to believe that atheists shouldn't get married?

[Waspie]

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.

Weegiemum - I agree with you entirely about the devaluing of a religious wedding, or christening, if the participants are not believers. Thank you, it is good to get the thoughts of a practising Christian.

Violethill - thanks for wasting spending time thinking about my question. Yes, education is a good comparison I think, and, as you say, I wouldn't dream of sending my son to anything other than a wholly secular school. Not least because I want him to appreciate a multi-cultural environment and gro up surrounded by children of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. But that's a different AIBU thread!

YABU, but I can see why, and you've obviously thought a lot about what people have said now! I'm an atheist but I'm gearing up for a marriage, it's got nothing at all to do with religion for me and we won't be going anywhere near a church. It is, as other posters have said, a cultural construct.

Throckenholt, why do you think a couple with kids 'should' be married though, for legal reasons? Surely it's perfectly possible to keep it relatively straightforward without marriage provided you have wills in place?

weegiemum - "I get insanely irritated by people choosing a church wedding when it means precisely nothing to them except a nice place for pictures and a big white dress"

I would have loved to get married in a church - because to me the church buildings are part of the history of my country. I didn't get married in a church because I am an atheist - but I still feel I am entitled to the buildings (I often visit them to just look), in the same way as I feel entitled to the castles, ancient trees, the coastline, rivers etc. They are all part of the ancient fabric of the country to which I belong - and as long as I don't damage them, or interfere with other users, I am entitled to use and enjoy them in my own way.

I'm an atheist, so is my fiance and in a couple of months we will get married in a registry office.

We decided against a church wedding, as that would be hypocritical, but I don't know why we shouldn't celebrate the love and commitment we have for each other by formalising it in a contract, just because we don't believe in God.

What about philanthropy and overseas aid? Both of these have strong religious roots (church missionaries, schools, poorhouses etc) but that doesn't mean atheists should disregard the concepts now

would be throwing baby out with the bathwater

OP I'm not lecturing you but I hope you have the legal side all sorted if you have DC and are not married - can be hellish if the worst happens and one of you dies

(I am an atheist and married btw - we had a civil ceremony with no guests, then made up our own handfasting ritual in our back garden just the two of us)

Great point violethill comparing schools with marriage in terms of a religious link/origin.

Can understand (I think) what you mean, Waspie but while you have no need or desire to declare your love, if you want recognition within society at large, then a public declaration of some sort (civil or religious cermony) is the only way to guarantee the legal side in case of one partner dying or deciding to depart to the arms of another.

A 'secret' declaration between you two, would not be likely to guarantee you a portion of joint property, if it was all bought, for example, on your partner's credit card, (though you funded some other aspects, like paying utility bills from your salary), if that partner had an affair, brought someone else home, and told you to 'get out'.

Your 'sheltered' view (no need to justify your love/committment, to others) isn't enough in a society where meeting certain minimum standards would be tested by a court to ascertain your rights, and you'd potentially lose out.

I respect your wish for privacy, but society might find it odd (if you ever needed to make a claim that ended up in court) that you decided against 'guaranteeing' some security by making a public declaration that would be witnessed and recorded on a public record.

Throckenholt, why do you think a couple with kids 'should' be married though, for legal reasons? Surely it's perfectly possible to keep it relatively straightforward without marriage provided you have wills in place?

yes - it probably is perfectly possible to keep it relatively straightforward - however in the uk at least our laws are not straightforward - having evolved over centuries. Being married means you fulfil the legal requirements for whatever is needed with children, whereas trying to cover it all in a will often means you inadvertantly miss bits. And it is so easy and cheap to get married in a register office - why not do it - since it solves the potential legal problems of not doing so ?

Will the OP stop partaking in the christmas festivities I wonder?

Also agree that if you don't believe in god then all religious constructs are just social construsts anyway - no need to give the church a "place" in your thinking at all

Christmas was appropriated from a much older festival which existed in varying forms in lots of different cultures.

It predates Christianity

throckenholt I agree.

Hi throckenholt - yes, I get your point, marriage is the shorthand for sorting out the legalities with kids.

Which I guess, is the point of the whole thread really. That's what it's for, culturally, everywhere really. Religion is sort of papered on top, or the bag used to bundle up all the related societal norms.

Yes I am aware of its Roman origins but it is still very much a religious festival, my point is ceremonies/festivals evolve and thus do their original meanings matter or not?

Not just Roman.

OP seems to be interested in the origins of things, that was the reason for my post

Weegiemum - I got married in a church and both dh and I are atheists.

Why did we do this? Because over the centuries the church subsumed every cultural tradition that the common people had and turned it into a church ritual. Wedding rings, bridesmaids, best man, flowers, vows etc all pre-date christianity. When I got married it was a choice of a registry office or a church - I chose a church as it was routed in tradition and the community. I made no promises to God only to DH and I did so in a buliding that had been built on the backs of my ancestors' labour. They would all have been married in a church too even though I doubt many of them would have professed to any great (or indeed any) faith at all.

Marriage isn't a religius concept, though it has been embraced by the churc after the fact. It is a human pair bonding concept.

This is an interesting debate about the origins of marriage and has got me thinking....

However, I am now more interested in why the OP posted in the first place apparently looking for reasons not to get married.

Maybe Waspie needs to work out why she is ACTUALLY against the idea of getting married.

I got married because I couldn't see many important reasons not to when it meant so much to my dh. It didn't really mean a lot to me - we already had our ds and were committed enough to each other. (getting divorced now, but not really relevant!) I certainly never thought to use my atheisim as a reason.

I think marriage and Religion are two entirely separate things.

I am an Atheist - or at least that is what I might be labeled as, as someone who just grew up with no religious influence. I got married last month. To be honest being married is not important to me but it is to my DH. We had a register office wedding and I would have happily done it on our own with two witnesses but we did have family and friends there.

I don't want this in the DAily Mail though

Firstly, marriage is not compulsory. Nor is monogamy, nor is couplehood, nor is heterosexuality. And it the OP doesn;t want to get married, then she doesn't need excuses, it;s up to her to not marry.

Secondly: yes, 'marriage' predates organised religion. But what a lot of you seem to be overlooking and forgetting is that 'marriage' is not and has not always been about heteromonogamy: 'marriage' is a legal and social arrangement for protecting property and ownership of children. It's a concept that has adapted over time according to social situations (when there were a lot more women than men, it was seen as OK for one man to take several wives, for instance, and the rules have been changed here and there about which relatives you are and are not allowed to marry depend.ing on the population balance). ANd now the Western world has extended the legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples, another Good Thing.

Finally: you can get married in a lovely building without having to put up with religious crap-peddling. I have just conducted a wedding (am a humanist celebrant) in a castle: gorgeous backdrop for pics, lovely atmosphere, the works.

Oh, well, fair play to you if you just don't want to get married! We all draw the line somewhere; I was happy to marry DH, but wouldn't take his name...

I get the feeling of not wanting to get married yourself.

I don't get why anyone would think a registry office wedding had anything to do with making a religious contract of any kind. Even if you believe marriage has it's origins in religion. The law has it's origins in religion. This country is a faith country. When marriage was solely a religious thing that was basically because religion was the law.

IMHO I think it is weird to even contemplate saying you think atheists shouldn't get married because marriage is a religious construct. Getting married in a registry office is no more or less religious than simply living in this country. It confirms my suspicions that atheists are afraid of religion 'getting' them.

I've just read back my last post and think it sounds really interrogatory and accusatory. I'm sorry!

Of course people don't have to get married. I think I was just being nosy about why, specifically, Waspie doesn't want to.

It may just be that the whole institutional aspect of marriage is a big turn-off. That's kind of how I felt about it - I felt I would be doing it because that's what you're 'supposed to do' not for any other reason and that's enough to make me not want to do it again.

That's all I was saying - sorry about the tone. Hope you don't all think I'm a cow

"It confirms my suspicions that atheists are afraid of religion 'getting' them. "

Of course you mean 'SOME' Atheists.

Don't paint us all with the same brush The OP doesn't speak for every Atheist and not all Atheists are the same.

beanieb- yes, sorry, some atheists.

For me, marriage has zero to do with religion.
It's about sharing your life, your entire life, with one person.

I believe the people who REALLY shouldn't be married are those who cannot stay faithful to one person for the whole of their life - poly-amorists/swingers etc. have no right to be married when they can't remain faithful.