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.

"I suspect a lot of them actually think atheists shouldn't actually be afforded the legal and fiscal status of married couples because they still think this is a "Christian country". Which is a bit laughable, really."

Not quite as hilarious as the notion that we may not be afforded the same legal right to have the fruit of our unholy union attend the local state school. (Which in my case has considerable fiscal impact.)

But that is an entirely different topic or two

Do you really promise to be faithful as long as you live in a civil service? Or can you choose not to put it that way?

Have just read this entire thread, must say I've found it fascinating.

I understand the origins of marriage more as a way for a man to lay claim to the children borne by his partner. If you think about pre-history the only way for any kind of family history or lines of inheritance would be through the Matriarchal line. There would be no way for a man to pass anything to his descendants without marriage as there would be no way to categorically identify those descendants. (of course this line of thought comes from a quick browse of the wikipedia page on marriage and from a long ago reading of Jean M Auel's wonderful book the Clan of the Cave Bear and it's sequels)

As far as Malificence's comments go I think it is unreasonable to say that those who plan to indulge in sex outside of marriage should never marry when it is agreed and consented to by both parties. I also think it is unreasonable to refer to couples as being unfaithful when they both agree and consent to the other party having sex with other people. I think faithfulness is about a lot more than what you choose to do with certain parts of your anatomy and who you choose to do it with.

Anyway, interesting thread, thanks OP.

No, Madonna, I don't think you have to promise anything particular in a civil service other. The statutory words (appended) don't specify at all what marriage is.

All civil marriage ceremonies and religious ceremonies other than Church of England, Jewish or Quaker, must incorporate statutory declaratory and contracting statements, to be said by both of you, for your marriage to be lawful. The registrar will usually suggest that the following traditional statements are used:

Declaratory Words
I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful
impediment why I, [your full name], may not be
joined in matrimony to [your partner's full name].

Contracting Words
I call upon these persons here present to witness that I,
[your full name], do take thee, [your partner's full name],
to be my lawful wedded wife [or husband].

However, since February 1997, you may choose to use either of the following alternative declaratory and contracting words:

Alternative Declaratory Words
I declare that I know of no legal reason
why I, [your full name], may not be joined
in marriage to [your partner's full name].
or
by replying 'I am' to the question
'Are you, [your full name], free lawfully
to marry [your partner's full name]'.

Alternative Contracting Words
I, [your full name], take you, [your partner's full name],
to be my wedded wife [or husband].
or
I, [your full name], take thee, [your partner's full name],
to be my wedded wife [or husband].

Thank you

Maybe you should follow the example of secular countries like France and define what happens in the registry as "marriage" and what happens in the church as "celebration of marriage", to take place after the marriage at registry, if at all.

i agree with expat it's just a legal contract, nothing more than that (IMHO). At the end of the day though, whatever way you marry, we all end up with the same piece of paper.

the only people who profit from marriages are the Government though. they must be raking it in financially from all the saps (like myself!) who tie the knot each year. If it wasn't for legal reasons, I'd have been quite happy to carry on co-habiting and so would DH (and we'd be £3k better off aswell).

Sorry for digression there...

SGB thanks. I will contact you about it when I've got a few otherthings out of the way.

lovechoc - but you didn't give the government £3k in order to get married, did you? The standard fee is £94.

that's what I mean, it's £94 from every couple that decide to tie the knot.

But I can't imagine there's much profit on that, is there? I mean they have to have a building and staff.

I don't know how it works in England but in Scotland if you get married in a church, you still need to register the fact thast yuo will be having the wedding (and who the witnesses will be) beforehand at the local registry office and hand in the completed registration form to the registry office within something like week afterwards. (my dad handed it in as we were away on our honeymoon! )

I was hypocrtical as although I am an atheist, we did have our wedding in a church close to my parents . At the time, Scotland didn't allow civil ceremonies outside of a registry office and having been to a couple, hated the "conveyor" belt approach. I wanted something much more "friendly": a proper celebration of our love in front of our all our friends and family.

I've just purchased a second hand copy of Robin Fox's "Kinship and Marriage - An Anthropological Perspective". According to the review it's a seminal work despite being 25 years old now. I'm looking forward to getting into it

I'm also going to re-read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". I read it years ago and I don't remember it answering any of the questions I had about the link between marriage and religion but then again I didn't know then what I know (or am beginning to understand thanks to all of you) now.

I'm starting to get clearer "headings", as it were, in my understanding now and ways of separating the strands, such as:

Evolution - in respect of how it's so important to have a social protection structure around the young, whether it's in the form of a herd or pride or as a smaller partnership between the parents/care givers.

Tradition and ritual and how this has shaped human response to the need to protect our young and developed into complex rituals of monogamy, dependency, love etc... and how these rituals have grown, developed and become more complex and polished (for want of a better word) over the centuries.

Organised religion and it's role in taking the traditions of a culture or community and warping it and transmuting it in order to subsume it into doctrine (e.g. Christmas, Easter and, of course, marriage).

History and how in Britain specifically the role or church and state has developed - possibly becoming unnaturally interwoven due to Henry VIII's break with Rome - and the gradual decline of church influence into the primarily secular society in which we now live and how that has affected people.

Marriage and weddings and the difference between the two (thank you to the person who pointed this out )

Zalen - glad you enjoyed the debate I did too.

HeathenofSurburbia - I'm smiling at the thought of you looking at the OU courses. They are dreadfully addictive aren't they?! I did a masters with them several years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. But with a full time job and a 21 month old toddler I'm not sure I've got the time to start the addiction up again. Best of luck if you are taking a course.

Thank you to everyone who contributed and gave me such excellent advice and information. I really do appreciate it.

ooops, forgot to mention the political and legal aspects of marriage in my last post.

These are clearly very important as lots of people who would not otherwise have felt the need to get married have done so in order to protect themselves and their children in the event of relationship breakdown or the death of the other partner.

exactly Waspie, women only get married to make sure they're financially secure not just for themselves but also for the children involved (or is that just me, money grabbing cow that I am lol).

women only get married to make sure they're financially secure not just for themselves but also for the children involved (or is that just me, money grabbing cow that I am lol).

Speak for yourself fellow choclover ..I got hitched because I loved DH..but of course there are other benefits

no I think most women get married because of the financial benefits it offers (IMHO). most women choose not to openly discuss these issues with others, but let's face it, why not just be happy with co-habiting if you love your partner, why the need to get married then?? the only difference being that you will be rolling in it when DH dies, and the kids will be financially secure aswell. if you didn't get married, you have less of a say in financial affairs. so it all boils down to money at the end of the day.

how could we possibly know if marriage is or isn't a religious construct? Both date back to prehistory! Anyway, marriage is what you make of it nowadays, regardless of the history of the institution.

Legal protection isn't just about financial protection - if one of you has to move abroad then the other will get a chance to move with them, for example.

In answer to the "why not just give co-habiting couples legal rights?" question. I'm sorry, but this really makes my blood boil. What that means is that instead of the current situation, where you decide when to get married and are not legally bound beforehand, you let the government decide when you are committed in your relationship. Because you just happen to have lived together for 2 weeks, or 2 months or 2 years, or whatever is legally decided. I want to make the choice myself, thank you.

Which is what we did when we were married in a civil ceremony.

ach, you've misunderstood what I said in my last post TittleMouse. I mean that if someone loves their partner then surely that's enough for them to continue co-habiting? Whereas those who choose to take it that step further (getting married), obviously have other motives other than love i.e. financial protection or legal protection where children are involved.

I love my DH but felt marriage was important (not the actual wedding itself) in order to provide financial and legal protection in the future.

I don't personally agree with giving co-habiting couples the same rights as married couples but I do get annoyed at couples who more or less say they only got married 'because they love one another'. Bleugh. There's definately alot more to it than that!

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you personally. There have been a lot of people on here (and in newspapers and in real life) that have moaned on that they want the legal protection, but they don't want to get married. I think that we hang a lot of baggage onto "marriage" sometimes.

I agree with you that there doesn't have to be any correlation at all between the degree of love and whether there is a marriage contract. In our case though, it was only once we had realised quite how much we loved each other that we were happy to make the lifelong commitment. It was a bit of sudden realisation, and I understand that not all couples are quite so thick as to be unaware of it for so long while co-habiting.

I think to a large extent a lot of people get married just because a lot of people get married IYSWIM? It is the "norm" - when you are in a committed relationship there is still an expectation that you will most likely get married at some point. That doesn't mean anyone should feel they have to if they don't want to, but if you take people who are not "against" marriage for any reason, I think there's a high probability that they will decide sooner or later to get married. Not because they want the protection, or even about love, but just because it is still the "usual" thing to do.

lovechoc but that was the main reason I got married because I loved my partner and wanted to have children with him so I made a formal public statement and got hitched...no matter how bleugh you feel about it..at the end of the day if you want to make sure your 'partner' gets all the goods after you kick the bucket write a good will you really are under no compulsion to marry

but what has getting married got to do with changing how you love someone??? surely you get married for other reasons rather than just love. can you not have children and love your partner without getting married though, does a piece of paper really change the amount you love someone. not asking you personally mumcentreplus, just thinking all this through. This is what I just don't get atall. Sorrry to OP for heading off on a tangent, but this is something that has really got me thinking about marriage.

I didn't feel pressurised into marriage, but I did think to the future and realise that marriage is a way of making sure any children born into the relationship will be looked after well if one of us die suddenly (sorry for being morbid but that's life, it happens). It hasn't changed my love for DH, it's just the same as when we were co-habiting really.

The piece of paper doesn't change love.. it enhances and confirms..I didn't feel pressured into marriage at all it was just the right time