Humanist Services

[Shetlander]

The Church of Scotland are seeking views about such things. Please check out the website and respond according?

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/discussion/discussioncurrent.htm

Thank You



I've just read some of the feedback and am amazed by some of the responses!!

 

[fromwithin]

So it is now legal to marry in Scotland with a "celebrant" - a humanist wedding. How this differs from a legal civil ceremony with a Registrar I haven't yet assertained - Shetlander... perhaps you can enlighten me?
I see England And Wales British Humanist Society are now clamouring for the same rights - I really see no need for this as a civil wedding ceremony is already free of religion AND legal but also "neutral" in the sense that no judgements are made.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=1999
and having read an article in the independant by the BHS entitled "Who Needs God" I feel even more miserable about the whole movement. We all need God, we are useless without him
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1985

 

[The Seeker]

So it is now legal to marry in Scotland with a "celebrant" - a humanist wedding. How this differs from a legal civil ceremony with a Registrar I haven't yet assertained - Shetlander... perhaps you can enlighten me?
I see England And Wales British Humanist Society are now clamouring for the same rights - I really see no need for this as a civil wedding ceremony is already free of religion AND legal but also "neutral" in the sense that no judgements are made.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=1999

Why shouldn't people be allowed to marry with the ceremony of their chosing? What business is it of yours? Would you insist that a Buddhist or a Hindu chose between a Christian wedding or a "civil wedding"?

and having read an article in the independant by the BHS entitled "Who Needs God" I feel even more miserable about the whole movement. We all need God, we are useless without him
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1985

NEWSFLASH: Not everybody believes in the same things as you!!!

 

[fromwithin]

I dont need your newsflash, as its not news to me - I feel miserable doesn't mean I think everyone feels miserable, nor that everyone agrees with me but hey I am allowed to post my thoughts on here just as we all have to tolerate yours - difference is I put mine politely and NO I dont think there is a need for humanist weddings and I have every right to think that and I have no issue with your opinion being different, it adds to the colour of the world.

 

[The Seeker]

I dont need your newsflash, as its not news to me - I feel miserable doesn't mean I think everyone feels miserable, nor that everyone agrees with me but hey I am allowed to post my thoughts on here just as we all have to tolerate yours - difference is I put mine politely and NO I dont think there is a need for humanist weddings and I have every right to think that and I have no issue with your opinion being different, it adds to the colour of the world.

I refuse to accept that people who are belittling humanist belief and denying us the right to marry with whatever ceremony we see fit are being "polite", whatever wording they might choose.

And yes, you may well have every right to think any number of things, doesn't mean you can then push your beliefs on everybody else by proscribing certain types of marriage ceremony.

 

[fromwithin]

so what is a humanist wedding to you seeker? and how does this differ from a civil wedding?

 

[Martin^^]

I think the point of according humanist weddings the same status as religious ceremonies is to reflect the fact that we live in an increasingly secular and multi-cultural society.
There are many people who have no religious affiliation, but would like a ceremony with some content which reflects their own spirituality or feelings and has meaning for them personally.
The standard civil ceremony is very simple, doing just enough to fulfil the legal requirements. However it is quite impersonal, with no provision for readings or music chosen by the couple.
A humanist ceremony would allow them to create a more meaningful event which celebrates their love and reflects their own beliefs and values. Why should they be denied that?

 

[Martin^^]

I have never been to a humanist wedding, but I have seen one non-religious wedding.

Friends of ours flew to the States to get married in an Elvis chapel in Las Vegas. We watched it live on webcam and toasted them with champagne at the 'puter. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it was very happy and joyful - and they are still together five years later.

 

[Strong in Him]

My cousin had a humanist wedding years ago at Knebworth house. I remember my aunt telling me beforehand that they were trying to devise a humanist service. So presumably they didn't belong to/know of the BHS and had no guidelines to follow. A few years later, my uncle had a humanist funeral.
I always assumed that a humanist event was one without any mention of God.

 

[fromwithin]

The standard civil ceremony is very simple, doing just enough to fulfil the legal requirements. However it is quite impersonal, with no provision for readings or music chosen by the couple.
...QUOTE]

That isn't quite true, you can choose to read, quote or play anything you want as long as it doesn't include religious reference specifically to God/biblical (that is already being looked at with a view to allow some bible readings in ceremonies)

as for readings, you can have for example, an apache wedding extract, the hindu seven steps, hawaiian wedding prayer, extracts from any book, poem reading, story you desire as long as God is not mentioned and certain words (eg blessing, confirmation) are removed or replaced with words without the religious connotation.

You can walk down the aisle to anything you want to from a traditional canon to the theme tune of Jaws! There are about 2 lines of legal vows (which can be modified by the couple) and from that point you can add any of your own personal vows and words for exchanging the rings that you want. So the civil ceremony already offers freedom and choice and is not impersonal, its as personal as the couple wish to make it - so they aren't being denied it, they already have it.

 

[The Seeker]

so what is a humanist wedding to you seeker? and how does this differ from a civil wedding?

Very generally, a humanist wedding ceremony would be one in which there is an emphasis on the human relationships involved (love, family, friendship), rather than on the blessing of a deity, though I understand BHS have their own specific ceremonies.

Personally, I'd probably want a humanist wedding, in the unlikely even that I ever totally lose my mind and get married, though I don't know enough about the BHS ceremonies to say if I'd want that particular ceremony.

 

[LiberatedChick]

The standard civil ceremony is very simple, doing just enough to fulfil the legal requirements. However it is quite impersonal, with no provision for readings or music chosen by the couple.
...

That isn't quite true, you can choose to read, quote or play anything you want as long as it doesn't include religious reference specifically to God/biblical (that is already being looked at with a view to allow some bible readings in ceremonies)

as for readings, you can have for example, an apache wedding extract, the hindu seven steps, hawaiian wedding prayer, extracts from any book, poem reading, story you desire as long as God is not mentioned and certain words (eg blessing, confirmation) are removed or replaced with words without the religious connotation.

You can walk down the aisle to anything you want to from a traditional canon to the theme tune of Jaws! There are about 2 lines of legal vows (which can be modified by the couple) and from that point you can add any of your own personal vows and words for exchanging the rings that you want. So the civil ceremony already offers freedom and choice and is not impersonal, its as personal as the couple wish to make it - so they aren't being denied it, they already have it.

I agree. My husband and I had a civil ceremony and there's a lot of freedom to choose...it was not an impersonal ceremony at all. There are two legal vows you have to say (a declaration and contracting vow) and you must have two witnesses but that is really the extent of the legal stuff.

We chose the music I walked down the aisle to, we chose the music we had whilst signing the register, we chose our own vows to have in addition to the legal ones. We didn't have any readings but we could have had some if we wanted to.

As already stated by fromwithin, the only limitation is that it's completely non-religious...any readings, music, vows etc must not be religious. Other than that you have the freedom to make the ceremony as personal as you wish.

 

[Martin^^]

It seems my experience of civil ceremonies is a bit dated - I must apologise if I have not done justice to the degree of choice which is now permitted.
When I was best man for a friend in the 80s, I had to browbeat the registrar into even allowing the groom to enter the wedding room before the bride, so she could make an entrance on her fathers arm, as in a church wedding. The registrar never mentioned the possibility of having music, and I would not have dared to ask for any variation on the standard legal declarations.
I'm glad it is a bit more personal now.

 

[Bonhoffer]

I believe that only religious heterosexuals should be allowed to get married. Let humanists and homosexual couples have civil unions instead. I can't understand why a humanist would want to get married. How can they believe in marriage when it is the union of a man and woman by God and they dont believe in God? Its like an atheist wanting to get baptised and choosing a god-parent for their child.

For people who argue that giving humanists and homosexuals civil unions rather than full marriage is an infringement on their human rights, all I can say is that there is no such thing as the right to marry! Marriage is NOT a right and therefore no government or civil rights lobby group should be able to change it.

 

[non-religious]

[Bonhoffer]I believe that only religious heterosexuals should be allowed to get married. Let humanists and homosexual couples have civil unions instead. I can't understand why a humanist would want to get married. How can they believe in marriage when it is the union of a man and woman by God and they dont believe in God? Its like an atheist wanting to get baptised and choosing a god-parent for their child.

For people who argue that giving humanists and homosexuals civil unions rather than full marriage is an infringement on their human rights, all I can say is that there is no such thing as the right to marry! Marriage is NOT a right and therefore no government or civil rights lobby group should be able to change it.

Hi Bonhoffer.....

Has it got something to do with the law and how they would be recognised in the light of it? Isn't there certain benefits or rights attributed to those of us who are married?

Or am I completely wrong here

Any thoughts?

 

[The Seeker]

I believe that only religious heterosexuals should be allowed to get married. Let humanists and homosexual couples have civil unions instead. I can't understand why a humanist would want to get married. How can they believe in marriage when it is the union of a man and woman by God and they dont believe in God? Its like an atheist wanting to get baptised and choosing a god-parent for their child.

Marriage is not specific to Christianity, nor is it specific to heterosexuals (see Pagan handfasting ceremonies, for example). Marriage is the union of two consenting adults, that is what it has been since before Christianity existed and that is what it remains. As for baptism, I happen to know at least one atheist who did get both of their children baptised.

For people who argue that giving humanists and homosexuals civil unions rather than full marriage is an infringement on their human rights, all I can say is that there is no such thing as the right to marry! Marriage is NOT a right and therefore no government or civil rights lobby group should be able to change it.

In that case, marriage shouldn't bestow special privaledges.