Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Theben]

The current hoopla about not letting gays marry seems to be religion-based.

That said, should marriage be withheld from atheists? They don't believe in religion at all. At least most homosexuals are religious to some extent. Problem is, atheists have been allowed to marry and no one has ever questioned their right to do so.

If it isn't religion-based, what possible argument can there be against disallowing marriage to gays, at least as far as the legal definition and rights are concerned?

My 2 @@: Due to the separation of church and state, marriage should not and legally cannot be withheld from consenting couples regardless of sexual orientation. Whether or not the church the couple attends performs the ceremony would be up to the church and/or it's community, as this would also fall under church-state sep and the govt shouldn't be allowed to interfere. The couple can always find a more tolerant church to attend.

[Thue]

That whole thing feels very dirty - voting to restrict adults from doing what they want to do, even though their actions have no negative consequences.

I see it as an example of people using religion (which opposes gay marriage) to to obscure and replace real ethics (which supports gay marriage IMO).

I wonder what the result would be if they had a vote on whether atheists could marry?

I have seen the argument that bearing children is a necessary part of marriage. Which is a silly argument, as people are perfectly happy to allow old or infertile straight people to marry.

[Lancer]

What, no lesbians?

[Darius871]

lesbians is coo

[Deity Dude]

Re: Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

Originally posted by Theben
The current hoopla about not letting gays marry seems to be religion-based.

Actually it is about not changing the definition of a word to accommodate an agenda. Marriage is not defined as a union between 2 religious people, it is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Same sex betrothals should have the same rights and privileges as opposite sex betrothals, we just don't need government to rewrite the dictionary.

[Elok]

My usual bit about the government needing to just provide the accompanying perks to whoever asks for 'em, with no bother about who's diddling who, goes here. Also, how many people here have actually ordered that Free! book of Mormon from the ad showing up at the top of the page?

EDIT: On the other hand, I don't know how many people play all these Free! MMOGs either. Probably still more than order the BoM though.

[Q Classic]

Re: Re: Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Marriage is not defined as a union between 2 religious people, it is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Actually, until recently, it wasn't in the legal sense.

Same sex betrothals should have the same rights and privileges as opposite sex betrothals, we just don't need government to rewrite the dictionary.

Quite true. Except that's what the religious right is seeking to do.

[GePap]

Our state grants certain privilages to individuals who form a contract between themselves we call "marriage." I am not convinced by those who claim that the state should only recognize said contract is made only between two individuals of the opposite sex because there is some inherent benefit in that not found in unions between individuals of the same sex, or in contracts involving more than two people.

[Aeson]

Re: Re: Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Actually it is about not changing the definition of a word to accommodate an agenda. Marriage is not defined as a union between 2 religious people, it is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Same sex betrothals should have the same rights and privileges as opposite sex betrothals, we just don't need government to rewrite the dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Main Entry:
mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union

[Darius871]

Re: Re: Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Actually it is about not changing the definition of a word to accommodate an agenda. Marriage is not defined as a union between 2 religious people, it is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Same sex betrothals should have the same rights and privileges as opposite sex betrothals, we just don't need government to rewrite the dictionary.

The dictionary only describes the word's common usage at a given point in time, not necessarily its essence. The definition of "property" once had a common usage that would immediately invoke the image of a slave, and yet...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually it is about not changing the definition of a word to accommodate an agenda. Marriage is not defined as a union between 2 religious people, it is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Marriage was defined as union between a man and woman of the same race! Damn courts changing the definition of a word to accommodate the miscegenation agenda.

[Darius871]

Damn, I knew there was a better analogy out there.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Marriage was defined as union between a man and woman of the same race!

No. Get your facts right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it was in the Southern states.

[Naked Gents Rut]

No. They banned interracial marriage (and it wasn't just Southern states). There would've been no need to ban interracial marriage if there hadn't been some broad-based acceptance of the idea that the definition of marriage in no way barred men and women of different races from marrying.