Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

Trixi

I would hate to think that that would be offensive and genuinely curious why it is (I genuinely don't mean to offend anyone).

If I was hoping to be married in a particular building then I think it's safe to assume that I would consider that building special. My reasons for believing it so might be different to others.

I do not deny that, to some people, a church is a 'house of God' and no-one would deny them the 'right' to that belief, or the right to worship there.

To others it is part of our history and our cultural background - have we got the right to that?

tea_lover

I think this place is stunning http://londonmandir.baps.org/
but I wouldn't dream of asking for a civil wedding to be held there.

Trixi

I accet that the decision to allow/not allow a ceremony there is at the discretion of the owners but I fail to see why anyone would be offended if such a ceremony were allowed. Anyway, I think this might be off topic - I'm not actually helping the OP with their question here (sorry OP).

Errata

Strewth, I thought the Bridezilla syndrome scraped the bottom of the barrel but a non-religious wedding in a religious building is beyond parody.

duchy

Many temples and synagogues are absolutely beautiful but it wouldn't occur to people to ask to have a secular ceremony in one..................or am I wrong ?

EDIT Sorry cross-posted with Tealover

I think the point is that the church to Christians is a building built to honour God - a building designed to facilitate worship and decorated with Christian symbols. It's sacred (which to me means more than "special because Mum and Dad or Granny got married there) and for someone to say "Nice building-I want to use it but I don't want any of that God nonsense included" is rude and disrespectful .

It's a bit like saying "I'll sleep with another woman's husband- I don't think it's disrespectful because I don't believe in marriage and I don't care if his wife does. My "wants" trump her beliefs"

tea_lover

Trixi wrote: »

I accet that the decision to allow/not allow a ceremony there is at the discretion of the owners but I fail to see why anyone would be offended if such a ceremony were allowed. Anyway, I think this might be off topic - I'm not actually helping the OP with their question here (sorry OP).

There are 8 pages of answers to this.

Pricivius

duchy wrote: »

SNIP. Here's one with a deconsecrated chapel that does weddings which might suit the OP. http://www.akentishceremony.com/venues/st-augustines/

They might suit the OP if the OP was getting married, which they are not, as they have explained twice. It was just a question to hopefully learn something, that's all. And I did learn something. All good. But still no wedding!

Trixi

Off topic completely but does anyone know why I can 'thank' some posts but not others? The ones after my first response have no 'Thanks' button visible?

Gloomendoom

Trixi wrote: »

I would hate to think that that would be offensive and genuinely curious why it is (I genuinely don't mean to offend anyone).

Because marriage is regarded as sacred in many religions. The legal aspect is just a necessary add-on to satisfy the laws of the land. A civil wedding is almost a kick in the teeth as it ignores the religious aspect all-together.
.
.
.
.
.

duchy

Trixi wrote: »

Perhaps because, if you don't believe that God exists, then a church is neither of those things. It's (often) a lovely building with historical interest.

Yes - the analogy of the sleeping with a married man applies. It isn't just about what one person wants but what the church's community believes is right (although had you actually read the thread you'd see it's actually illegal. It's the law not the church that prevents it)