Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Smacks wrote:


So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?

I don't know what a "real wedding" is.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:


So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?

I don't know what a "real wedding" is.

It was a term that d-usa used on the last page, which I thought was perfectly understandable. Especially In the context of "where the legal part takes place". But never mind, it's easier to just look it up myself.

The portion of a partnership that grants you legal protection as a married couple has nothing to do with religion in the United States beyond the fact that priest, pastors, and ministers are legally allowed to marry people.

But then again, so can any joe blow off the street with about 15 minutes spent on the internet.

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:


I think the religious content is somewhat incidental, but the church building is very important. I went to a wedding recently where they wanted to have the wedding outside, but when the official turned up, we were told that it wouldn't be legal, and so the ceremony had to be moved inside to a chapel.

Again, this is in no way similar to the US, where outdoor weddings re exceedingly common.

So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?

Weddings take place in churches all the time here and are recognized as binding.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yeah, except the majority of modern and major religions deem homosexuality to be wrong on basically every level... So, if you are truly a member of that church/religion then you can't/shouldn't be gay and in that church.

Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.

If you raise someone to believe that a loss of communion with the church results in eternal damnation/separation from god, when they realize they are gay one of the possible reactions they will have is to insist that they are a good person, and that it doesn't make sense that their church deems homosexuality to be wrong and want to change it. But a far more common reaction is to realize that religious authority is just human authority, and that bigots and hatemongers who hide behind altars don't actually speak for god. So they just leave that church, or that religion. Some lose faith entirely, other hide that they are gay, others become obsessed with policing other people's sex lives because they can't enjoy theirs.

friendlycommissar wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yeah, except the majority of modern and major religions deem homosexuality to be wrong on basically every level... So, if you are truly a member of that church/religion then you can't/shouldn't be gay and in that church.

Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.

Newsflash: People who believe in religion are plenty often able to be rational when it comes to their religion. The ability to be a critical thinker and being of faith are not mutually exclusive.

 d-usa wrote:
They are usually combined though by having the religious officiant sign the state issued license.

Yeah, but practically anyone can do that. Got a printer and 20 minutes? You can be an ordained minister! Only the state can issue licenses, and a wedding officiated by an ordained minister without a state issued license is not legally binding.

friendlycommissar wrote:


Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.

Really?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

As a springboard for further research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

I might add I work with scientists on a daily basis that are at least 95%, if not all, Christian.

 cincydooley wrote:


I don't know what a "real wedding" is.

A "real wedding" would be a wedding that results in the placement of signatures on the legal marriage certificate and the filing of it.

Some jurisdictions combine the "legal process" with the "church process", some have them separate.

 Smacks wrote:


So are church weddings "real weddings" in the US? Or is it similar to how d-usa described, with the legal part taking place elsewhere?

99.9% of Church weddings are "real weddings" in the US. Not because of any religious significance in the eye of the state, but because the person officiating (aka: the clergy) is registered with the state as an officiant and has been granted legal authority by the state to marry people and sign the certificate.

 cincydooley wrote:
The portion of a partnership that grants you legal protection as a married couple has nothing to do with religion in the United States beyond the fact that priest, pastors, and ministers are legally allowed to marry people.

But then again, so can any joe blow off the street with about 15 minutes spent on the internet.

Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:

§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.
A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people. He also has to spend additional time filing his certificate that ordained him with the county in which he wants to marry people.

 cincydooley wrote:
Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.

Newsflash: People who believe in religion are plenty often able to be rational when it comes to their religion. The ability to be a critical thinker and being of faith are not mutually exclusive.

Relapse wrote:

friendlycommissar wrote:


Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.

Really?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

It's probably quite pertinent that the first name on the list is Copernicus, who famously did not take the bible at its word on geocentrism. Belief in a god does not necessarily correspond to belief in all baseless religious dogma.

 d-usa wrote:
Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:

§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.
A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people.

If you are ordained you are a religious authority. I was ordained by the universal life church 15 years ago. Thus I am a religious authority. Even in Oklahoma.

friendlycommissar wrote:


Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.

Please stop generalizing. It's obnoxious, rude, argumentative, and condescending.

Some people have mixed, irrational, "scientific" believes that don't make sense (hello Jenny McCarthy).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

friendlycommissar wrote:


If you are ordained you are a religious authority. I was ordained by the universal life church 15 years ago. Thus I am a religious authority. Even in Oklahoma.

The feth it does. It makes you legally able to marry people. I hardly makes you an authority on anything.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:


Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people. He also has to spend additional time filing his certificate that ordained him with the county in which he wants to marry people.

The ease of being 'ordained' is to what I was referring.

friendlycommissar wrote:



Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.

Not being defensive, just helping you along with your critical thinking. When you make blanket statements, you should stand by for correction when it's warrented.

friendlycommissar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:

§43-7. Solemnization of marriages.
A. All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people.

If you are ordained you are a religious authority. I was ordained by the universal life church 15 years ago. Thus I am a religious authority. Even in Oklahoma.

Exactly the point.

Not everybody can marry people. Only religious officials.

If Joe Blow spends 15 minutes getting ordained by anybody then he is no longer Joe Blow of the street, he is Joe Blow the religious authority.

So: not everybody can marry people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Now any Joe Blow off the street can spend 15 minutes on the Internet to become ordained, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a judge or a religious authority to marry people. He also has to spend additional time filing his certificate that ordained him with the county in which he wants to marry people.

The ease of being 'ordained' is to what I was referring.

That's what I figured. Just wanted to clarify that "getting internet ordained in 15 minutes" doesn't diminish the requirement that a religious official officiate.

 cincydooley wrote:

friendlycommissar wrote:
Please stop being defensive. I did NOT say people who believe in religion are NEVER rational. Please don't pretend I did, it's obnoxious, rude and argumentative. Some people have mixed, irrational religious beliefs that don't make sense. That is not a statement about ALL religious people, just SOME. If you can't even acknowledge that SOME people have odd, incongruous and nonsensical beliefs about religion.

Please stop generalizing. It's obnoxious, rude, argumentative, and condescending.

I didn't generalize. You're being defensive.

Are the quote boxes getting mixed up here or what?

Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

 Smacks wrote:
Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

Just to be clear in the US there is no movement have the government to force churches to allow gay marriages to take place inside. That is not what the gay marriage debate is about in the US, and the idea that the debate is about that issue is just a scare tactic used by opponents of civil gay marriage.

 Smacks wrote:
.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

I assume heterosexual couples can also get married there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

friendlycommissar wrote:
]

Just to be clear in the US there is no movement have the government to force churches to allow gay marriages to take place inside. That is not what the gay marriage debate is about in the US, and the idea that the debate is about that issue is just a scare tactic used by opponents of civil gay marriage.

No one claimed it was; Smacks had a misunderstanding of how legal marriage works in the US and brought it up.

In the United States, however, businesses are getting sued for not wanting to take part in homosexual marriages. While not the same thing, they are certainly related.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

I assume heterosexual couples can also get married there?

Yes of course. They usually aren't quite as pretty as churches though. I think most Church of England churches will allow heterosexual couples to marry in the church with very minimal requirements. Religious buildings can Opt-in with regards to gay marriage, but they aren't forced to.

 Smacks wrote:
Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

Yeah, location is pretty much a complete non-issue in the US. The only location requirement in Oklahoma is that the person that officiates has to be registered in the county that he is officiating in. But all the actual legal powers of marriage comes from the county office that issues the initial license, and the officiant that performs the actual wedding and signs it. The actual location is completely irrelevant and a wedding performed by a internet-minister in a truck-stop bathroom is just as legal as a wedding performed by the Archbishop of Oklahoma in the biggest Cathedral in the State.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

friendlycommissar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

Just to be clear in the US there is no movement have the government to force churches to allow gay marriages to take place inside. That is not what the gay marriage debate is about in the US, and the idea that the debate is about that issue is just a scare tactic used by opponents of civil gay marriage.

The whole debate here was more of a procedural issue of how things work in the US compared to other countries that Dakkanauts are located in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

I assume heterosexual couples can also get married there?

Yes of course. They usually aren't quite as pretty as churches though. I think most Church of England churches will allow heterosexual couples to marry in the church with very minimal requirements. Religious buildings can Opt-in with regards to gay marriage, but they aren't forced to.

Prince Charles got married in a registry office for #2 didn't he?

(Completely unrelated question )

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

I assume heterosexual couples can also get married there?

Yes of course. They usually aren't quite as pretty as churches though. I think most Church of England churches will allow heterosexual couples to marry in the church with very minimal requirements. Religious buildings can Opt-in with regards to gay marriage, but they aren't forced to.

I can tell you that definitely isn't the case here. We live within 10 miles of about 7 Catholic Churches (there's nearly 90 in Cincinnati) and the one we wanted to get married in required you were a member of their congregation for 12 months first. So we just had it in the parish we regularly go to. Had pre-Cana. Had multiple counseling sessions with our priest. There are a significant number of requirements.

 cincydooley wrote:
I can tell you that definitely isn't the case here. We live within 10 miles of about 7 Catholic Churches (there's nearly 90 in Cincinnati) and the one we wanted to get married in required you were a member of their congregation for 12 months first. So we just had it in the parish we regularly go to. Had pre-Cana. Had multiple counseling sessions with our priest. There are a significant number of requirements.

It might be similar here if you live outside the parish area. I think the site I looked at said the you would need to attend service for 6 months. But it would also be adequate if you, or one of your parents could show that you once lived nearby for 6 months. There is also probably some counseling involved, but obviously same-sex couples would never get that far. I don't think there is any requirement to be a member of the faith.

 d-usa wrote:
Prince Charles got married in a registry office for #2 didn't he?

(Completely unrelated question )

Haha, yeah kind of. I think Camilla is technically a woman though.

They originally wanted to have the wedding at Clarence House with special permission, but then it was discovered that they would have to open the building up for common people to get married there too, so it was moved to another location.

Weddings can technically be held anywhere, (for example hotels) but they need permission from the local authority. I'm not sure exactly under what circumstances permission is approved or denied, but I think a roof is a requirement.

Relapse wrote:
Are the quote boxes getting mixed up here or what?

Glad I'm not the only one who is confused as hell.

 d-usa wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Okay, well with that cleared up. If the church itself is not a state sanctioned building for marriage, then I understand better why it might seem weird for the government to force them to allow gay marriages to take place inside. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Here in the UK same sex marriage can only really take place in a registry office, or equivalents.

Yeah, location is pretty much a complete non-issue in the US. The only location requirement in Oklahoma is that the person that officiates has to be registered in the county that he is officiating in. But all the actual legal powers of marriage comes from the county office that issues the initial license, and the officiant that performs the actual wedding and signs it. The actual location is completely irrelevant and a wedding performed by a internet-minister in a truck-stop bathroom is just as legal as a wedding performed by the Archbishop of Oklahoma in the biggest Cathedral in the State.


)

Yep, I got married in the "Capel of Love", in Las Vegas 13 years and a few kids ago. It was funny because we kept hearing bells ringing as we were setting things up. It turned out that the bells were from people driving up to get married curbside, in their cars.

There's a whole story to that wedding trip and what led up to it, but like the man says, " You don't want to hear it and I don't want to tell it."

Sarah Palin would say that two hotdogs don't put a bun in the oven. Every fiber in my being tells me she is a moron.

 mondo80 wrote:
Sarah Palin would say that two hotdogs don't put a bun in the oven. Every fiber in my being tells me she is a moron.

well... in this case, she's factually correct. But the phrase is still some kinda weird homey-Alaskan phrase or something.

Of course, the ability to put a "bun in the oven" has no bearing whatsoever on the happiness of an adult couple. Hell, I know PLENTY of hetero couples who are completely miserable, but have multiple kids.

Relapse wrote:

friendlycommissar wrote:


Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.

Really?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

As a springboard for further research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

I might add I work with scientists on a daily basis that are at least 95%, if not all, Christian.

Sigh. I bolded the key point for you: when it comes to their religion. People can do good work involving critical thinking in the rest of their life despite believing in something completely irrational in one non-work-related area, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't show that same critical thinking when it comes to things they've put into a special "do not question because I really want it to be true" category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Actually false in Oklahoma (and probably many other states). Here is our law:

But none of that contradicts the statement you quoted. Any random person can get the authority to perform marriages, and who does it has absolutely nothing to do with what the final result is. The fact that you have to do a bit of additional paperwork in addition to your internet-form "ordination" that might make it 16 minutes instead of 15 doesn't do anything to weaken the substance of the argument: that the entire involvement of religion in legal marriage is that certain religious officials are granted the ability to fill out some paperwork to make a marriage official.

Also, the law in your state is blatantly unconstitutional since it gives special privileges to Christianity. It could never be enforced as-written.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:

friendlycommissar wrote:


Newsflash: People who believe in religion are often not rational when it comes to their religion. A lifetime of believing in things that are entirely a matter of faith and lack rational justification is poor training for being a good critical thinker.
.

Really?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

As a springboard for further research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

I might add I work with scientists on a daily basis that are at least 95%, if not all, Christian.

Sigh. I bolded the key point for you: when it comes to their religion. People can do good work involving critical thinking in the rest of their life despite believing in something completely irrational in one non-work-related area, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't show that same critical thinking when it comes to things they've put into a special "do not question because I really want it to be true" category.

I have heard entirely rational sounding reasons why scientists that are Christian hold their beliefs. Stop to think about what you are saying for a moment. You are saying every scientist that is Christian puts aside a lifetime of trained critical thinking to follow a belief you don't hold.
Not logical on your part.