Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to believe that atheists shouldn't get married?

226 replies

Waspie · 23/08/2009 17:15

I am an atheist. I do not feel that in all conscience I could ever get married as my understanding is that marriage is a religious construct.

Yet Richard Dawkins has been married three times so far and many of my friends who profess to atheism are married. To me it seems hypocritical.

Or am I wrong about marriage being a religious construct?

I would really like your opinions please.

OP posts:
violethill · 23/08/2009 17:24

Ah crossed posts with OP!

Yes, as far as I am aware there was no marriage before organised religion in the western world..... what about other more remote parts of the world... were there rites of passage which equated to marriage...?

ZippysMum · 23/08/2009 17:24

is this any help?

BitOfFun · 23/08/2009 17:25

Do excuse me- I have a raging hangover and am feeling somewhat crotchety

HecatesTwopenceworth · 23/08/2009 17:26

YABU. Marriage in a church, eyes of god and all that, that's religious.

Marriage is a contract. It offers benefits and legal protection and that has feck all to do with religion.

If you are not married and you split up, it's a nightmare! There's not the rules and things that there are in dividing assets etc of a married couple, for example.

If you are not married and your partner dies - do you have any idea of the extra hell you go through? I believe you are not even legally next of kin! If there's no will, you are screwed...

But marriage doesn't have to be about religion. It is a commitment between 2 people and you can make that commitment without making it a religious one.

Original poster
Waspie · 23/08/2009 17:28

Thanks Voilethill - that's exactly what I meant.

I'm trying to find out more about marriage in societies without organised religious cultural beliefs and backgrounds. I think this may give me answers.

Nope BitOfFun, all of my brain cells arepresent and correct - I'm just stretching them with a little moral philosophy workout rather than just bitching.

OP posts:
Tambajam · 23/08/2009 17:30

In a civil service it is actually specified that readings and songs chosen must NOT be religious in nature. It is actually an anti-religious act. It's making some promises to someone you love infront of other people that matter. Marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with religion.

The origins were 2 apes breeding and hanging out together. Mammals were often sticking together in pairs long before religion showed up.

LilyOfTheMountain · 23/08/2009 17:31

You are indeed wrong that amrriage is a religious construct: the religious sanctity of it is, and the surrounding ceremonies, but marriage is a contract between two people who wish to make a declaration anf formalisation of their partnership.

My aprents are ber atheists and celebrated their 40th anniversary lasy year: Dawkins and marriage are abd examples of soemthing that can work well with or without religion (or can fail dramatically in the same way)

Original poster
Waspie · 23/08/2009 17:31

Zippysmum - fantastic, thank you. I'm going to read up later when my son's in bed

For all of you talking about registry offices, this is very much not what I meant but thanks for your thoughts and opinions ladies - they are interesting.

OP posts:
ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 23/08/2009 17:31

Not going to bother repeating what people have said - but YABU. However, you could definitely say I was a hypocrite, as I did have a religious wedding, but I didn't have any choice. As far as I am concerned the marriage contract is between me and DH.

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 23/08/2009 17:32

What did you mean then?

SchnitzelVonKrumm · 23/08/2009 17:33

If there's no God then all religion is a social construct, no?

OrmIrian · 23/08/2009 17:35

How odd. Marriage is a social and legal construct much more than a religious one.

purepurple · 23/08/2009 17:36

yes, what do you mean?
is love a religious construct then?

TAFKAtheUrbanDryad · 23/08/2009 17:39

Marriage being a religious/Christian construct is a relatively new idea. Handfasting and marriage has been part of our society for many hundreds of years, God only got involved in the last 300 years or so, according to a brief foray on Wikipedia.

So yes, YABU.

LilyOfTheMountain · 23/08/2009 17:40

'I'm trying to find out more about marriage in societies without organised religious cultural beliefs and backgrounds. I think this may give me answers.'

Are there that many of these societies?

Certainly Atheism is a norm for many people now, but even the census in this country throws up a massive anomally between people who practise faith and those who do not but still tick the CofE box. Societies that admit an atheist or non secular system are still largely influenced by an often bizarre mix of religious histories.

MArriage it could be argues is a human construct, and religion is part of that human historical experience. Separating state and religion from our existence is impossible no matter how our faith does or does not lie, as everything around us was created at some stage by someone with definite beliefs- we as a species are too historically dependant for anything else, and short of rewriting our norms with every generation, that is simply the way it is.

LilyOfTheMountain · 23/08/2009 17:42

UD God has been invovled for far longer- but absolutely other thraditions filter in to the mix (tis Peachy btw, heartily sick already of a new name LOL)- take the Hindu civilisation or others that are equally ancient and how important marriage is to them.

But marriage historically is indeed three parts economy to one part faith and maybe a bit of love thrown in if you were lucky.

AMumInScotland · 23/08/2009 17:45

Marriage is not a religious construct, it's purely a social thing. The connection is that organised religion and organised society in general want there to be a legal construct, and for a long time the church was the major means for "enforcing" that in the general population.

It's been in existence before Christianity reached the UK, if that's what you mean by "organised religion". But I think by the time there are any records about society at all, there were already religions of some kind, so it's hard to separate out what was done bcause of religion from what was done because people wanted it anyway.

ohjustgrowup · 23/08/2009 17:46

Saying that marriage is a religious construct is similar to saying morals are a religious construct, which is an argument with which I have always taken issue. Partnerships for the purposes of raising a family or providing exclusive life-long companionship pre-date religion in the same way that ideas of right and wrong are socially necessary and governed by, rather than created by, religious organisations...IMO

AMumInScotland · 23/08/2009 17:46

as far as I can recall, for a long time weddings were not done inside the church at all - but in the porch, because it was not a "religious ceremony" but a social thing.

staranise · 23/08/2009 17:46

You are wrong to the point that in a UK civil ceremony all references to religion are actually banned eg, my friend getting married in a stately home had to cover up the religious mural on the wall (yes, really!) and hymns aren't allowed at civil ceremonies I think.

I got married purely for legal reasons, irrespective of any beliefs. Any objection to marriage would be on feminist grounds (dislike of bing a 'mrs') but I don't care that much and my fear of legal difficulties should one of us die outweighed anti-marriage sentiment.

TAFKAtheUrbanDryad · 23/08/2009 17:46

Lily - I was talking specifically about Britain, but yes, you're right.

AMumInScotland · 23/08/2009 17:50

I think another issue is to separate out "marriage" from "wedding" - many animals form stable pair-bonds within which they are (mostly) faithful. So to that extent, for many species, a "marriage" is the norm in which to reproduce, because they can't successfully rear young without it. Females ask for "proof of committment" before they mate, to try to ensure the male will stick around, be a good father etc.

The idea of a marriage only existing after a wedding ceremony is a bit different - for other spece it's just a private arrangement between the couple, not something done with witnesses and legal promises.

Original poster
Waspie · 23/08/2009 17:53

Thank you LilyOfTheMountain, very interesting posts. I love the idea of marriage being a "human" construct and religion being part of human historical experience.

This is my difficulty: how can I deconstruct religious from cultural background? My background is judeo/christian and I have no problem admitting that my ethics and values are shaped by this culture. To my thinking the two are too intertwined and have existed together for too long to be able to differentiate between what is society and what is religion.

I'm going to do some background reading I think. I find the topic very interesting.

OP posts:
Aranea · 23/08/2009 17:56

Surely marriage is actually to do with property? It may be traditionally organised by religious structures, but its function is to control ownership and inheritance of property.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 23/08/2009 17:59

The fact that the concept of marriage is common to so many cultures is a pretty sure indicator that it pre-dates anything we would recognise as a religion today.

It has since been co-opted and regulated by subsequent religions, who can rarely resist a chance to decree what goes on in the bedrooms of the faithful. But it has then been partially dragged back out of their clutches by the invention of the civil marriage ceremony.

There must be any number of books on the history/anthropology of marriage, surely asking down at your local library would be a better bet than heeding the random thoughts of MNers!