Thread: Isn't it a lovely day and aren't cute kittens wonderful? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026318

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Also: no, I am not an expert on any particular religion. Especially not yours - which I am sure is a huge relief to you, since it means that I won't bother directly refuting any of your claims.

Not that I should be doing so anyway, seeing as how it would just upset your daughter. Whose wedding I will be officiating. A wedding, I hasten to point out, that she and her fiancé chose to not have done in your church. For, let's say: reasons.

So if you would kindly shut the fuck up and let us celebrate things, I won't have to take you aside and make you cry.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Oh, honey. You don't need this thread; you've already leapt out of the frying pan.

Weddings make people CRAZY. Especially parents of the bride.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Are the couple taking their inspiration from the Edward and Bella wedding in the Twilight movie, or something more like the royal wedding? Will you be playing guitar during the vows, Rook?
 

---

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 
It is disgraceful how quickly this thread has been derailed. I thought it was going to be all about cute kittens and the hosts haven't done anything about it.

And what has the OP got to do with kittens and lovely days anyway.

Here is a lovely video of a cute kitten but the voiceover is the best thing of all

And here's a lovely day

Have a lovely day everyone xxxxxxxx
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Recipes! I saw the OP and came here for recipes!

TICTH unconscionable teases.
 

---

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 
Cute Kitten recipes - yum!

Hostly Edit: Probably NSFW!!!

how to cook a cat

[ 30. October 2013, 14:07: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 

---

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
What wonderful mental images to start the day with: a beautiful sunrise, cute kittens, and the Reverend Rook engaged in sensitive pastoral counseling with the assistance of a rusty farm implement.

NOTE TO MANAGEMENT: If I appear to be smiling more in your boring meetings this morning, it isn't because your presentations are any less reality-challenged than normal. Rather I'm probably imagining how much our company performance (and certainly morale) would improve if the Reverend Rook could be engaged to assist at one of your management strategy meetings...
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
This cooking show has a very simple recipe for Christmas breakfast.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thyme:
And here's a lovely day

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thyme:
Cute Kitten recipes - yum!

Hostly Edit: Probably NSFW!!!

---

OOOOEEER! SORRY! I didn't read it much beyond the title and didn't think about people at work.
A bit more hellish than I realised
 

---

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Lovely days are apparently illegal in the United States.

---

There are so many ways of responding to that I can't choose!

Well, I am doing well in Hell, one NSFW site that was even worse than I thought and an illegal video.

I think I will quit before I get into even more trouble.


 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
What the fuck? Jesus, people, no unleashing the crazy until the cute hellhost has had her coffee.

Further- one get-out-of-hell-free card to whomever gets me a photo of RooK in a clerical collar. Preferably in pin-up form.

PS - shitloads of youtube links make me want you all to die slowly. perhaps over a fire on a slowly turning skewer. useless dickheads.

[ 30. October 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: comet ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Also: no, I am not an expert on any particular religion. Especially not yours - which I am sure is a huge relief to you, since it means that I won't bother directly refuting any of your claims.

Not that I should be doing so anyway, seeing as how it would just upset your daughter. Whose wedding I will be officiating. A wedding, I hasten to point out, that she and her fiancé chose to not have done in your church. For, let's say: reasons.

So if you would kindly shut the fuck up and let us celebrate things, I won't have to take you aside and make you cry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

Further- one get-out-of-hell-free card to whomever gets me a photo of RooK in a clerical collar. Preferably in pin-up form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Interestingly, I think, is that a year ago our minister used to ask families not to take pictures during the baptism, and now she doesn't. Was she told off by someone, or did she just give up?

---

Photo taking is one area we dn't have an issue with at Baptisms and weddings

The vicar asks people not to take photos as it can upset the babies and they are overawed anyway by the occasion and we don’t want to upset the day for them. And we give plenty of time to photos afterwards

At weddings too vicar asks not to take as flashes can disrupt the official photos and the photographer is being paid by the bride and groom so let’s not risk those lovely photos.

and it seems to work

But DON’T start me on the guests who talk all the way through the service and nobody can hear what is happening…
 

---

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :
 
The kitten in the video link posted by Thyme upthread is just SO adorable! What breed of kitten is that?
 

---

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
Bloody people coming into our churches, behaving like, well, people really... Keep 'em out till they learn to behave, say I! Makes life and worship so much simpler, don't know why God puts up with them all!

And I'm allergic to cats

(Posted in response to the posts above Francophile's)

[ 31. October 2013, 11:23: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
The kitten in the video link posted by Thyme upthread is just SO adorable! What breed of kitten is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Bitch about weddings?
Where do I start!

Female guests who arrive dressed in a dazzling array of man-made fibres as if for a cocktail party, cheap "fascinators" clamped to the side of the head, teetering on vertiginous heels and shrieking at each other like seabirds. Hardly ever will they have any covering on their shoulders, and the dresses all finish mid-thigh.

---

I have visited mosques where I have been required to borrow a (not particularly clean) ankle-length, hooded garment before going in. Perhaps you could initiate this custom at your church.


Actually it's the brides who astound me -- "neck"lines practically down to their waists with everything about to fall out. I don't know why they need to dress like hookers when they've obviously just hooked someone.

(What's wrong with man-made fibres?)
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
...(What's wrong with man-made fibres?) [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I kind of assumed RooK was officiating at a humanist service?

Anyway, Rookie-poo having mother-of-the-bride (I presume mother?) problems. There is a God! Or maybe that's actually more evidence of proof for the other guy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Tell me, why exactly is it that large numbers of quite attractive women suddenly decide as brides or bridesmaids that they need to put their hair up in a hairstyle that is completely untried and no-one has ever seen them in before?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Here I have been bursting with that particular secret for-- what, a couple years? -- and then you out yourself anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... but why would that be such a big deal?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Here I have been bursting with that particular secret for-- what, a couple years? -- and then you out yourself anyway.

---

Apparently, in Canada "Marriages may be performed by members of the clergy, marriage commissioners, judges, justices of the peace or clerks of the court." (Wikipedia) I would guess marriage commissioner, but why would that be such a big deal?!

However, if RooK is actually clergy, then I for one would be awed by his acting abilities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Usual location of Rook no longer in Canada.

---

quote:

---

The modern wedding is in a mess and the church is right in there helping to cheapen the whole business by its willingness not to impose some sense of decorum on people who behave like modern barbarians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Bitch about weddings?
Where do I start!

Female guests who arrive dressed in a dazzling array of man-made fibres as if for a cocktail party, cheap "fascinators" clamped to the side of the head, teetering on vertiginous heels and shrieking at each other like seabirds. Hardly ever will they have any covering on their shoulders, and the dresses all finish mid-thigh.

Ushers (groomsmen) who seem incapable of movement or speech unless masticating large wadges of gum, never bothing to close the mouth because EVERYONE is going to be fascinated at the contents.

Brides "fashionably" late - don't know where they got that idea from. Giggling uncontrollably through the service, in one case turning and giving a thumbs-up sign to her mates behind her in the middle of her vows.

The modern wedding is in a mess and the church is right in there helping to cheapen the whole business by its willingness not to impose some sense of decorum on people who behave like modern barbarians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

Further- one get-out-of-hell-free card to whomever gets me a photo of RooK in a clerical collar. Preferably in pin-up form.

---

passer wins.

best PM ever.

---

quote:

---

Culture changes. Get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Karl LB

quote:

---

Culture changes. Get over it.

---

It is NOT culture for a bride to be so drunk that there must be serious doubts as to whether or not the union is legally valid.

It isn't culture to have people opening beer cans at the back of the church while their friends are being married at the front.

It isn't culture to watch someone having to rearrange her strapless dress so that her nipples are covered.

I have little time for what you call "stuffy formality" but I have a lot of time for basic good manners and civilised behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Organists who play what they will, not the couple's choice, choristers who think they are the main show, etc.

---

quote:

---

But that is none of what you complained in your previous post. Your complaints in this post are reasonable, those in the last were a bit of "Get off my lawn!"

I dislike weddings in general, but my ire is more often drawn by officiants. Ministers who, if they are the representatives of their religion, make me glad I am on the outside of it.* Organists who play what they will, not the couple's choice, choristers who think they are the main show, etc. Although I have helped photograph a handful of weddings, less than 10. Just enough to make me also hate the wedding party, so...

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Organists who play what they will, not the couple's choice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
L'organist wins the thread for having to deal with the couple who don't understand the difference between a living breathing musician and a jukebox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
As for your assertion that any organist for a wedding will "play what they will" you are so wide of the mark as to be in another hemisphere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
lilbuddha:

quote:

---

Organists who play what they will, not the couple's choice, choristers who think they are the main show, etc.

---

Would you agree that choristers who lower their standards to sing a banal pop song, specially arranged in four-part harmony by the organist at the request of the bride and groom, are entitled to feel slightly miffed if the congregation sit and talk (loudly) amongst themselves all the way through it?

---

Of course they are entitled to feel miffed, though I should hope they would feel miffed regardless of choice of music.
However, neither they, nor any of the other officiants, are at a wedding for their own pleasure.
You, and the others, are there for the couple being married.

People should be courteous to each other, regardless of where one is sitting in the building, All categories will have some who fail this.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I dunno. It seems to me that, if a couple decides to marry in a church, they are deciding to have their wedding be primarily a worship service to God, and the minster and organist need to make that clear.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I agree with Zach82
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Dunno, I've read your book. I cannot help but think Jesus was hardly as stodgy as some of his adherents.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
It goes without saying that, if a coupe decides to marry outside the Church, they are free to incorporate any Jesus they like into their ceremony.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, I suppose what you are saying is that I'd do poorly as a stick merchant outside of most churches.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
lilbuddha:

quote:

---

Of course they are entitled to feel miffed, though I should hope they would feel miffed regardless of choice of music.
However, neither they, nor any of the other officiants, are at a wedding for their own pleasure.

---

Well, I only mentioned the choice of music to illustrate the amount of extra effort that the choir and organist put in to accommodate the bride and groom's choice. If they'd asked for Rutter's 'The Lord bless you and keep you' we could have sung it in our sleep, and we are used to wedding congregations treating us like wallpaper. It was the combination of demanding extra effort (including the organist having to do a special arrangement of the song they wanted) and then totally ignoring the result that was annoying.

And you're right, none of us would give up our Saturday afternoon to attend the wedding of two complete strangers for pleasure. But most of us are there because we think that getting married in church is important and we want to support other people who think so too. Even if they do make us sit through that ghastly story about the Two Dinosaurs yet again
 

---

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I dunno. It seems to me that, if a couple decides to marry in a church, they are deciding to have their wedding be primarily a worship service to God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I dunno. It seems to me that, if a couple decides to marry in a church, they are deciding to have their wedding be primarily a worship service to God...

---

Just because one might hope that doesn't mean that it is always, or even often, the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For clarity, the service is not for God. The service is not for his official* servants. The service is for the couple.
Now, the couple should choose a church which fits; i.e. third marriage, same sex hippies should not expect to be welcome in an orthodox church. But the contract should work in both directions, too often it does not seems to.


*In human POV, at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Thus carrying us forward to the second part of that sentence you cited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Thus carrying us forward to the second part of that sentence you cited.

---

But there is a difficulty there: once the happy couple-to-be have chosen to have a wedding in the church for whatever more worldly reason - the carpet matches the bouquets, perhaps, or the rood screen is a nice backdrop for photos, or it is convenient to the pub, etc. - you can't go back and change their reason for making that decision.

---

One can, however, tell them they can't have pop music at the service or release butterflies into the church, because if they wanted that sort of tawdry wank they had lots of alternatives to a church wedding.

[ 05. November 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
Why can't they have pop music or (yuck) releasing butterflies at a church wedding? Where in Scripture does Christ forbid those things?
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
We were asked about releasing doves at a wedding * and when I checked there are wildlife protection guidelines for doing so (didn't include checking to make sure no peregrine nests nearby).

Not sure that releasing butterflies wouldn't have similar recommendations ~ particularly inside the building.

* we did wonder about the symbolism of joining together in matrimony and demonstrating staying together by letting two birds fly off separately.

But the it will be the fault of the church that delivers that bad news for sticking to the guidelines.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
There's also the question of how responsible a couple are for the behaviour of their guests. For example, I personally loathe seeing women dressed in black at weddings. I know it's really fashionable these days, but I Do. Not. Like. It. Black is for funerals, people. Where were you dragged up?

Personally when I get married I am planning to politely specify on the invitation that I would like women not to dress in black (and if they ask, I'm prepared to tell them that it's because I'm old-fashioned and was brought up to think it's not polite, and it's my wedding, dammit, and if I don't want women dressed in black I'm going to ask for no women dressed in black*). But there's a limit to how much you can try to put boundaries around people's behaviour. It's hard.

*Possibly I'm going to be bridezilla on this point, but at least I'll be bridezilla in defence of good manners.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I see no problem with having pop music in a church wedding. Matter of fact, many years ago I played Bryan Adam's "Everything I Do I Do It For You" for a couple who were 100% regular attendees of our church and are still thoroughly devout Christians a couple of decades later. So it's not just a question of blow-ins.

The relevant fact is that they gave me quite a few weeks notice of what they wanted me to play, therefore giving me a chance to either find print music or work out the key elements of the song. Rather than rock up and decide I could play any top 40 hit that was their heart's desire.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, when I got married our recessional piece was Verdi's Triumphal March from Aida. Some people might think that was inappropriate in a church setting too - though the organist was delighted to be asked for something other than the Wedding March.

By the time our organist had finished arranging it, the pop song was actually quite a nice piece of music. Pity nobody was listening.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Well, I've had my one (and probably only) wedding, sans clergy, sans music, sans bridesmaids, pagebrats, flowers, favours or photographer. People wore what they pleased, snapped pix when they liked. I gave them food and champagne and a bonfire. My idea was that we should all relax and enjoy ourselves.

What can I have been thinking of?
 

---

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I see no problem with having pop music in a church wedding. Matter of fact, many years ago I played Bryan Adam's "Everything I Do I Do It For You" for a couple who were 100% regular attendees of our church and are still thoroughly devout Christians a couple of decades later. So it's not just a question of blow-ins.

The relevant fact is that they gave me quite a few weeks notice of what they wanted me to play, therefore giving me a chance to either find print music or work out the key elements of the song. Rather than rock up and decide I could play any top 40 hit that was their heart's desire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Well, I've had my one (and probably only) wedding, sans clergy, sans music, sans bridesmaids, pagebrats, flowers, favours or photographer. People wore what they pleased, snapped pix when they liked. I gave them food and champagne and a bonfire. My idea was that we should all relax and enjoy ourselves.

What can I have been thinking of?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Well, when I got married our recessional piece was Verdi's Triumphal March from Aida.

---

Ours was 'When I'm Sixty-Four' by The Beatles.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Frankly Firenze, you completely failed to boost the economy as was your duty.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
'This is a church: no pop music' is quite a good way of repelling people, I suppose! We are few but pure at heart.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Starbug:

quote:

---

Ours was 'When I'm Sixty-Four' by The Beatles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly Firenze, you completely failed to boost the economy as was your duty.

---

quote:

---

Well, when I got married our recessional piece was Verdi's Triumphal March from Aida.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For clarity, the service is not for God. The service is not for his official* servants. The service is for the couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'This is a church: no pop music' is quite a good way of repelling people, I suppose! We are few but pure at heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For clarity, the service is not for God. The service is not for his official* servants. The service is for the couple.

---

Actually, many churches and denominations decidedly teach against this view. The service is a worship service first, and a solemnization of vows second--in the same manner baptism or ordination services are worship services. So in that sense it is as much "for" God and his official servants as any worship service is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For clarity, the service is not for God. The service is not for his official* servants. The service is for the couple.

---

Actually, many churches and denominations decidedly teach against this view. The service is a worship service first, and a solemnization of vows second--in the same manner baptism or ordination services are worship services. So in that sense it is as much "for" God and his official servants as any worship service is.

---

You mistake my point. My point is not that God does not belong in the service. Nor that the service should not be religious. Nor indeed that there should be no expectation of manners.
The ceremony is for the benefit of the couple. And that I think God, as described by Christians, doesn't need hushed and reverent tones.
I am saying the officiants oft times focus more on form than function. I am saying that "proper" behaviour is more often a perception than a fixed pattern.
----------------------
My opinion, take from it what you will: A service is for the benefit of the people. All of them. As soon as a given class' needs are given primacy, you've lost the plot.

---

quote:

---

My point is not that God does not belong in the service. Nor that the service should not be religious. Nor indeed that there should be no expectation of manners.

---

quote:

---

I cannot help but think Jesus was hardly as stodgy as some of his adherents.

---

quote:

---

the service is not for God. The service is not for his official* servants. The service is for the couple.

---

quote:

---

I would imagine clenching that stick for eternity would get a bit wearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You mistake my point.

---

quote:

---

I never said the service was a mere ornament.

However, I do think the focus on the trappings misses the point.

---

Perhaps my confusion stems from the fact that I see "ornament" and "trapping" as synonyms.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I got trapped by an ornament once. Took me ages to get my foot out. And the staples really hurt.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
While we're on the subject of pop-songs at church, we might as well watch this clip from the golden era of the Simpsons.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
That reminds me of when our choir was asked to sing Cohen's 'Hallelujah' at a wedding. We did agree, but left out the part about being tied to the kitchen chair

But then I guess that we're used to singing strange words with a straight face - after all, one of our most requested songs for weddings is 'Lord of the Dance': they whipped and they stripped....
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Hallelujah. Beautiful song, but a weird choice for a wedding, all about love gone wrong. At least the tying to the kitchen chair part was about when things were going good.

"Love is not a victory march. It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah." Now's there's a sentiment I'd love to contemplate at my wedding.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
We can make an alternative "wedding music from hell" list, starting with inappropriate/offensive songs or hymns.

I'll start you off with:
Lord of the Dance
Jerusalem
Kumbaya
 

---

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
"Fight the good fight"? Or for divorce, perhaps "Out of my bondage, sorrow and night"...
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Copyright? The PRS is already sniffing about over popular music at funerals - and don't think they won't demand churches get licensed: they've already made all hairdressers garages, etc, that play a radio that customers can hear get a licence (no, they're not free either).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I myself got married in a church purely for decoration. Although, by "church" you should probably substitute "lovely little shack packed with benches on a remote island". And it was more a matter of my wife having fantasized getting married there due to spending summers as a child on said remote island than any sort of religious affiliation.

And the organist happily played the Imperial March for me during my entrance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My rude comments were aimed primarily at Zach82. Didn't care for his "my way or the highway" type comments.

---

quote:

---

--------------------
The ceremonies in a Christian church are for the members of said church. All of them. They are not for God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is no substantive difference between a God who demands robes, incense or particular songs and one who demands child-sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is no substantive difference between a God who demands robes, incense or particular songs and one who demands child-sacrifice.

---

I've never said anything about specific robes, incense, or songs that weddings must have, only offered a principle that ought to guide how weddings are put together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
One can, however, tell them they can't have pop music at the service or release butterflies into the church, because if they wanted that sort of tawdry wank they had lots of alternatives to a church wedding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

Be that as it may, your comment here is one of the silliest I have ever read on the ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If God demands any tribute, it matters not what the tribute is. Religion is for people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If God demands any tribute, it matters not what the tribute is. Religion is for people.

---

Religion is for people but not everything people do is religion, not even everything people label "religion."

---

quote:

---

If you define what cannot be, you are defining what can be.

---

quote:

---

But it is not silly. If God demands any tribute, it matters not what the tribute is. Religion is for people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I've never said anything about specific robes, incense, or songs that weddings must have, only offered a principle that ought to guide how weddings are put together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Christian weddings are primarily worship services to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

If you define what cannot be, you are defining what can be.

---

This is obviously false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you thought that I was making a hard and fast declaration about how God ought to be worshiped when I said releasing butterflies into the church was silly wank, I am sorry I wasn't clear. I assure you I wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To God, not for the benefit of God.
This is the important bit.

---

quote:

---

Please elucidate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you thought that I was making a hard and fast declaration about how God ought to be worshiped when I said releasing butterflies into the church was silly wank, I am sorry I wasn't clear. I assure you I wasn't.

---

You think it's silly wank. Fine, that's your view. But you then seem to go on to say it's inappropriate as part of a church service, and that's what I'm not getting. Why do you consider it inappropriate?

There must be more to it than just your personal preference, and that's what lilBuddha's point was; you're implying (ISTM) that God also considers releasing butterflies in a church service to be silly wank.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
One can, however, tell them they can't have pop music at the service or release butterflies into the church, because if they wanted that sort of tawdry wank they had lots of alternatives to a church wedding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To God, not for the benefit of God.
This is the important bit.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Please elucidate.

---

I am not sure what part of "It's obviously false" can possibly be unclear to you. Apply it to other situations. "What do you want for dinner?" "I don't want spaghetti." "Uh.... something else then?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you think Jesus dictating the use of bread and wine at communion is exactly the same as child sacrifice, then what power can reason have with you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Are the rules you make up about your gods intended purely for petty debate, or do they serve some other, hidden purpose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I can hardly help it that your posts cannot sustain any more rebuttal than pointing out how obviously false they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I can hardly help it that your posts cannot sustain any more rebuttal than pointing out how obviously false they are.

---

In other words, you cannot defend your statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Christian weddings are primarily worship services to God.

---

• God does not determine acceptable behaviour in a religious building/ceremony.
• Much of what people choose as acceptable behaviour has naught to do with the stated essence of a ceremony.
• If a God demands a behaviour, it is tribute. The form of said tribute changes nothing in this statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Christian weddings are primarily worship services to God.

---

I disagree. A Christian wedding is primarily the making of a covenant between two people, in the presence of God.

It may contain all kinds of elements common to worship services, but the covenant is what makes it a wedding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

If you define what cannot be, you are defining what can be.

---

This is obviously false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Christian weddings are primarily worship services to God.

---

I disagree. A Christian wedding is primarily the making of a covenant between two people, in the presence of God.

It may contain all kinds of elements common to worship services, but the covenant is what makes it a wedding.

---

Your line seems to me more like establishing a contract than a sacrament. Don't get me wrong, I do think there are aspects of contractual agreement in marriage, but I wouldn't say that's the primary aspect.

Marriage as a sacrament makes a wedding an act of God in the life of the couple and the Church, rather than a mere agreement between two parties to have a go at liking each other forever and not have sex with other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
We can make an alternative "wedding music from hell" list, starting with inappropriate/offensive songs or hymns.

I'll start you off with:
Lord of the Dance
Jerusalem
Kumbaya

---

I'll play
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I've been specifically talking about weddings as church ceremonies, and have even outright said that this principle I've offered does not apply to non-church ceremonies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, the point I was trying to make, although perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, was that Christian people used to not get married in churches and were entirely confident that they were nevertheless married in the sight of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
The trend here is most people shack up and only get married to entice their parents to lend them a down payment for a mortgage because they did the no pill-pull out but not soon enough on the tugging, so now they have a gerbil in the cage and think they need to upgrade to the condominium. When I babysit we're smoking cigars from the wrong end, singing The North Atlantic Squadron and drinking rum in our milk, out of bowls. And sling shots. With plenty of rocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, the point I was trying to make, although perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, was that Christian people used to not get married in churches and were entirely confident that they were nevertheless married in the sight of God.

---

I am hardly questioning that all marriages are in the sight of God, in church or otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
People, can't you just accept Zach's basic premise that churches are only for god stuff, so therefore all weddings that bother to be in churches are therefore only for god stuff. He clearly isn't speaking about god's view about marriages in general, because obviously He doesn't really care about what His pet penitential monkeys do outside of the god stuff churchy places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, the point I was trying to make, although perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, was that Christian people used to not get married in churches and were entirely confident that they were nevertheless married in the sight of God.

---

I am hardly questioning that all marriages are in the sight of God, in church or otherwise.

---

As far as I can tell, you're questioning the basic structure of the English language. Or just spectacularly obtuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, the point I was trying to make, although perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, was that Christian people used to not get married in churches and were entirely confident that they were nevertheless married in the sight of God.

---

I am hardly questioning that all marriages are in the sight of God, in church or otherwise.

---

As far as I can tell, you're questioning the basic structure of the English language. Or just spectacularly obtuse.

---

My arguement: "Weddings in churches are primarily worship services."

Your rebuttal: "But Christians used to not marry in churches."

My reply: "So? I was talking about weddings in churches, not weddings outside of churches."

If I have missed anything, then go ahead and claim victory in this line of argument. I really don't care that much.

---

quote:

---

What you've missed is that the proposition that God cares about the content of a wedding service presupposes that God cares that you have a wedding service in the first place.

---

quote:

---

I truly hope you are accessing SOF from a care home as you are clearly not competent to manage alone.
Is this my fault, perhaps. I did assume you could handle more than one argument at a time, clearly I was mistaken.

---

quote:

---

Try this single one: Expectation of behaviour in a religious service/building are created by, and for, people not God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Wow, a master rhetorician. "You're just too stupid to ignore the idiocy of my assertions."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
My argument actually leaves lots of space for different standards of human behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That does not make quite as much sense as you seem to think.

---

quote:

---

But you have posed no argument, you have merely made a vague assertion which amounts to "If I do not approve your behaviour, go away".
So what behaviours are allowed/disallowed,?
Why?
And who determines this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But apparently the standard of behaviour in a church has to be determined by someone other than the people involved in the particular wedding?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But apparently the standard of behaviour in a church has to be determined by someone other than the people involved in the particular wedding?

---

On the contrary. My argument is entirely about who is involved in the service. I am saying that, in deciding to marry in a church, the couple is involving the church in the wedding and thereby ceding some control about the make up of the service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But apparently the standard of behaviour in a church has to be determined by someone other than the people involved in the particular wedding?

---

On the contrary. My argument is entirely about who is involved in the service. I am saying that, in deciding to marry in a church, the couple is involving the church in the wedding and thereby ceding some control about the make up of the service.

---

True enough, but they are ceding it to the church, not to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I have no fucking idea how people are getting the idea that I am setting myself up as the only arbiter about how weddings ought to be run. The principle "church services are about God" makes absolutely not assertion about any particularities whatsoever. It's pretty infuriating.

---

quote:

---

South Coast Kevin: On the more general point, doesn't it make you think that five or six people have now said on this thread some version of 'Huh?' to you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You implied upthread that pop music and releasing butterflies are 'silly wank' and don't belong in church services. You brought in the particularities about what is and is not appropriate in a church service [EDIT - and therefore in a wedding service].

---

quote:

---

On the more general point, doesn't it make you think that five or six people have now said on this thread some version of 'Huh?' to you, whereas nobody has defended you or added their voice to your side of this argument? Perhaps, just perhaps, you're not being as clear as you think you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

South Coast Kevin: On the more general point, doesn't it make you think that five or six people have now said on this thread some version of 'Huh?' to you

---

I've been in a couple of fights with Zach myself, and invariably he's been saying some kind of "I haven't said that! You're misinterpreting!"

Either Zach is so intelligent that us mere mortals can't understand very well what he's saying, or he's not expressing himself very well.

Hmm, to make up my mind...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Or it's just a matter of who I tend to argue with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Or it's just a matter of who I tend to argue with.

---

Mankind, as far as I can tell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Fine, have it your way, Zach82. You're expressing yourself completely clearly and everyone who's said otherwise is an illiterate fool. Including me; in fact, especially me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What am I supposed to say when I didn't say something, went on to explicitly deny it, and then several people show up to continue accusing me of saying it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What am I supposed to say when I didn't say something, went on to explicitly deny it, and then several people show up to continue accusing me of saying it?

---

That you're talking out of both sides of your mouth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What am I supposed to say when I didn't say something, went on to explicitly deny it, and then several people show up to continue accusing me of saying it?

---

That you're talking out of both sides of your mouth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I am sure there are many venues open to wedding predicated on such an understanding, including the Elks Lodge, a hotel ball room, or a serene beach at sunrise. There may even be a decommissioned church available to rent out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
One can, however, tell them they can't have pop music at the service or release butterflies into the church, because if they wanted that sort of tawdry wank they had lots of alternatives to a church wedding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It goes without saying that, if a coupe decides to marry outside the Church, they are free to incorporate any Jesus they like into their ceremony.

---

quote:

---

I am sure there are many venues open to wedding predicated on such an understanding, including the Elks Lodge, a hotel ball room, or a serene beach at sunrise. There may even be a decommissioned church available to rent out.

---

quote:

---

One can, however, tell them they can't have pop music at the service or release butterflies into the church, because if they wanted that sort of tawdry wank they had lots of alternatives to a church wedding.

---

quote:

---

It goes without saying that, if a coupe decides to marry outside the Church, they are free to incorporate any Jesus they like into their ceremony.

---

quote:

---

Don't think anyone thought you had any authority.

---

quote:

---

But you do have opinions and these are what are being challenged. That you cannot defend these positions and must revert to "Nobody understands me" speaks volumes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
A number of people think you do and have done some things you feel you haven't. The inter-rater agreement external to yourself is generally considered persuasive. The prospect of moving on in such situations is usually enhanced by agreeing to the point that satisfies the people who have rated your conduct negatively.

I would note in this thread about marriage that it works in that context rather well, or at least in my 34 years of it. You don't actually have to mean it, you just have to seem like you do, and then let *cognitive dissonance* resolve the difference.

* you may look it up

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You keep using the word clarified. I do not think it means what you think it means.

With apologies to Wallace Shawn, Carey Elwes and Mandy Patinkin.

---

quote:

---

Of course, the OTHER possibility is that you think the statement that a church service is about God is so manifestly correct that you just can't be arsed expanding further on the statement. You know, by providing further argument and showing your reasoning. If we all make it clear that we don't automatically agree with that statement and that you need to persuade us of its correctness, otherwise we will all just saying we think you're wrong, will that help?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, if I just say that I agree more with lilBuddha's position back on page 2, before this all descended into farce, is THAT overly self-referential?

We can all just sit here saying 'well this is what I think' all day, if you like. I don't think an 'argument by definition' is an argument AT ALL. I know because I write definitions for a living, and the main point of a definition in a law is to say 'this is what it means here, I'm not entering into any argument about it'. I can write a definition saying "banana means any round sphere over 2 metres in diameter", and it will work perfectly well in its own context. It will read as gibberish to any normal person, but it will create legal certainty.

And for the love of God, PLEASE stop talking about weddings outside churches! We all know, after you've said it 20 times, what you think about weddings outside churches. No-one took issue with your view about weddings outside churches in the first place, which is no doubt why you feel so damn comfortable repeating it. The disagreement was with your views about weddings INSIDE churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
...the Book of Common Prayer service says that marriage is established by God. Thus, marriage is set within a worship service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Anyway, if you really find "Church services should worship God," controversial, the Book of Common Prayer service says that marriage is established by God. Thus, marriage is set within a worship service.

---

quote:

---

So anything that is 'established by God' must be 'set within a worship service'? I don't get how that necessarily follows and, anyway, you're proof-texting from something which non-Anglicans may well not consider at all authoritative. Proof-texting from the Bible is dubious enough as a debating technique, but using something like the BCP is even less sound, IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

So anything that is 'established by God' must be 'set within a worship service'? I don't get how that necessarily follows and, anyway, you're proof-texting from something which non-Anglicans may well not consider at all authoritative. Proof-texting from the Bible is dubious enough as a debating technique, but using something like the BCP is even less sound, IMO.

---

I don't think the wedding service can be rationally deduced from the nature of the universe, so citing an authority is the only other possibility.

Don't accept Christian authorities? That's why I keep repeating that I am only talking about church services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orfeo:
That's the institution of marriage. Not a wedding ceremony. That's the second time in this thread, actually, that I've suspected you of confusing the two. Marriage is the thing you enter into for life. A wedding is a thing you have on one day at the start of the marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LilBuddha:
Nature of the universe? Who is referencing this...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What I find offensive, yes that's the word, is that you present yourself as an authority on such matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Miss it? He wrote the textbook!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, he certainly could write an authoritative text on selective answering and avoiding questions.
I think he learned debate at a dance academy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you would actually address an issue properly, I will debate it with you.

As far as my rude comments, I find your dismissive attitude towards that which you do not approve of more insulting than anything I have said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
All I said was religious ceremonies ought to be about God,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

I'll even one up you by accusing you only of things I can substantiate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QB]No. You made a statement regarding acceptable behaviour in a religious ceremony. I've questioned your source on what is acceptable.[qb]

---

quote:

---

You done little else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't think the wedding service can be rationally deduced from the nature of the universe, so citing an authority is the only other possibility.

Don't accept Christian authorities? That's why I keep repeating that I am only talking about church services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SyNoddy:
Also, please remember that in the UK any overt spiritual and religious elements are not permitted at civil weddings - no prayers, music of a religious nature or readings from holy texts.
No debate, those are the rules. So a couple have to choose between either secular or religious. A 'light touch' religious service is only possible in a religious setting and there for requires an understanding minister not insisting on the "full" rites of his/her church,temple,synagogue etc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If I had claimed to be humble at any point, I might understand your pissy outrage at the proposition, Orfeo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

And if the celebrant was/is unaware of that fact then they shouldn't be officiating at weddings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
lilBuddha - you've been a little peach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I'll do it for you, you fucking coward.

Zach: "I dunno. It seems to me that, if a couple decides to marry in a church, they are deciding to have their wedding be primarily a worship service to God, and the minster and organist need to make that clear."

You: "Dunno, I've read your book. I cannot help but think Jesus was hardly as stodgy as some of his adherents."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

Zach: "It goes without saying that, if a coupe decides to marry outside the Church, they are free to incorporate any Jesus they like into their ceremony."

You: "So, I suppose what you are saying is that I'd do poorly as a stick merchant outside of most churches."

---

• I replied politely to l'organist and Jane R but not you. Care to work out why?
• Have you noticed what board this is posted within? Whilst insults may not be required, they are Lingua Franca around here.
• Not for the first time, and I doubt the last, it will be recalled you list this as your favourite board. Which is at complete odds with nearly every exchange you have here.

Prove to you?
Not sure this is possible. Given your behaviour on this thread, you are either a WUM or spectacularly incapable of a rational discussion.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

I'm not sure if it helps the (fascinating) debate about who a wedding is 'for' - God, the couple, the state, the families or whoever - but the preface to the CofE service states that "In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have come together to witness the marriage of N and N, to pray for God's blessing on them, to share their joy and to celebrate their love" and seems to me to explain pretty well what we are all doing there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm fully aware the flash mob video wedding was in a CofE church - but that part of the service was definitely not in accordance with Canon Law.

And if the celebrant was/is unaware of that fact then they shouldn't be officiating at weddings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Zaccheus the law of the land states that for church weddings in the CofE (which has special privileges for marriages, as you know, they should be conducted "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England". Dance (liturgical or sad-Dad) kiss the bride, etc, DO NOT fall within that remit: they are not part of the rites and ceremonies.

---

quote:

---

can include readings, songs or music, but must not include anything that’s religious - eg hymns or readings from the Bible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Zaccheus the law of the land states that for church weddings in the CofE (which has special privileges for marriages, as you know, they should be conducted "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England". Dance (liturgical or sad-Dad) kiss the bride, etc, DO NOT fall within that remit: they are not part of the rites and ceremonies.

---

By this logic, the only thing people are allowed to do is open the book, read the appointed words, close the book and walk out.

I think your interpretation skills need work. There's a difference between 'not part of the designated rites and ceremonies' and 'incompatible with the designated rites and ceremonies'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

But it is to be hoped that clergy will have some idea of what is appropriate within the context of a religious service and what isn't.

---

quote:

---

Here is the dome back with the bass
The jam is live in effect and I don't waste time
Off the mic with a dope rhyme jump to the rhythm
Jump jump to the rhythm jump
And I'm here to combine beats and lyrics
To make you shake your pants take a chance
Come on and dance guys grab a girl don't wait make the twirl
It's your world and I'm just a squirrel
etc, etc, etc

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, the couple in the video had been pronounced but as they hadn't signed the register they were NOT, in fact, married at the time they started their gyrations.

---

quote:

---

Yes, the couple in the video had been pronounced but as they hadn't signed the register they were NOT, in fact, married at the time they started their gyrations.

---

quote:

---

How to marry

You can get married by a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

In both cases, the following legal requirements must be met:-

• the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district
• the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
So, to summarize the thread, churches are an impediment to the institution of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
As for organ music (or devotional motet/anthem) during the signing of the registers: the organ is a traditional instrument which has been in use for the accompaniment of spiritual hymns and songs for well over a thousand years:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
So, to summarize the thread, churches are an impediment to the institution of marriage.

---

They've been impeding MY marriage for years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's called the Quotes File....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's called the Quotes File....

---

It's not the same, I never think to look there so the impact is lost...

---

So, it is bad because it is not in your tradition...

[ 10. November 2013, 22:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you just imagine the arguments over a thousand years ago the first time someone tried to have one of those new-fangled organs playing during their wedding service? People were shocked. Everybody knows the only true church music is unaccompanied singing. Ask the Orthodox.

A comfort zone is not a principle.

---

quote:

---

Mick and Jerry are not the same thing, that was a wedding in another country where it couldn’t be proved any of the necessary legalities were observed. And is why anybody who is getting married abroad is advised to make sure that they do it properly. There was also doubt to whether Mick Jagger intended it to be a marriage as well
We are talking of a situation where everything has been done in the correct way, banns or licenses etc. at least two witnesses and then where something is inserted into the service, before the registers were signed, that you don’t approve of and think makes the marriage illegal. By that time they are married and nothing extra inserted into the service can un-marry them.

---

quote:

---

Mick and Jerry are not the same thing, that was a wedding in another country where it couldn’t be proved any of the necessary legalities were observed. And is why anybody who is getting married abroad is advised to make sure that they do it properly. There was also doubt to whether Mick Jagger intended it to be a marriage as well
We are talking of a situation where everything has been done in the correct way, banns or licenses etc. at least two witnesses and then where something is inserted into the service, before the registers were signed, that you don’t approve of and think makes the marriage illegal. By that time they are married and nothing extra inserted into the service can un-marry them.

---

quote:

---

the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
As for organ music (or devotional motet/anthem) during the signing of the registers: the organ is a traditional instrument which has been in use for the accompaniment of spiritual hymns and songs for well over a thousand years:

---

Can you just imagine the arguments over a thousand years ago the first time someone tried to have one of those new-fangled organs playing during their wedding service? People were shocked. Everybody knows the only true church music is unaccompanied singing. Ask the Orthodox.

A comfort zone is not a principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
RooK, are you sure you want to continue touting for extra business after the experience you described in the OP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It's not just a case of my disapproval here: a lawyer - a civil lawyer as well as a canon lawyer - could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt. You could (would?) argue that no one would go so far as to report the cleric in question to the Queen's Proctor (really the Treasury Solicitor) but the possibility does exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
It's not just a case of my disapproval here: a lawyer - a civil lawyer as well as a canon lawyer - could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt. You could (would?) argue that no one would go so far as to report the cleric in question to the Queen's Proctor (really the Treasury Solicitor) but the possibility does exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

In the case of the exercise video wedding, all the formalities had NOT been observed by the time they decided to start their gyrations: the words had been spoken but the paperwork had not been completed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's called the Quotes File....

EDIT: I wasn't trying to be especially comical, you understand. Churches have quite literally been impeding any prospect of me getting married. They've been striding up to politicians and explaining how me getting married would destroy the fabric of society, or something.

On one level I would give a lot to be able to have a heated argument with someone somewhere about what music was appropriate for my wedding service. Because that would mean I could have a wedding service. At the moment I think I would have to travel to Sweden or Norway in order to be allowed to get married in a church. Which isn't such a bad thing, there are pretty hot blokes in Sweden or Norway... but I don't know what their musical tastes are like.

Meanwhile the English-speaking world is buy reassuring churches that they can continue excluding homosexuals if they want, in the name of religious conscience. These assurances normally don't address the religious conscience of individual members of the churches who are homosexual and who would find the opportunity for a church wedding significant. But hey, my conscience is probably against canon law or something.

A YouTube video of MY wedding could cause a schism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But... but... they danced! And it wasn't even a galliard or a passepied!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Zaccheus

quote:

---

Mick and Jerry are not the same thing, that was a wedding in another country where it couldn’t be proved any of the necessary legalities were observed. And is why anybody who is getting married abroad is advised to make sure that they do it properly. There was also doubt to whether Mick Jagger intended it to be a marriage as well
We are talking of a situation where everything has been done in the correct way, banns or licenses etc. at least two witnesses and then where something is inserted into the service, before the registers were signed, that you don’t approve of and think makes the marriage illegal. By that time they are married and nothing extra inserted into the service can un-marry them.

---

As I said about the Hall-Jagger "marriage" it was no such thing because the correct formalities of the country where it took place, Bali, hadn't been observed.

The law of England and Wales does not concern itself with whether or not an adult who is to all intents and purposes sane and non-delusional "intends" a ceremony to be a wedding: the judge at the time made that quite clear.

In the case of the exercise video wedding, all the formalities had NOT been observed by the time they decided to start their gyrations: the words had been spoken but the paperwork had not been completed. As the lady from the CAB told Curiosity killed

quote:

---

the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.

---

The exercising couple and cleric hadn't signed the book, nor had the witnesses - they were too busy exercising.

It's not just a case of my disapproval here: a lawyer - a civil lawyer as well as a canon lawyer - could reasonably argue that the exercise gyrations were so far outside the "acceptable norm" for a wedding service "according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England" as to put the legality of the whole "service" in doubt. You could (would?) argue that no one would go so far as to report the cleric in question to the Queen's Proctor (really the Treasury Solicitor) but the possibility does exist.

It is one thing to have a wishy-washy "anything goes" attitude to liturgy: it may make some of us shudder but hey, we won't be attending your church anytime soon. But it is quite another to allow a couple to over-ride not just accepted practice but to participate in such a dubious action that could place the validity of their ceremony in jeopardy.

And for anyone to persist in arguing that a "bit of fun" is not that serious shows a potentially catastrophic dislocate from reality and legality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But... but... they danced! And it wasn't even a galliard or a passepied!

---

Pfft, all dancing is sinful.

Hostly edit: NSFW link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But... but... they danced! And it wasn't even a galliard or a passepied!

---

Pfft, all dancing is sinful.

Hostly edit: NSFW link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

In the case of the exercise video wedding, all the formalities had NOT been observed by the time they decided to start their gyrations: the words had been spoken but the paperwork had not been completed.

---

So the paperwork hadn't been completed at that point but presumably was completed at some point during the service, so I really don't understand why you think the marriage wasn't legal. As you, and others keep saying, the marriage register is proof of a legal marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A delay of a few minutes before signing is not going to make any difference to the situation they intend to complete them and did do so.
If all the legal preliminaries were completed and the registers signed in the end, then the insertion of something, however much you dislike it, is not going to make them not married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oferyas:
This leaves the congregation to its own devices for ten minutes, during which much mischief is possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oferyas:
At worst I have heard of weddings where fist fights have broken out among members of the congregation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oferyas:
(I have never seen this personally, my most exciting being where three female members of the congregation lit cigars while sitting on the back pew....)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
England has registry offices and other venues for civil ceremonies - that would be your humanist weddings. You can get married in stately homes and a myriad of licensed venues. Couples will be able to book weddings on the top of that sculpture in the Olympic Park. All these ceremonies have to be civil ceremonies which

quote:

---

can include readings, songs or music, but must not include anything that’s religious - eg hymns or readings from the Bible

---

---

But if you want a reading that someone considers religious (perhaps from a non-Christian tradition or Ecclesiastes with no mention of God) or perhaps some hymn music (are you allowed religious music with no words in a civil wedding)? I guess one could try the Unitarians to get this. Admittedly many of my family go the registry office to do the paperwork and then have the proper celebration.

(Sorry for the delay in responding, internet problems)
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Maybe I missed this somewhere, but why the hell does the government give a damn if someone includes a bit of religion in their ceremony? It isn't as if every religious ceremony has to be of the national church, the CoE anyway. So what if someone's personal outlook is some eclectic mix of deism, theism, agnostic musings, and reverence for nature (or even the spaghetti monster)? Why does a wedding ceremony have to be all recognizable religion or no religion at all? I see no sense in it.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Don't you understand? The churches must be kept pure! Free from silly feeble-minded human stuff like love and hope and joy.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Ah. Silly me.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
...and I took cover behind the bar with a bottle of cheap bourbon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Bourbon is not a holy spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@ NeSpinster and LydaRose ~ I suspect that the split between religion in church purely civil otherwise is church driven to maintain their monopoly on church weddings. But I don't know that ~ I was only pointing out what the situation is in England because it is this particular legal position that drives some of the differing points of view. That and the CoE marketing campaign to get weddings back in churches as the number of church weddings is falling.

---

Turkeys. It isn't as if an Anglican wedding were the only religious kind on offer. If people have any say in the form of their wedding, the line should not be drawn against religious expression.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Don't you understand? The churches must be kept pure! Free from silly feeble-minded human stuff like love and hope and joy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
Not necessarily. Some non-Anglican ministers are legally authorised to conduct weddings

---

I believe that is because they are registrars and the wedding is taking place in their approved religious building.

The system really is a bit of a mess in England with CoE weddings either by banns or license, Jewish weddings, Quaker weddings, all other religions who have an approved building (but need an outside registrar); all other religions who have an approved building and a member (usually the minister) who can act as a registrar, registry office weddings which must be completely areligious; other completely areligious weddings at an approved non-religious location and with a registrar or approved person. The French system does seem simpler; get the civil marriage at the townhall then go elsewhere and do whatever other ceremony seems appropriate to the participants or none.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Wow. Just wow. Never knew the wedding situation in England was so much like a hopelessly tangled ball of yarn.


It's a wonder anyone bothers.

Here in the US, we've got all sorts of ways to get married--and all sorts of ways to become a wedding officiant. AFAIK, any licensed clergy can legally marry people. (Though if they belong to an organized religion or denomination, higher-ups may have rules about it.) Around here, there are professional officiants who aren't any sort of clergy. And you can also become immediately ordained through online churches, like the Universal Life Church. (That method has been repeatedly used in TV and film as a way to rescue a wedding when the clergy doesn't show up.)

As to location: I'm not sure about the rules of specific religious groups. But, in general, people get married anywhere, including mid-air while sky-diving.

People often write their own vows--sensible, I think. Makes them consider what they're doing, and just might make them more likely to stick to the vows, ISTM.

I'm not sure why there's quite so much fuss, here, about wedding music. If the couple wanted to use extremely sexual music in a place of worship, that might be inappropriate (depending on the beliefs of the religious group). But it's the couple's day. If they want a favorite pop song, why not? Even if the lyrics don't seem wedding-worthy. And I fail to understand why the wedding music from "The Sound of Music" is inappropriate, as someone mentioned upthread.

A wedding is stressful enough. Maybe everyone involved should cut each other some slack.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Here there are different bits of legislation depending on the religion of the participants. Christians generally have to go by the Indian Christian Marriages Act of 1872, Hindu go by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Muslims go by the Muslim Marriage Act 1957 [though there is some dispute about this*], Sikhs go by the Anand Marriage Act of 1909 and then there is the Special Marriages Act 1954 which sort of picks up the shortfall.

A marriage under the Special Marriages Act takes about 1 minute for the official bit and 20 minutes for the bureaucratic bit. A Hindu marriage can be over in 10 minutes. A Muslim marriage takes a while longer - and see below.

*There is currently a debate with some holding that a Muslim marriage is a purely civil contract and should not be in the purview of the courts - but even so I think there needs to be some legislation to allow this.

With the current talk of consolidating legislation [the writing of which would be a nightmare!] the French model seems the way to go but pity the poor Registrar!
 

---

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The system really is a bit of a mess in England with CoE weddings either by banns or license, Jewish weddings, Quaker weddings, all other religions who have an approved building (but need an outside registrar); all other religions who have an approved building and a member (usually the minister) who can act as a registrar, registry office weddings which must be completely areligious; other completely areligious weddings at an approved non-religious location and with a registrar or approved person. The French system does seem simpler; get the civil marriage at the townhall then go elsewhere and do whatever other ceremony seems appropriate to the participants or none.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0