Slashdot Mirror
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Now Can Perform Marriages In New Zealand (stuff.co.nz)
New submitter scrote-ma-hote writes: From stuff.co.nz, news comes that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is now able to solemnize marriages. The registration was listed in the NZ gazette yesterday. The Registrar-General decided that the Church met the criteria in New Zealand for solemnizing marriages, as per the Marriage Act 1955, namely that the "principal object of the organization was to uphold or promote religious beliefs, philosophical or humanitarian convictions."
The idea was to show that religions are ridiculous, not to join the ranks of the bullshit peddlers.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nobody wants to take your gas-guzzling SUV from you. Just don't don't come running up my mountain when the waters rise, ok?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's bringing to the public attention that it is ridiculous for government to allow alleged representatives of bearded men in the sky to solemnize marriage.
This use of the FSM meme is spot on, an excellent addition to the list of religious things to be ridiculed, and hopefully eventually eliminated.
Anybody can enter into a legal contract, overseen by standard contact law, to live together and share stuff.
THAT is not "marriage" in any normal sense, but it probably is the view of marriage that some secular humanists have. If humans are just evolved animals though, then there's really no more reason to have the institution of marriage than there is for any other evolved creatures. Whales do a perfectly good job of rearing offspring and hanging out in groups without any form of marriage.
Traditionally "marriage" presumes that humans are more than just animals, more than mere flash&blood, and in most cultures that there is a God or Gods involved in human existence (depending on the religion). As such, marriage is a binding agreement to stay together through thick and thin, in situations where normal contract law would happily support dissolution, with a reliance on, and an additional commitment to, some God/Gods. The fact that so many have in recent years succeeded in making modern marriage so cheap and easily undone that it now differs little from a secular legal commercial contract is very sad, and says more about those who have done this than about the institution itself. Now people walk out of marriages more easily than out of any other legal contract. Things like "no-fault divorce" were promoted as wonderful new "reforms" that would make people happier, but when I look around today I see very few people who are happily married after many decades where that was once the norm.
It's not "divisive" when you point out both sides are full of crap. If anything, it brings both sides together to attack you.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
THAT is not "marriage" in any normal sense, but it probably is the view of marriage that some secular humanists have
Historically marriage has been about forging alliances and transferring wealth and property. Is that normal? Historically marriages have been polygamous. Is that normal?
And no that is not the view of marriage that secular humanists have. It is the view of secular humanists that marriage be treated as a contract by the government. This is specifically to avoid preferential treatment to some groups (i.e. people of certain religions or sexual preferences) by the government which is supposed to provide equal protection under the law.
If humans are just evolved animals though,
Humans are not *just* evolved animals. We are evolved animals. Just like how evolution is not *just* a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a theory.
then there's really no more reason to have the institution of marriage than there is for any other evolved creatures.
It is not the fact that humans have evolved (at all) that makes us worthy of institutions. It is the fact that we have evolved to the point (unlike any other organism currently on earth) to actually have abstract concepts like institutions.
Whales do a perfectly good job of rearing offspring and hanging out in groups without any form of marriage.
And if whales ever evolved to the point where their culture became advanced enough to create institutions like marriage, then the whales might very well benefit from those institutions.
Traditionally "marriage" presumes that humans are more than just animals, more than mere flash&blood, and in most cultures that there is a God or Gods involved in human existence (depending on the religion). As such, marriage is a binding agreement to stay together through thick and thin, in situations where normal contract law would happily support dissolution, with a reliance on, and an additional commitment to, some God/Gods. The fact that so many have in recent years succeeded in making modern marriage so cheap and easily undone that it now differs little from a secular legal commercial contract is very sad, and says more about those who have done this than about the institution itself. Now people walk out of marriages more easily than out of any other legal contract. Things like "no-fault divorce" were promoted as wonderful new "reforms" that would make people happier, but when I look around today I see very few people who are happily married after many decades where that was once the norm.
It's paragraphs like this that philosophy students use as homework problems to find logical fallacies.
This "legacy religion" brought you everything you understand as "civilization". Are you a rebellious teenager trying to get back at your parents by being an edgy atheist on the internet?
You may now touch the bride with your noodly appendage.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Odds are that religion predates humanity.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Odds are that religion predates humanity.
In order to have religion you need language, and a part of your brain that makes you have religious experiences (which we've actually located in humans.) Do other animals have the same center in their brains? No non-human has developed complex language*, although some appear to have a simple one. Odds are that no prior creature had religion.
* The jury is still out on cetaceans...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It is the view of secular humanists that marriage be treated as a contract by the government. This is specifically to avoid preferential treatment to some groups (i.e. people of certain religions or sexual preferences) by the government which is supposed to provide equal protection under the law.
The best solution is to eliminate the concept of marriage entirely, and to just let people fill in the blank when they determine who is permitted to see them in the hospital. I do not want to see any of my relatives if I am sick, they will just make me feel like shit. And I most absolutely certainly do not want any of my relatives making medical decisions for me, those religious fucks can fuck right off.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Traditionally "marriage" presumes that humans are more than just animals,
Traditionally, marriage has many purposes but despite a very long interest in all things culture and society, this is the first time I've read that one of its purposes was to highlight how we are different from animals.
Marriages primary purpose in most cultures is to remove the participants from the dating market, thus reducing competition and increasing the amount of peaceful cooperation within the society. That is why marriage is by necessity a public, i.e. social, and not a private contract. That is why most cultures have some kind of indicator for married vs. unmarried people (in western culture, marriage rings).
The previously high barriers to getting out of a marriage are due to the secondary purposes in western culture, where marriage is also an economic union. The fact that divorce is still heavily tilted against the husband is due to the ancient assumption that the woman gives up something she can't get back that will reduce her future value to future husbands (i.e. her virginity), so the husband should be prevented from divorcing her unless he can compensate for the difference.
As the economic imbalance between men and women is more and more reduced, so it becomes more easy to get out of a bad marriage.
when I look around today I see very few people who are happily married after many decades where that was once the norm.
Was it, or was it an image projected into a society expecting such? And if it is, are you sure the causality you outline is the correct one? There are many more reasons why it might be more difficult to have a happy long-term relationship today than it used to, the primary reason is probably that you have so much more comparisons than you used to, and some of them are artificially created and appear unnaturally good. Against what you see in movies, your wife can only fail. Not because she is bad, but because that image is a fake.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Just don't come after my gills because I'm special enough to swim wherever I please, ok?
#WATERWORLD
Life is not for the lazy.
Anybody can enter into a legal contract, overseen by standard contact law, to live together and share stuff.
THAT is not "marriage" in any normal sense, but it probably is the view of marriage that some secular humanists have.
That is marriage in the sense most of Europe understands it. There, marrage is a civil contract and can only be performed by a public agent. No religious group is allowed to perform marriages. All they are allowed is to perform a service after the civil union has been established.
Animals can exhibit magical thinking. Pigeons can develop elaborate (by pigeon standards) rituals in the "belief" that it will cause food to be dispensed from a box, when it's actually just on a random timer.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It appears that in New Zealand you can get married at a government office by a government official, or anywhere else by a "registered celebrant." There are lots of independent ones, who are certified by the government. There are also ones who are affiliated with religions. It's my understanding that the only advantage to being an official religious organization is that you can certify your own celebrants. Regardless of what kind of celebrant you use, you need to have a marriage license, issued by the government.
While parody of free speech is just more free speech, parody of religion is not itself a religion. Unless you're a dipshit, which many self-proclaimed FSM adherents seem to be.
Its amazing how many people just don't get it. If some dipshit wants to believe in FSM, anyone who believes in Freedom of religion cannot oppose it, or else they don't really believe in freedom of religion.
Except of course, acceptance of other people's religion is definitely not a characteristic of religions. The separation of religion and state, while hated by so many religious people, is actually their greatest protector. Much of the anger toward the FSM is that there is no cogent argument against it.
If someone wants to believe in that great big meatball in the sky, then they have the right to. Just as they do a bearded guy who decided that he was going to reveal himself to some folks living in the middle east desert a few thousand years ago, and literally to hell with the rest of the planet's inhabitants. All the same to me.
Although if I had to believe in something, I find Ganesha to be pretty cool.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Ssince you're not big on reading the instructions, there's something you might not know about this newfangled Internet thingy: There are many, many other web sites for you to visit and complain about. You're absolutely free to do so.
Or you can keep trolling, and I can keep pretending that I can't figure out that you bear some sort of grudge against me. Up to you, of course. HAND.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.