same assertion. After I looked up the Civ, the Monarch’s laws were based on God (no mention of what God).
Regarding Civil Recognition, I personally believe that the Feds need to Define the Civil Union at this point and get the Bible Bangers out of the picture.
Drive-thru window in Las Vegas.
“Western,” in this context, has a well understood (albeit imprecise) meaning, viz., that culture that exists in Europe and lands settled through its colonial activities. As contrasted with Eastern, that is, “oriental” culture.
Yes, you’ve made this objection before, and I’ve already answered it.
I understand. But if your goal is to engage social justice for persons not served by religious isntutions, I am telling you (for the last time), as one of those persons, that your methods would be an utter failure.
–Cliffy
IF indeed, my info is accurate, and Marriage is a term defined by Church, and if indeed there are those who wish the Government to Define Marriage, then my statement rings true.
And I do agree some Churchs recognize same sex. Great! Not all do. JMHO, that is up to the Church.
I guess I dont feel your objection satisfactory to change my opinion
This is an issue blended between Religious and Civil history. Ignoring Religious History for the sake of what one may want Civilly isnt a solution.