Church Wedding or Humanist Wedding?

DavyD_83

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There's nothing nasty there.

"Humanist ceremonies are a little ridiculous and pretentious" would be nasty (just).

"I find humanist ceremonies ceremonies a little ridiculous and pretentious" is just a statement of how someone find them. Not right or wrong, just a statement of one person's perspective.

Personally, unless I know that the couple really are motivated by humanist principles and doctrines, then I also find them a little ridiculous and pretentious. Why not just be honest about your values and separate the legal document signing (done at the registry office) from the speeches and whatever music, poems, vows etc you want to have in a non-regulated manner at the party.

As somebody who had a humanist ceremony, I actually agree with the above to some extent. But I think this can depend on the Humanist celebrant involved, and also the specific couple (as with any format you decide on).

I don't think our ceremony was pretentious, but maybe others there did. It was also just after the Humanist weddings became a fully legal option, so I think for most people it was a first. As the novelty of not going to mass wears off, I think people will naturally start to become critical/bored of the new common alternatives.

I think it's the air of superiority that some people have when they talk about avoiding/removing religion from things that comes across as obnoxious/pretentious more than anything. A ceremony can be non-religious without being anti-religious.

I wouldn't see myself as a Humanist, and to be honest just saw it as an alternative whereby you could be married by somebody who was not a priest and would not expect you to do it in a grey office block between 9-5 Mon-Fri. It is also a slightly easier sell to those parents etc who may have expected a religious service.

From what I have seen, some Humanists, (and atheists) can have an approach that almost presents their beliefs as a religion in itself (that is clearly superior to the common mono-theistic outlooks). If this is the case any ceremony or event they are involved in can be just as preachy as a mass, but in a slightly pretentious (religions are bad, but let me tell you about my better belief system which is definitely not religious) way.

On Topic - As I said, totally your choice; although you shouldn't let anybody else decide for you, it doesn't necessarily mean that what people will think, say and feel about your decision is irrelevant.
It's only irrelevant if you don't care what those people think. Some of us still care what our friends and family think of us, no matter how mature we are.

eviltwin

scream wrote: »

When you strip it all back a wedding is just about 2 people. Perhaps the best thing is a Registry office. I know a lot of people like Humanist ceremonies, but frankly I find Humanist ceremonies a little ridiculous and pretentious.

Just as well it's not your wedding then......

Keane2baMused

The joys of having an interfaith minister.

We can have it whatever way we want, all religion, no religion, a mix, purely legal.

That's probably pretentious too sure

eviltwin

Some people tend to find anything outside the traditional to be pretentious. Personally I think weddings in general are pretentious but sure why not, it's the one party where you get to do things your way and have a bit of fun.

ChampagnePop

Keane2baMused wrote: »

The joys of having an interfaith minister.

We can have it whatever way we want, all religion, no religion, a mix, purely legal.

That's probably pretentious too sure

Notions........

*kidding

Plankton1

I am going to meet with our priest to have a chat about it, and also meet with an interfaith minister, and see afterwards which feels like the right fit for myself and my partner. I discussed it with my mother who, although would love if I did get married in our local church because of all the other life events that happened there, said she will support whatever decision we make.

scream

I seem to have struck a nerve with my opinion of humanist weddings, although most of you seem to have overlooked the fact the first part of my post. Many people do find humanist weddings ridiculous and pretentious, trust me when I say that most guests will find the mingling of coloured sand from one vase to another vase a tad ridiculous and pretentious. If it's important to your beliefs then fine, but for me it's a no no. We got married in a registry office as neither of us is particularly religious and we've been very happily married for 20 years.

Keane2baMused

scream wrote: »

I seem to have struck a nerve with my opinion of humanist weddings, although most of you seem to have overlooked the fact the first part of my post. Many people do find humanist weddings ridiculous and pretentious, trust me when I say that most guests will find the mingling of coloured sand from one vase to another vase a tad ridiculous and pretentious. If it's important to your beliefs then fine, but for me it's a no no. We got married in a registry office as neither of us is particularly religious and we've been very happily married for 20 years.

That's wonderful for you and glad you stuck to your beliefs.

Nothing wrong with mixing a bit o' sand of a wedding day People worry too much about other peoples preferences!

Keane2baMused

Plankton1 wrote: »

I am going to meet with our priest to have a chat about it, and also meet with an interfaith minister, and see afterwards which feels like the right fit for myself and my partner. I discussed it with my mother who, although would love if I did get married in our local church because of all the other life events that happened there, said she will support whatever decision we make.

That's great you will soon come to a decision that is best for you both as a couple

pwurple

scream wrote: »

I seem to have struck a nerve with my opinion of humanist weddings, although most of you seem to have overlooked the fact the first part of my post. Many people do find humanist weddings ridiculous and pretentious, trust me when I say that most guests will find the mingling of coloured sand from one vase to another vase a tad ridiculous and pretentious. If it's important to your beliefs then fine, but for me it's a no no. We got married in a registry office as neither of us is particularly religious and we've been very happily married for 20 years.

Ah yes, the coloured sand, hand-fasting, warming of the rings, unity candle, lei, mother's flower presentation, butterfly release, glass smashing, shell blessing ceremony. For all the jewish wiccan Hawaiian's in Ireland.

Followed by a sponsored broadcast for christianity-lite.

I love them. Good scope there for wedding bingo.

Keane2baMused

pwurple wrote: »

Ah yes, the coloured sand, hand-fasting, warming of the rings, unity candle, lei, mother's flower presentation, butterfly release, glass smashing, shell blessing ceremony. For all the jewish wiccan Hawaiian's in Ireland.

Followed by a sponsored broadcast for christianity-lite.

I love them. Good scope there for wedding bingo.

Hand fasting is Celtic :-)

pwurple

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Hand fasting is Celtic :-)

Lol, I wasn't going for the comprehensive list. I guess it's better than wearing that stripey green shirt for the wedding anyway! :pac:

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

Lol, I wasn't going for the comprehensive list. I guess it's better than wearing that stripey green shirt for the wedding anyway! :pac:

How do Christian atheists get married?

Faith

scream wrote: »

trust me when I say that most guests will find the mingling of coloured sand from one vase to another vase a tad ridiculous and pretentious.

Sand? I had a humanist wedding, and the only place I ever saw sand mentioned was on Pinterest. It has nothing to do with Humanism, and if it's included in a ceremony, it's because the couple wanted to include it and the celebrant obliged.

A humanist ceremony is where a celebrant says some nice words about marriage and the couple, the couple exchange vows, everyone smiles and claps. That's it. Anything else is an optional extra, chosen by the couple themselves and not by the Humanist Association.

So, I think what you mean to say is, you find cetain ceremonies designed by specific couples ridiculous.

Keane2baMused

Sure how could we possibly allow any other ceremonial traditions into our culture?

Don't we know the only option should be Church or a registry office (if you sinned and divorced your first husband/wife).

Anything else is just ridiculous and pretentious...!!

lazygal

Keane2baMused wrote: »

Sure how could we possibly allow any other ceremony traditions into our culture?

Don't we know the only option should be Church or a registry office (if you sinned and divorced your first husband/wife).

Anything else is just ridiculous and pretentious.

Yeah, and Christianity lite. Like, maybe, Christian atheism. Where a Catholic ceremony is grand, because, you know reasons.

Gatica

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally, unless I know that the couple really are motivated by humanist principles and doctrines, then I also find them a little ridiculous and pretentious. Why not just be honest about your values and separate the legal document signing (done at the registry office) from the speeches and whatever music, poems, vows etc you want to have in a non-regulated manner at the party.

A lot of it comes down to the choices a couple has for their wedding ceremony. Many people don't want to have one date for the official wedding at the registry office and another with a celebrant at their location. The civil ceremonies can only be done Mon-Fri, which to be fair restricts having a wedding on a weekend. So what's the choice? Someone who doesn't want a religious wedding and doesn't want to get married on Mon-Fri only will likely choose the Humanist option, even if they didn't read their manifesto and pick them on the basis of their philosophy. The alternatives of Unitarian or Spiritualist may not appeal as much to someone who wants to go strictly non-religious. It's not fair to put it on a couple that it might be pretentious when in honesty their choices are limited to start with.

Faith

Absolutely, Gatica, it's the only secular option available on weekends. So people have very limited choice.

In addition, I'd be quite surprised if people who want a secular wedding didn't agree with the teachings of Humanism. The core tenet is that morality comes from within, not from some divine power. People are good because they're good, not because they're afraid of not getting a reward. I think most non-religious people would agree with that.

pwurple

Faith wrote: »

Sand? I had a humanist wedding, and the only place I ever saw sand mentioned was on Pinterest. It has nothing to do with Humanism, and if it's included in a ceremony, it's because the couple wanted to include it and the celebrant obliged.

Oh yes, it's pinterest alright. I've seen some of those extras done in churches as well, no creed untouched I'd say.

Pinterest has caused a heck of a lot of shabby chic and chalkboard too. It's all good fun.

Heck, the ceremony fluff might be marking out this particular decade like the mutton leg sleeves had their outing in the 80's, and the week long foreign stag had it's moment in the noughties.