Why would these people need to get married.
 

Atheists.
Now I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong but Atheists don't believe in any higher power what so ever, right. Then if two Atheists got married, what's the point? The reason for marriage is to show God that you love each other and your sort of asking for his blessing. (Well in Christianity anyway) But what is the use between two Atheists? My theory is they just want to show off. Now some may say to prove to each other that they love each other right. I say Wrong. Why because they don't need a blessing from some religious person reading from a religious book that they can't give 2 hoots about. Now if they each want a ring on their finger then they can go out and buy one and say they are married. Because it they do get married it's really Void because they are lying to themself by getting married in front something they don't believe in. Now I think they are showing off like some people show off their new Baby. They go around to everyone and say that they are married. When really they aren’t

Re: Why would these people need to get married.
 

Generally, Atheists wouldn't get married in a Church. You may as well ask "Why would Atheists have a Funeral" - Marriage is a Secular Act, and has been for centuries. Keep up.

To add to what Danny pointed out, at least in the US, being married has legal significance and bestows upon those in a marriage certain legal rights and responsibilities -- mostly with regard to property, taxes, and employment benefits like health insurance coverage -- that unmarried people do not have.

Some people regard marriage as an act of commitment to another person. So, however marriage is regarded by the church, marriage is also a civil union that has meaning and significance outside of the church. That's why you don't need to get married in a church. And that's why if you get married in a church, you need a marriage license from the state.

"Keep up" -- I like that. :) Here, we might say (among other things): "get a clue."

Maybe not centuries, but definately in the last one. It's like Christmas- what once was purely a religious event has now been adapted and integrated into pop culture. One can have a completely secular christmas- a LOT of people do. By the same token, two people can be married by a judge or a chief of police, anyone who as attained the rank of "Justice of the peace" in the states. On any US citizen's 20th birthday or later, they can send thirty bucks to the state department (it's more in some states, less in others, I think), wait a month for processing, then recieve the liscense to conduct legally binding weddings.

Now, whether or not this assimilation of religious traditions into secular culture is a blessing or an abomination is wholly up to personal opinion.

I myself, as an Apatheist, just find it funny.

Marriage is not phenomenon of "pop culture." It's a legally recognized relationship.

Well, it's been almost two centuries, which qualifies it for a plural in my book...

What Doug said.

I know I do...

Last christmas, in Bristol, I think it was (but I could be wrong - somewhere, anyway), the City Council banned the use of the word Christmas on posters and on local news broadcasts, as they said it "did not recognise the modern ethnic diversity of the city". As a replacement, they coined the phrase "Winterval" for the season instead... Now I am a confirmed Agnostic Atheist, but I don't mind calling it Christmas, despite the Religious connotations. Christmas is no longer a term to describe a Christian Festival, but to describe a general cross-cultural celebration of midwinter (not to mention a celebration of Consumerism)... Bristol made the mistake of assuming that everyone who heard the word "Christmas" instantly thought of Christ...

As an interesting side-note, a survey was done a few years back among children of Primary School age. It was a simple survey; the surveyers simply asked the children to say the first thing that came into their heads when they heard the word "Christmas". The results were as follows:

1. Santa Claus
2. Presents
3. Snow (I wonder what Australian children would have answered?)
4. Jesus Christ

This just demonstrates how unreligious Christmas has become...

Yes, but then the US is just weird... ;)

I think what Dequibenzo was trying to say is that Christmas, once being a religious event, has taken on new meanings and gone mainstream in much the same fashion that marriage has.

I wouldn't say it's become mainstream, since the proportion of people getting married has dropped considerably since it became a secular event.

Uhh... okay. Maybe this is another one of those cultural boundry difficulties, but here in the US, people get married at the drop of a hat, sometimes 3 or 4 times in their life. They also get divorces all the time, which is just further proof that marriage has lost a lot of it's original meaning.

I would definately have to disagree with you on this one, Doug. Yes, it's a legal thing- on one level. But things like the multi-layered white cake, the flower girl and ring boy, throwing rice (or blowing bubbles in some places), the "just married" sign on the back of the car, throwing the bouquet, slipping off the brides girder belt- none of these elements of the modern "traditional" wedding are part of the original religious significance. They may have been borrowed and changed from other traditions, but they've all been conglomerated into a purely modern idea. A trend that has come about recently, defies older traditions, and is still in practice- hmm, I'm pretty sure that's what pop culture is.

I disagree. Pop Culture tends to be a lot more ephemeral, whereas the traditions of marriage have lasted many many years. Like I say, marriage has been secular since the early 19th Century, so many of the traditions surrounding marriage no longer have religious significance. That doesn't mean that they are modern phenomena, nor are they "pop culture"; they are still traditions, and are not subject to the same trends and generational differences as the varying facets of pop culture are.

EDIT: I must have missed this on my first read-through of your post, but what the hell is a "girder belt"? Is this an American thing?

You're not talking about marriage. You're talking about weddings and how they are celebrated. Marriage is a relationship and it exists completely apart from the mechanism by which one gets married.

These elements of typical weddings have been practiced for decades. They have become traditional. Pop culture has a much shorter shelf life. Wearing blue jeans as everyday casual wear is a departure from their design, which was to be a durable work fabric. It's hardly a pop culture phenomenon, as it's been going on for decades as well.

Hmm. I see your points, so maybe I need to pick a better term. Pop culture isn't a broad enough cultural description, I agree. Okay, how's this- the modern idea of marriage and all the traditions associated with it is a product of distinctively modern- and by modern I mean the last century or so- society, and, with the gradual secularization of culture en mass, so has gone marriage. Remember- Secular means everything EXCEPT religion, so any meanings that have become affixed to marriage- such as stereotypical roles and modern legal importance- counts.
Does that work?
OH, and a girder belt is a little elastic scrunchy thing a woman wears around one of her upper legs. It serves no purpose as far as I know other than a place for strippers to hold dollar bills and old-west prostitutes to hide knives in cheesy movies, so maybe it is purely American.

Remember that Marriage ceremonies were much more varied in church times. There was bound to be some uniformity when communications improved...

...and people wear these to their weddings?

Well Danny, ya' never know when newly weds are gonna start....

I think that's a fair statement, but I think it's true of anything that has its origins hundreds of years ago but is still around. Not that it necessarily goes from distinctly religious to distinctly secular, but that it simply is going to change over the years. There are very few rituals or institutions that exist today the same way as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. There might not be any, except possibly in the most orthodox of churches.

By the way, it's a "garter" belt, and in weddings it's a stylized version of the thing that kept up one's hosiery. It apparently has become the male counterpart of the bride's tossing the bouquet over the shoulder to the breathlessly waiting unmarried female contingent, supposedly caught by the next to be married. The groom naughtily slides his hands up the blushing bride's legs far enough to get the garter, slides it off, and tosses it over his shoulder to a group of unmarried guys -- who let it fall on the floor.

Not everybody makes it a part of their wedding. God knows I wouldn't do it.

Ah, thankyou, you are correct, it is Garter, not girder. I did a little research myself, actually, and found that the single leg thing is not a garter belt, but just a garter- the belt is a larger, two legged thing, similar to modern underwear, that held up both stockings, while the garter came around later when women started wearing two seperate leggings instead of one big thing. Then, when women basically stopped wearing stockings at all in casual environments, they only sometimes kept it simply as a sexual thing.
There's a really disguisting story about how the tradition of the groom throwing the garter started. It involves a scotsman, a definately virgin bride, and a pair of scissors. That's all I'm going to say, because there are young'ns about.

I could guess, but I don't want to...

Right, but in the case of the status of marriage, and the achieving of that status, the move has been away from religious and towards other things, which is definitively secularization. So, there really is no reason an Atheist cannot be married, because it has a purpose for them other than to be joined "in the eyes of god". They might even have a ceremony involving relgious references, though probably not overt ones. Atheists in the states still use money that has "in god we trust" printed on it. For most people, that statement is not the important aspect of money, it's the reprisentative legal value of it, obviously. The same is becoming, or has become, true of marriage.
Besides, how many people today would say they got married primarily because they wanted their union with another person to be "correct" within the church? I'm sure for some it's ONE of the reasons, but I wouldn't think it would be the first and most important.

Hm, all this stuff is like getting quite confusing, but Dequibenzo i think you kinda solved the case... But I'm thinking, it would be fun to get married going up on a rollar coaster hill thing and say "I do" right before you drop down the hill. *gasp* Ah man, now I wish I ould do that right now.....

Santa can go get stuffed.
 

Totally secular christmas would seem pretty craptastic to me. A big fat god impersonator(Yeah,I mean Santa here) instead of Jesus? Anywho look at Santa and don't tell me he ain't imitation crabs version of God the Father. Both are said to do miracles, like walk on water and give toys to people all round the world in one night. Both do judgement, toys or coal, heaven and hell. Both are said to be omniscient, God knows all sins and santa knows who is naughty or nice. Both are guys. Both are depicted with beards. Santa has "little helper elves" but God has perfect angels. Who else but me sees the connection here. and one last thing:Santa is Satan inside out!

Re: Santa can go get stuffed.
 

1. I enjoy it (well, the presents).

2. Both exist solely in people's minds and in a few mediums.

I think god exsists think what you may. Anyhow, Santa was human, and a part of the trinity,Jesus, was human also. Santa is an idol and a lie. If I had kids at christmas i would just say, "Christmas is about Christ. I got you thes gifts because I love you. Santa didn't and can't give you gifts because he is based on a now dead person, Chris Kringle." The Santa lie needs to die hard and fast.

"Chris Kringle"? What are you on about? Was his full name Saint Nicholas Chris Kringle? I think not...

Did I miss something here? Who got left out, God, Jesus, or the holy ghost? Or, is Santa the fourth part, so it's kind of like a Quadrune god, or something? I'm confused.
And a secular christmas doesn't even necissarily have Santa in it, other than a reprisentational symbol, like uncle Sam here in the states. Nobody thinks he's real, he just represents something. I've had christmasses where we exchanged gifts, ate a good meal, and that was that- no caroling or sleigh rides or anything, just an excuse for people to have a day at home with the family, that's all. It'd be nice if we didn't need a holiday, but it helps make travel cheaper, and you need something to remind us of what matters in life. If you were Jesus, which would you prefer people did on your birthday- have a good time with their family, or sit in some stuffy community building with old people and bratty kids listening to a guy tell you the same stuff you hear every year, then watch a really bad play about your life that's been maligned for a few thousand years to fit the popular image?

Far be it from me to defend Statikk, but what he actually said was

So the "and a part of the trinity" went with the Jesus bit, not the Santa bit...

Thanks Danny. and by the way, I still say Santa claus is an evil in fidel to not only christianity,but all religions!