Social Question

NerdyKeith's avatar

Religious, would you ever consider having a humanist wedding ceremony?

Asked by NerdyKeith (5464points) March 7th, 2016

Basically a wedding ceremony that generally takes place in registry office / City Hall (but not a church). If you are unsure what I mean, feel free to read this article for a little more insight.

But hypothetically speaking if you fell in love with a person of a different faith (or an atheist) and he or she didn’t want to get married in a church; would you tie the knot in a registry office instead? Thus having a humanist ceremony as a compromise to your fiancĂ©?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

I wouldn’t, because I would want more people there than would fit at the County Clerk’s.

But if I marry again, it will most likely be by a Universal Life Minister.

My sister, who was raised Catholic, married a Jewish man. The had a private Jewish wedding by a rabbi for his family, a Catholic wedding the next morning for my family, and a wedding by a judge for the “big” wedding and reception.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Yes, of course. Why ever not?

It’s not the physical location (or the religion) that makes a wedding and a marriage. It’s the people and their commitments.

You can make a commitment to your spouse at a beach, in your back yard, at a store – the specific location is really not material thing.

NerdyKeith's avatar

@zenvelo I get what you are saying. But one could always have a small ceremony in a County Clerks and then invite a large amount of your family and friends to a big reception. Thats who same sex marriages are usually done. Although in some circumstances a minister may marry a couple at the reception venue itself.

Seek's avatar

In my state, anyone who can claim to be a minister or any registered notary can perform a wedding. Lots of people of all different backgrounds have their weddings done by friends.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

My first marriage was a quickie ceremony down at the courthouse with one clerk as minister and another as witness. I had a Swedish girlfriend who was about to over-stay her 90-day B-2 tourist visa and was at risk of being unceremoniously kicked out of the country if her visa status had been discovered. Neither of us took it seriously as a marriage, we just wanted to finish what we’d started or see where it would go. I felt the state had no business interrupting my love life. About a year later, we moved to Sweden where she picked up her life where it left off and I got a residency permit and ten years of European adventure. My second wedding was in a church with family, reception, the whole nine yards. My second wife would consider anything less grounds for divorce. I did what I was told.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That tag “religious” these days is so broad and vague that as you can see, answers are tumbling in from folks extremely suspicious of organized religion. We’re all qualified, since apparently “everybody worships something”. For some it might be snakes or rocks. In my case, harsh necessity has rendered my own behavior and that of many of my peers to evince an uncomfortable devotion to the salvation obtained through the pursuit of money. Now there’s a god in whom we are ALL compelled to trust.

NerdyKeith's avatar

@stanleybmanly Yes it is a broad term to use. However I find that when I use the term “theists” instead that can be confusing to say the least. When addressing persons practising some sort of organised religion, I find “religious” is a more concise term to be using.

However if you have a suggestion for an alternative term to use when addressing persons who practice an organised religion, I’d be very open to hearing about it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Funny. When I read or hear the word “religious” as a noun, my reference infused since childhood is to think “nun or priest”. How about “faithful” , though I suppose the reference there is collies and beagles? I don’t know. The thing is my first answer (like most of my others) is probably useless nitpicking, but I have this obnoxious thing about words, and am beginning to fear that the dance they do in my head might well be a marker for insanity.

NerdyKeith's avatar

@stanleybmanly I don’t think the word “faithful” would be particularly useful to be honest. That would be even broader than the term religious. It would leave many wonder “faithful to what?”.

The only reasonable solution I can think of is to possibly use the term “Religious” when addressing persons who follow and believe in the teachings of an organised religion and then define it.

I would suggest to try to associate “priests and nuns” with the word clergy rather than simply with the word “religious”

stanleybmanly's avatar

Clergy is certainly more familiar than theist.

NerdyKeith's avatar

@stanleybmanly Clergy is specifically for persons who are working for the church. A theist is an umbrella term for a person who believes in a revealed deity(s). The problem with the word theist is that while they believe in a revealed God that doesn’t always mean they are part of an organised religion.

stanleybmanly's avatar

True. My comment is merely about the relative familiarity of the 2., which I mistakenly thought was your reason for refraining from theist. Thanks for the clarification.

Cupcake's avatar

I am religious, albeit not Christian. I married my now husband in a park. It was a religious ceremony, though, because we followed the Baha’i laws about parental consent, Local Spiritual Assembly (a body of elected members that function as a group in a similar manner to clergy, for oversimplification purposes) oversight and the Baha’i wedding vow (“We will all, verily, abide by the Will of God.”).

So… in summary, I would get married outside of a religious building but I would not have a non-religious ceremony, as that would violate a law of my religion.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther