Reader comments · Humanist wedding review amendment included in equal marriage bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Humanist wedding review amendment included in equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This would be a pleasant addition.
    If I ever do marry, it would be this way, as I am a secular humanist. It would be a nice way to marry the one I love, without the religious detail dragging it down.

  2. Religion has been the curse of humanity, the cause of supprorter of facist regimes etc.

    The sooner we are rid of MYTHeology the better

    1. Northern_Witness 11 Jul 2013, 4:32am

      Just because some misuse religion for their own ends, is no reason to eliminate religion. Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.

  3. The problem I have with blaming religion – or any belief system – for any behaviour is that it allows the believer to evade the responsibility they have for choosing that belief system, choosing how they interpret it, and choosing how to behave in response to that interpretation. Unlike sexual orientation, there can be no dispute that adopting a religious faith is a matter of personal choice, and on this basis the religious lobby who seek to hide behind their faith to justify persecuting other people need to be challenged far more often.

  4. Mihangel apYrs 9 Jul 2013, 7:08am

    I hope this doesn’t complicate things when it gets back to the HoC – this could be seen as a change demanding a lot of debate

  5. Coemgenus 9 Jul 2013, 7:18am

    Don’t quite follow this…? Civil weddings already have no reference to religion. What is the change intended to do?

    1. The change is intended to permit humanist (and other belief-based organisations) to solemnise marriages in a similar way to how religious organisations are permitted to solemnise marriages at the moment. Civil weddings have no reference to religion, correct, but they are conducted by the state and not by humanist organisations. When the government’s amendment is accepted tomorrow, it will ultimately permit humanist organisations to conduct marriages in their own premises and by humanist celebrants.

      1. Northern_Witness 11 Jul 2013, 3:20pm

        Humanism is an Atheist sect. All varieties of Atheism are religions that employ negative theology. This spiritual path is known variously as the Via Negativa path of Roman Catholicism; the Jnana Yoga path of Hinduism; the Lahoot Salbi path of Islam, found principally in the Shia and Sufi paths, but to a lesser extent in the Sunni path; the Ein-sof aspect of Judaism, plus Buddhism (the Buddha said that “A position is something that buddha has done away with.”). Taoism (sometimes spelled Daoism) also employs a Negative Theology approach.

        Negative Theology focuses on what cannot be said about God. Atheism does this by pocking fun at various representations of God most of which come from the religions that practice Positive Theology, but some representations have been invented by Atheists. In the latter case, Atheists are deriding themselves (except they don’t realize it).

    2. I’m a paid up humanist (and secularist),, but I’m with you on this. We have a registrar function for marriages: we don’t need another.

      Funerals are different, because we don’t have goverment officiants for them. But weddings, no.

      This turns Humanism into a kind of sect – which it most definitely is not.

  6. Helge Vladimir Tiller 9 Jul 2013, 8:13am

    I’m a bit confused too, can somebody explain this to me ?

  7. Enrique Esteban 9 Jul 2013, 9:11am

    Help: prenume=first name; nume=family name; oras=city; tara=country.
    You’ll receive a mail and have to click on 2nd link to confirm.

  8. The author of this article has got the facts completely wrong.

    Amendment 7 was a non-government amendment (moved by Baroness Meacher) which would have created Regulations providing for humanist marriages.

    The government introduced an alternative amendment (amendment 90) which instead provides for a public consultation and review to be completed by 1 January 2015 to see whether humanist marriages should be permitted.

    In response to the government amendment, Baroness Meacher withdrew her amendment 7 so it has not been added to the Bill at all. Instead, when the government amendment 90 is discussed on Wednesday, amendment 90 will be added to the Bill.


    1. The government amendment hasn’t been added to the Bill (but it will be on Wednesday).

    2. Amendment 7 is not a government amendment and was not introduced by Baroness Stowell (she spoke about amendment 90).

    3. The quote in the article from the amendment is from amendment 7 which was withdrawn, not amendment 90.

    1. Helge Vladimir Tiller 9 Jul 2013, 12:43pm

      Thank you so much, Richard !

  9. “Humanists” /”secular humanists” have attached themselves to a serious, life and death process of doing away with homophobia in a shallow attempt to legitimize their ignorance of religion. Their doing this is a disgrace.

    1. George Broadhead 9 Jul 2013, 6:59pm

      What on earth does this mean?

      If it is intended to be an attack on Humanism, the writer and other posters to this list should realise that the Humanist movement worldwide has an outstanding record of support for LGBT rights.

    2. Diesel Balaam 10 Jul 2013, 12:27am

      What is this gibberish? You’re not making any sense, love.

    3. George and Diesel, your denials do not constitute refutation. Humanists are opportunists seeking to legitimize their religion (and attract converts) by inserting themselves into the pro-GLBT, anti-homophobia process. Humanists misunderstand religion and seek to promote the logical fallacy that because some superficial parts of a religion are against gay marriage, then the core of that religion is false. Such is not the case, as any first year student of philosophy could tell you. It is known as the fallacy of composition. When Atheists repeat this fallacy they commit yet another fallacy, the aptly named argumentum ad nauseam. Oh yes, George, revealing the weakness of an argument is not an attack, it a good use of logic.

      1. The main fallacies on show here are Peter’s numerous straw men.

        Humanists understand religion quite well, often being former believers themselves. I have never hear a humanist say that because many religions promote anti-LGBT bigotry, they are false. They are false due to many facts to the contrary, philosophical contradictions and scriptural illogic.

  10. George Broadhead 9 Jul 2013, 7:04pm

    As a gay Humanist co-founder of the Gay Humanist Group (later renamed the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association) in 1979 and secretary of the gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust, I warmly welcome that news.

  11. George Broadhead 9 Jul 2013, 7:27pm

    As a gay Humanist co-founder of the Gay Humanist Group (later renamed the Gay & Lesbian Humanist Association) in 1979 and current secretary of the gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust, I warmly welcome this news.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.