Handfasting

[Daniel25]

if neopaganism is taken seriously as a religion, why isn't Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[awitch]

if neopaganism is taken seriously as a religion, why isn't Dungeons and Dragons?

What does one have to do with the other?

 

[Eudaimonist]

if neopaganism is taken seriously as a religion, why isn't Dungeons and Dragons?

If apples are taken seriously as a fruit, why isn't ice cream?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Fuzzy]

Yes I accept that, but are you saying that Christian churches are performing illegal practices?

Only in a strict and technical definition of "illegal", as churches don't issue marriage licenses. They're performing a ceremony. Yes, there's a lot of corroboration between churches and civil authorities, but the legal status of "married" is done by certificate (government issued) or the aforementioned common-law standing.

a) Handfasting or other ceremonies are performed by some Christian groups for the purposes of uniting a gay couple
AND
b) it's illegal in Texas

A) Yes

B) Again, by a strict definition of "illegal." The state just won't recognize the ceremony. No SWAT teams, no deep-cover sting operations.

That's a dreadful analogy, baptism has nothing to do with citizenship.

It's a great analogy, because it's a religious ceremony contrasted with a civil standing.

 

[SithDoughnut]

if neopaganism is taken seriously as a religion, why isn't Dungeons and Dragons?

If Christianity is taken seriously as a religion, why isn't Dungeons and Dragons?

Hint: Both questions have the same answer.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Again, by a strict definition of "illegal." The state just won't recognize the ceremony. No SWAT teams, no deep-cover sting operations.

I don't think you can really call it "illegal". It has to exist first for it to be illegal, and it simply does not exist in Texas; marriage (as a civil concept) is a status granted by the state, and as such if the state does not recognise it then it doesn't exist.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

This is the sense I'm using it...

Handfasting

Thanks. Honestly, when I first saw this thread I thought it had something to do with stopping masturbation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

when I first saw this thread I thought it had something to do with stopping masturbation.

In a way, it does...


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Montalban]

Only in a strict and technical definition of "illegal", as churches don't issue marriage licenses.

That's an interesting way of putting something. You mean 'It's illegal'

Or would you say "Running someone over is in a strict and technical definition 'illegal'"

B) Again, by a strict definition of "illegal." The state just won't recognize the ceremony. No SWAT teams, no deep-cover sting operations.

It's probably not high on the agenda

It's a great analogy, because it's a religious ceremony contrasted with a civil standing.

Except that they have nothing to do with each other. There's no civil standing equal of baptism.

If you were baptised in a church you'd be a member of that church regardless of the nation and if you were made a citizen of Australia you'd be an Australian citizen.

The only way I can see where you'd fit this is if you associate 'baptism' (joining a church) with becoming a citizen - except you've mixed the two up because being baptised in Australia would make you a member of a church, it's irrelevant that it's in Australia. It has nothing to do with marriage in a church making it a marriage in a church!

 

[Montalban]

I don't think you can really call it "illegal". It has to exist first for it to be illegal, and it simply does not exist in Texas; marriage (as a civil concept) is a status granted by the state, and as such if the state does not recognise it then it doesn't exist.

That's not true. Texas doesn't licence drug dealers. Because of that you can't say that they don't exist (in a legal sense). That they operate outside the law makes their act illegal.

It's the same with the marriages they consider illegal.

 

[Montalban]

If Christianity is taken seriously as a religion, why isn't Dungeons and Dragons?

Christianity is taken seriously as a religion. Dungeons and Dragons isn't.

What stops people not taking dungeons and dragons seriously as a religion? They know it's made up.

Pagans here on this site freely admit that they just choose which ever pantheon and set of rules happens to appeal to them. Therefore they make the religion and acknowledge that they make it up.

 

[awitch]

Pagans here on this site freely admit that they just choose which ever pantheon and set of rules happens to appeal to them. Therefore they make the religion and acknowledge that they make it up.

I never said that. I don't recall anyone saying that.

 

[Montalban]

I never said that.

I never said you made this statement.

 

[Fuzzy]

That's an interesting way of putting something. You mean 'It's illegal'

Again, there's a qualitative difference between "Criminal Act" and "Not Recognized."

It's probably not high on the agenda

Usually, no. I'd like to say that elections around here pay more attention to stuff like balanced budgets or plans to actually improve our schools or infrastructure, but the occasional LGBT issue does seem to take center stage as a smoke-and-mirrors distraction. But that's another thread.

There are no criminal statutes pertaining to same-sex marriage in Texas. It's just not recognized.

Again, qualitative difference between a religious organization performing a ceremony, and a criminal act.

Except that they have nothing to do with each other. There's no civil standing equal of baptism.

If you were baptised in a church you'd be a member of that church regardless of the nation and if you were made a citizen of Australia you'd be an Australian citizen.

The only way I can see where you'd fit this is if you associate 'baptism' (joining a church) with becoming a citizen - except you've mixed the two up because being baptised in Australia would make you a member of a church, it's irrelevant that it's in Australia. It has nothing to do with marriage in a church making it a marriage in a church!

Let's try this another way.

Is there a church ceremony in Australia that changes my standing under Australian law? Would Confirmation make me a citizen?

That's not true. Texas doesn't licence drug dealers. Because of that you can't say that they don't exist (in a legal sense). That they operate outside the law makes their act illegal.

It's the same with the marriages they consider illegal.

There is a criminal penalty for dealing drugs.
There is not a criminal penalty for being a same-sex couple who went through a ceremony.

Christianity is taken seriously as a religion. Dungeons and Dragons isn't.

What stops people not taking dungeons and dragons seriously as a religion? They know it's made up.

Pagans here on this site freely admit that they just choose which ever pantheon and set of rules happens to appeal to them. Therefore they make the religion and acknowledge that they make it up.

That's a rather broad brush, and I'm shocked that you would use it.

Reconstructionist pagans, by definition, are working from existing sources and trying to recreate the practice.

The appeal of a religion and its benefits are a common trait of all adherents. Why convert to Christianity if it doesn't appeal, with its message of salvation?

 

[Daniel25]

can i choose the pantheon of Gods from dungeons and dragons?


I think i'll be a level 12 cleric of tyr.

 

[Montalban]

Again, there's a qualitative difference between "Criminal Act" and "Not Recognized."

You said it was illegal. You just added "strict...." such and such to it, which means to me "it's illegal"

There are no criminal statutes pertaining to same-sex marriage in Texas. It's just not recognized.

Then it's not "strictly speaking illegal"

Again, qualitative difference between a religious organization performing a ceremony, and a criminal act.

Well if performing the ceremony was a criminal act. Say for instance a church performed human sacrifice.

Let's try this another way.

Is there a church ceremony in Australia that changes my standing under Australian law? Would Confirmation make me a citizen?

The constitution says only...

s116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
.The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

However despite this the High Court has upheld legislation where the Commonwealth has imposed itself on religion. For instance a marriage that is not legal under the Family Law act would not be recognised by the Commonwealth.

However as noted with baptism, confirmation has nothing to do with citizenship. Nothing at all.

Certainly some changes in religious status change one's legal status. For instance in some jurisdictions there are regulations regarding the formation of 'church' (because this can affect tax status), as well as 'minsister' (including privilleges of the confessional).

There is a criminal penalty for dealing drugs.

Bad example, sorry. However I'm not sure now whether the act is illegal or not that we're discussing because you say "Strictly speaking it's illegal" then that it's not.

There is not a criminal penalty for being a same-sex couple who went through a ceremony.

Then they should be performing the ceremony and it's not 'strictly speaking illegal'

There does however seem to be a ban on such marriages

That's a rather broad brush, and I'm shocked that you would use it.

It's my experience with them

Reconstructionist pagans, by definition, are working from existing sources and trying to recreate the practice.

Choosing whichever panthenon they wish?

The appeal of a religion and its benefits are a common trait of all adherents. Why convert to Christianity if it doesn't appeal, with its message of salvation?

If you think choosing a religion based on lifestyle choice, or someone likes the name "Thor" then I can see why you'd say that.

 

[awitch]

can i choose the pantheon of Gods from dungeons and dragons?


I think i'll be a level 12 cleric of tyr.

That would make you odd, not a Neopagan

 

[Fuzzy]

You said it was illegal. You just added "strict...." such and such to it, which means to me "it's illegal"

Then it's not "strictly speaking illegal"

I think I see where you're coming from, now. If "illegal" is defined as "not approved by the legal code of a society," then yes, those churches are performing illegal acts by performing same-sex marriage ceremonies. But there's no penalty for such an act, aside from that marriage not being recognized by the State.

At the same time, it is not an absolute requirement that a marriage be facilitated by a religious figure. Ministers and priests do perform them, and are listed as recognized officiants. Elected civil officials are also recognized officiants.

There are activities by churches that are, to me, much more concerning than commitment ceremonies or handfastings. So I'm not deeply concerned with a...liberal church performing a marriage ceremony.

If you'll permit me...I could tell people I'm Santa Claus even though I'm not a jollly old elf. There's no criminal penalty for that act, but I'm not likely to be recognized as such. I could tell people I'm a police officer even though
I'm not, and there is a criminal penalty for that.

Well if performing the ceremony was a criminal act. Say for instance a church performed human sacrifice.

Then we'd be dealing with a criminal act, with codified penalties.

However despite this the High Court has upheld legislation where the Commonwealth has imposed itself on religion. For instance a marriage that is not legal under the Family Law act would not be recognised by the Commonwealth.

This reads like the definition of marriage rests with a civil authority, not a religious one.

However as noted with baptism, confirmation has nothing to do with citizenship. Nothing at all.

Certainly some changes in religious status change one's legal status. For instance in some jurisdictions there are regulations regarding the formation of 'church' (because this can affect tax status), as well as 'minsister' (including privilleges of the confessional).

So, if I'm reading this correctly, citizenship is defined by the state, and there are regulations within some jurisdictions that recognize a certain benefit or status to a certain organization or a member of said organization. And this recognition is, again, by the state.

Bad example, sorry. However I'm not sure now whether the act is illegal or not that we're discussing because you say "Strictly speaking it's illegal" then that it's not.

Criminal activities are defined, and have prescribed penalties.
There is no state criminal penalty for a minister performing a same-sex marriage ceremony. Whether or not there is a penalty within the religious organization the minister belongs to is under the auspices of that organization.

There does however seem to be a ban on such marriages

They are not very common.

If you think choosing a religion based on lifestyle choice, or someone likes the name "Thor" then I can see why you'd say that.

Why are you Christian?
How did you become a member of the Christian faith?

 

[Montalban]

can i choose the pantheon of Gods from dungeons and dragons?


I think i'll be a level 12 cleric of tyr.

You know more about it than I. Is tyr a place?

 

[Montalban]

Why are you Christian?

That's an incredibly long story.

How did you become a member of the Christian faith?

I was convinced by the arguments for Orthodoxy. I actually said to my first priest "I don't care if you ask me to squawk like a chicken" because I was convinced by their truth before I knew what ceremony/ritual was involved.

I actually find their ritual inconvenient and am not always able to follow it, but I try. I accept that this also has a negative side to it because potentially they might have said "We want you to kill before you become one of us". However they didn't

I did however see a doco about a group going to a place here called HillSong* and they expressed it in exactly the terms of choosing a church based on fitting it in with their lifestyle, like the service fit in nicely with their weekend. I'm not saying all do this, but I don't think that's a good reason.


On the ABC there's a weekly religious program called Compass - the 'religious lite' view of Christianity made me stop watching it.