Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
I've seen nothing from p to indicate that he has the ability or intention to contribute anything to any discussion. Can I ask people to simply not feed the troll in this case?
-
if that is not evidence of the most lazy, bilious & dire exercise of a purely resentful imagination vastly divorced from all fact, fable, legend and tradition generating Culture then hey. see you in hell with Monty Python's Flying Circus, aye!
And you are living in what part of the nation to which I referred? Or are we making these claims from a warm and comfy room somewhere in god's own? Does it also serve as a self satisfying echo chamber? I guess so.
WHAT point?
that religion has never been used to control. You stated it..it was fairly easily shot down and the thread moved on.
-
a person must do no less than turm his mind almost completely upside down to even come close to understanding history
-
And point proven.
-
It Says So in the Bible
Which is answered fully here
-
i take no overt selbstbefriedigung whatsoever in anything
i am only after an ever closerand more intimate inspection of the fundamental difference between the formal and the institutional, or if you're up for a tipple of ac-yak, the play between the synchronic and the diachronic - and simply put, what i see evinced hereon is more institutionally-driven than ever..
-
That gives that person a particular standing within the state. That is, it gives religion a particular standing within the state. I'm agin that.
Fair enough, but for me that's crossing the line from acceptance of "marry whoever and however the f*ck you want" to actively dictating how someone should (or shouldn't) get marriage because you dislike their religion.
The point of the state should simply be "sign the contracty bit and give it to us". I see no need for anyone to have to manage that process - if you choose to have Father Whosawhatsit do it then all power to you.I don't share the level of... can I say dislike?... for all proponents of the modern church that some here do though. I do share the dislike of that group defining how individuals interact with the state though.
-
for me that's crossing the line from acceptance of "marry whoever and however the f*ck you want" to actively dictating how someone should (or shouldn't) get marriage because you dislike their religion.
I want to be married by my mechanic. Should he, by virtue of being a mechanic, be able to grant me a civil marriage? No. That doesn't mean I'm being dictated to as to how I marry.
The point of the state should simply be "sign the contracty bit and give it to us". I see no need for anyone to have to manage that process - if you choose to have Father Whosawhatsit do it then all power to you.
I think Deborah largely agrees with this. Except the bit father Whosawhatsit does is purely Church ceremonial/Church custom based. Which, of course, means a lot to you if you sincerely believe in all that religious stuff.
-
Should he, by virtue of being a mechanic, be able to grant me a civil marriage? No
Well I kinda think he can :>
I don't see why my mechanic couldn't be the guy "up the front" at a wedding - presuming that the only state recognition of marriage is an official form signed by both partners with appropriate witnesses. I don't see the need for anyone to be a state-sanctioned guest at a wedding.Alternatively, if you do want to have marriages overseen by an authenticated person, then the registration process to become a marriage celebrant should have ZERO reference to religion. At which point Father Whosawhatsit would be free to apply for one and use it as he sees fit. As could my mechanic (who, actually, would make a GREAT celebrant!)
-
Should he, by virtue of being a mechanic, be able to grant me a civil marriage? No
Well I kinda think he can :>
I don't see why my mechanic couldn't be the guy "up the front" at a wedding - presuming that the only state recognition of marriage is an official form signed by both partners with appropriate witnesses. I don't see the need for anyone to be a state-sanctioned guest at a wedding.Alternatively, if you do want to have marriages overseen by an authenticated person, then the registration process to become a marriage celebrant should have ZERO reference to religion. At which point Father Whosawhatsit would be free to apply for one and use it as he sees fit. As could my mechanic (who, actually, would make a GREAT celebrant!)
-
for Crisp's sake, one does not just 'sincerely believe in all that religious stuff', one believes precisely because there is an Object right before ye whose significance is such that all other objectives are for the time being subordinated to that Object's presence in your midst - this is the 'mystical materialism' that has accompanied corporate Christendom from the moment she first shot out of Rome. and which is furthermore recapitulated with every anthropological advance of the truly scientific nation!
uncontributionally
p -
I don't see why my mechanic couldn't be the guy "up the front" at a wedding - presuming that the only state recognition of marriage is an official form signed by both partners with appropriate witnesses.
My partner and I were just discussing what the celebrant is actually FOR and why you have to have one at all. We eloped and had the lowest-key civil union you possibly could, but we still needed a celebrant, and apparently a witnessed ceremonial declaration of intent - more than you need to make a will.
-
we still needed a celebrant, and apparently a witnessed ceremonial declaration of intent
It's another hang over from religious marriage IMO. The state can only allow people that "really mean it in some illdefined and clearly inaccurate way" to marry. That was the priest, the celebrant is the "secular" alternative.
I see no real need for either - so what if it's a "sham" marriage? -
and it is *levels of intention* that comprise the very soul of what we should be talking about (non-calm, unhappy as a claim, exclamation mark)
-
The point of the state should simply be "sign the contracty bit and give it to us". I see no need for anyone to have to manage that process - if you choose to have Father Whosawhatsit do it then all power to you.
Quite. Otherwise we'd be facing the prospect of actually banning Father Whosawhatsit from being a marriage celebrant.
That wouldn't seem to show any respect for personal choice.
-
then it is all down to what we may now realiably call fifth generation warfare
aka - a calculus of covenants!
WHO would ever settle for LESS!
-
Yes.... but to the extent that Father What'isname is performing a role mandated by the state, then he needs to perform that role in respect of any couples / trios / quartets etc. who come his way and ask him to to the job.
-
from A Short History of England
I know of no way in which fair-haired people can be prevented
from falling in love with dark-haired people; and I do not believe
that whether a man was long-headed or round-headed ever made
much difference to any one who felt inclined to break his head.
To all mortal appearance, in all mortal records and experience,
people seem to have killed or spared, married or refrained
from marriage, made kings or made slaves, with reference
to almost any other consideration except this one.
There was the love of a valley or a village, a site or a family;
there were enthusiasms for a prince and his hereditary office;
there were passions rooted in locality, special emotions about
sea-fold or mountain-fold; there were historic memories of a cause
or an alliance; there was, more than all, the tremendous test
of religion. But of a cause like that of the Celts or Teutons,
covering half the earth, there was little or nothing.
Race was not only never at any given moment a motive, but it
was never even an excuse. The Teutons never had a creed;
they never had a cause; and it was only a few years ago that they
began even to have a cant. -
Yes.... but to the extent that Father What'isname is performing a role mandated by the state, then he needs to perform that role in respect of any couples / trios / quartets etc. who come his way and ask him to to the job.
OK, I follow the point now. An interesting one too.
I wasn't really viewing a celebrant-type person as being an agent of the state. Rather, just someone who was considered able to appropriately "witness" the contract. That person could chose to undertake that task as they wanted, but I see your point.
Another argument for doing away altogether with any state-approved overseer IMO :> -
Well I kinda think he can :>
Not by virtue of being a mechanic (I was careful to include that).
And yeah, I'm happy for anyone to be the guy, girl, computer terminal or ewok upfront; have your wedding performed however you see fit, I say.
- presuming that the only state recognition of marriage is an official form signed by both partners with appropriate witnesses. I don't see the need for anyone to be a state-sanctioned guest at a wedding.
That's fine. I guess what I would say is: IF an official marriage celebrant role is required, that role does not get afforded to a church official automatically, just because they happen to be members of the clergy or whatever.
Alternatively, if you do want to have marriages overseen by an authenticated person, then the registration process to become a marriage celebrant should have ZERO reference to religion.
It shouldn't, regardless.
-
but there's no "the institution of marriage" thank god.
Well...I have this image in my mind of some Monty Pythonesque big brown forbidding building, with low steps and faceless windows, into which two separate lines of people are marching, one from each side of the building, and inside they go through one of those made assembly line machines, until eventually they are paired up and come marching together out the front, off into the wilds of Camden (or some such place).
-
I've started deleting the troll's posts because they are, frankly, inane. And not made in good faith.
Emma, feel free to do the same.
-
I hadn't caught up with page when I made my last post.
So, if I'm reading this right, Deborah, Russell, and Gareth: you broadly agree with the view I've developed, that marriage is something the state could get out of almost completely?
From a legal standpoint, marriage is pretty much just a contractual arrangement. From a non-legal standpoint, each to their own.
It's another hang over from religious marriage IMO. The state can only allow people that "really mean it in some illdefined and clearly inaccurate way" to marry. That was the priest, the celebrant is the "secular" alternative.
I see no real need for either - so what if it's a "sham" marriage?Quite. In my view, there pretty much is no "sham" marriage; if participants agree to the arrangement, it's a marriage.
-
I though that for a long time, Steve i.e. that the state should not be involved in marriage at all. I think it's got a legitimate interest in household formation, because we tend to distribute rights and responsibilities to households, and I also think that it's got a role in helping people to manage the dissolution of households fairly, in the same way that it has a role in helping people to manage other situations where contracts break down or aren't fulfilled.
-
Emma, feel free to do the same.
Done and doing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.