Internet Atheists: Religious Antagonism Helps No One!

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?

xLFTMx

And why should the standard be based on a religion or religions that not everyone they affect follow? The standard is morality and decency.

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][quote="TC"]Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress.DroidPhysX

For somebody's right to marriage to be meaningful, they need to be able to marry who they wantas long as the other person is a consenting adult.

Let's not be ridiculous.

When will it stop?

Slippery slope fallacy. And judging by the sig, gay marriage is an ideolgical no no. That is actually where the root of your arguement lies.

I have yet to see a coorelation between the two.

no homo

An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. Regardless of whether Religion is a force for good in the world it doesn't change the fact that Atheists view it as false. How can anyone expect an Atheist to be supportive of the indoctrination of others with such things?

Also, I think people exaggerate how Atheists act on the Internet. I rarely encounter anyone claiming to be an Atheist outside of relevant forums or websites. I've personally never brought it up unless it was of some relevance.

mattisgod01

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Varies by country/time frame though....foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?

GreySeal9

There is a standard to adhere to: whether marriages will be harmful.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that allowing children to marry would be harmful. There are no credible reason to believe the same of gay marriages.

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.

Also, not saying it will butit could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (i.e. having multiple wives or marrying a child could be next).

It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, though only a man & woman can pro-create.

A lot of research shows the homosexual life leads to a much lower life expectancy and psychological disorders.

Last,same-​sex marriage law doesn't stipulate or insinuate that adult partners are agreeing to raise children together and therefore robs married heterosexual women and their children of crucial economic protections against spousal abandonment.

An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. mattisgod01

Stating there is no CONSISTENT definition. Which would be true....LJS9502_basic

It's one thing to be an atheist; it's another to constantly flaunt your atheism at any given opportunity. Over and over again, I hear the same arguments on both sides, but it seems like the atheists seem to be the ones that want to tear down the foundation of Christianity (not religion as a whole; just Christianity, the most harmless mainstream religion in today's world) for... what gain exactly? I sincerely doubt it's based on good intentions, but rather the idea that an atheist is a well educated, independent individual. Most of the terror inflicted by Christianity dates hundreds of years back, and are still the basis for just about every argument on why "religion is bad." If everyone suddenly stopped believing in God, it would not change what happened all those years back. Yes, people still do terrible things in the name of good, but atheists are quick to ignore the good it does (reinforces good behavior, makes one's life feel it has meaning, creates a community). Such tragedies as the lady drowning her children because "God told her to" has more to do with the fact that she's insane rather than Christianity. Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress. This crusade for equal rights seems to be more of an attempt to feel relevant rather than actually helping homosexuals attain equal rights. Atheists seem to think that all Christians are against gay marriage, when, in fact, this is not the case. Some peoples' religion doesn't influence harmful actions in any way, only good, but they atheists still feel the need to attack the whole of the religion. And even then, the ones that are against it don't necessarily go on about it or even disapprove someone mentions they're gay They don't care as much as atheists seem to think. Yes, we all know religion has made many people do terrible things (although atheists still never seem to stop talking about it), but what about particular individuals have only done good due because their religion? What about the people that aren't against gay marriage or stem cell research? What about the people that take great comfort in reading God's word? Or the people who feel inspired to help those in need when the priest in church reminds them that that was God's purpose (cooperation)? So what is it? Is it really because you want to eliminate some "evil" from the world, or are just looking to exert your superiority/supposed sense of intelligence/need to argue? I don't mean to be inflammatory, but GENERALLY, atheists are perceived as very pretentious, much like how Omegle users are GENERALLY perceived as pathetic perverts.Makalano

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Stating there is no CONSISTENT definition. Which would be true....foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?

realguitarhero5

There is a standard to adhere to: whether marriages will be harmful.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that allowing children to marry would be harmful. There are no credible reason to believe the same of gay marriages.

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.

Also, not saying it will butit could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (i.e. having multiple wives or marrying a child could be next).It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, though only a man & woman can pro-create.A lot of research shows the homosexual life****leads to a much lower life expectancy and psychological disorders.Last,same-​sex marriage law doesn't stipulate or insinuate that adult partners are agreeing to raise children together and therefore robs married heterosexual women and their children of crucial economic protections against spousal abandonment.

"...Those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood.realguitarhero5

So you set up protections for them. Problem solved. It is no reason to not allow gay marriage.

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.realguitarhero

Again, we can set up protections for people who don't wish to perform gay marriages.

Also, not saying it will butit could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (i.e. having multiple wives or marrying a child could be next).realguitarhero

Slippery slope arguments are fallicious, especially this one. There is nothing that says that marrying children could be next.

It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, though only a man & woman can pro-create.realguitarhero

It will only confuse children if you fail to educate them about homosexuality.

]A lot of research shows the homosexual life leads to a much lower life expectancy and psychological disorders.realguitarhero

Even if this was true, how is this an argument against gay marriage? :?

Last,same-​sex marriage law doesn't stipulate or insinuate that adult partners are agreeing to raise children together and therefore robs married heterosexual women and their children of crucial economic protections against spousal abandonment.

realguitarhero

Since when was marriage solely for the purpose of raising children?

What evidence is there that homosexual marriage would rob heterosexuals of anything?

These are seriously flimsy arguments.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Stating there is no CONSISTENT definition. Which would be true....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. foxhound_fox

Yes and through that how can one believe the stories in the Bible to be true, or in the Koran or Torah etc? An Atheist cannot beleive Jesus was the son of God. So by default an Atheist believes Christianity teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology. There are implications that go along with disbelief in God, Implications that cannot be avoided by playing the impartial atheist role.

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

There is a standard to adhere to: whether marriages will be harmful.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that allowing children to marry would be harmful. There are no credible reason to believe the same of gay marriages.

gamertylers

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.

Also, not saying it will butit could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (i.e. having multiple wives or marrying a child could be next).It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, though only a man & woman can pro-create.A lot of research shows the homosexual life****leads to a much lower life expectancy and psychological disorders.Last,same-​sex marriage law doesn't stipulate or insinuate that adult partners are agreeing to raise children together and therefore robs married heterosexual women and their children of crucial economic protections against spousal abandonment.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. Makalano

Good thing the definition/default position does not hinge on what you've personally seen.

What a stupid f***ing topic.

[QUOTE="gamertylers"][QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]"...Those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood.

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.

Also, not saying it will butit could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (i.e. having multiple wives or marrying a child could be next).It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, though only a man & woman can pro-create.A lot of research shows the homosexual life****leads to a much lower life expectancy and psychological disorders.Last,same-​sex marriage law doesn't stipulate or insinuate that adult partners are agreeing to raise children together and therefore robs married heterosexual women and their children of crucial economic protections against spousal abandonment.

realguitarhero5

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. Regardless of whether Religion is a force for good in the world it doesn't change the fact that Atheists view it as false. How can anyone expect an Atheist to be supportive of the indoctrination of others with such things?

Also, I think people exaggerate how Atheists act on the Internet. I rarely encounter anyone claiming to be an Atheist outside of relevant forums or websites. I've personally never brought it up unless it was of some relevance.

LJS9502_basic

Yes it does, Disbeleif in god has implications. If i believe in Evolution and cannot beleive in Creationism, The two are incompatible. Disbelief in God means Disbelief in all claims made of God's doing.

What a stupid f***ing topic.

coolbeans90

I'm sorry, but I just can't avoid talking about Makalano. One of my objectives for this letter is to open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them. I could go on and on about his special form of adversarialism, but you get the general idea. At the heart of the problem is his obliviousness to history, his moral cowardice masked in bold rhetoric, and his overwhelmingly shallow political posturing. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. Will prodigal, surly mythomaniacs ever penetrate the sunny façade of Makalano's recommendations with the sharpened stick of reality? Don't bet on it.

Makalano says that the sun rises just for him. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. If we do nothing, he will keep on pouring a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Makalano teaches workshops on obscurantism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp.

Makalano's adherents argue that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of quarrelsome stereotypes. These are the same uncouth, fork-tongued geeks who ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold. This is no coincidence; some people are responsible and others are not. Makalano falls into the category of "not". He unequivocally believes that his faith in stoicism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that Makalano is a being who invents nothing, originates nothing, and improves nothing. All he does is waste natural resources.

Makalano sometimes has trouble convincing people that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few uppity clodpolls to constate authoritatively that Makalano is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of verbally incontinent mouthpieces for money-grubbing frotteurism. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Makalano is clearly going to be the first to go. While I know very little about insolent freebooters, I do know that he likes lashing out at everyone and everything in sight, which puts him somewhere between a lascivious, predaceous cult leader and a clueless inane-type on the negativism org chart. Makalano is absolutely versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Makalano warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against tuchungism. But when Makalano is safely surrounded by his legates, he instructs them to address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Makalano is to blame.

When I first became aware of Makalano's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how the worst sorts of mendacious wimps there are commonly succumb to Makalano's distortions, deceptions, and delusions. I do not. Rather, I take pride in dealing summarily with huffy nincompoops. In an atmosphere of false rumors and misinformation, it is not uncommon for Makalano to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole brutish affair as some great benefit to humanity. He appears to have found a new tool to use to help him silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. That tool is communism, and if you watch him wield it you'll obviously see why he has been trying to convince us that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. That argument fails to take into account the reality that Makalano's blockish causeries can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. With that, I'll draw this letter to a close. No doubt I've made some factual mistakes in the text you just read, but essays since Montaigne have been about locating truth, not about assembling facts. I'll be happy as long as you've learned from this letter that I believe that the portrayal of wastrels in our culture is partially responsible for Makalano's machinations.

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]"...Those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood.GreySeal9

So you set up protections for them. Problem solved. It is no reason to not allow gay marriage.

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.realguitarhero

Again, we can set up protections for people who don't wish to perform gay marriages.

I'm pretty sure that will not be happening. If someone says that they are agains gay marriage, they will be labeled bigots and homophobes. Trust me, no one will be all over heteosexual rights.

I mean, it is the current that chaplains have to marry gays. Not speculation.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. Regardless of whether Religion is a force for good in the world it doesn't change the fact that Atheists view it as false. How can anyone expect an Atheist to be supportive of the indoctrination of others with such things?

Also, I think people exaggerate how Atheists act on the Internet. I rarely encounter anyone claiming to be an Atheist outside of relevant forums or websites. I've personally never brought it up unless it was of some relevance.

mattisgod01

Yes it does, Disbeleif in god has implications. If i believe in Evolution and cannot beleive in Creationism, The two are incompatible. Disbelief in God means Disbelief in all claims made of God's doing.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

An atheist by default does not have to believe that. Seems more a personal opinion. Some atheists merely don't believe themselves but make no judgment on those that do.LJS9502_basic

Yes it does, Disbeleif in god has implications. If i believe in Evolution and cannot beleive in Creationism, The two are incompatible. Disbelief in God means Disbelief in all claims made of God's doing.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]"...Those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood.realguitarhero5

So you set up protections for them. Problem solved. It is no reason to not allow gay marriage.

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.realguitarhero

Again, we can set up protections for people who don't wish to perform gay marriages.

I'm pretty sure that will not be happening. If someone says that they are agains gay marriage, they will be labeled bigots and homophobes. Trust me, no one will be all over heteosexual rights.

I mean, it is the current that chaplains have to marry gays. Not speculation.

Regardless of what you think would happen, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's no reason why people who don't wish to perform gay marriages can't be protected.

Really? I've yet to see an atheist that thinks otherwise.Makalano

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] An atheist by default does not have to believe that. Seems more a personal opinion. Some atheists merely don't believe themselves but make no judgment on those that do.LJS9502_basic

Yes it does, Disbeleif in god has implications. If i believe in Evolution and cannot beleive in Creationism, The two are incompatible. Disbelief in God means Disbelief in all claims made of God's doing.

is there a different defintion of creationism?

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Yes it does, Disbeleif in god has implications. If i believe in Evolution and cannot beleive in Creationism, The two are incompatible. Disbelief in God means Disbelief in all claims made of God's doing.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

"...Those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood.realguitarhero5

So you set up protections for them. Problem solved. It is no reason to not allow gay marriage.

[quote="realguitarhero"]We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.

Again, we can set up protections for people who don't wish to perform gay marriages.

I'm pretty sure that will not be happening. If someone says that they are agains gay marriage, they will be labeled bigots and homophobes. Trust me, no one will be all over heteosexual rights.

I mean, it is the current that chaplains have to marry gays. Not speculation.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] An atheist by default does not have to believe that. Seems more a personal opinion. Some atheists merely don't believe themselves but make no judgment on those that do.LJS9502_basic

Yes it does, Disbeleif in god has implications. If i believe in Evolution and cannot beleive in Creationism, The two are incompatible. Disbelief in God means Disbelief in all claims made of God's doing.

Care to explain how?

Either way my point was that you can either beleive God created humans in their current form or we evolved over millions of years. It is either one or the other and not both. To beleive on is to by default disbelieve the other. That was the point of my post.

Yes and through that how can one believe the stories in the Bible to be true, or in the Koran or Torah etc? An Atheist cannot beleive Jesus was the son of God. So by default an Atheist believes Christianity teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology. There are implications that go along with disbelief in God, Implications that cannot be avoided by playing the impartial atheist role.mattisgod01

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not at all. Evolution and creationism are not incompatible.

LJS9502_basic

I should say, "Literalist Creationism" is incompatible, otherwise it depends.The term "Creationism" is not overly meaningful without specifying what kind you're talking about.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Yes it does, Disbeleif in god has implications. If i believe in Evolution and cannot beleive in Creationism, The two are incompatible. Disbelief in God means Disbelief in all claims made of God's doing.

mattisgod01

Care to explain how?

Either way my point was that you can either beleive God created humans in their current form or we evolved over millions of years. It is either one or the other and not both. To beleive on is to by default disbelieve the other. That was the point of my post.

hes communicates a message in a funny way.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Evolution and creation of life by a god are not incompatible, but the specific "theory/doctrine" of Creationism IS incompatible. Frame_Dragger

I should say, "Literalist Creationism" is incompatible, otherwise it depends.The term "Creationism" is not overly meaningful without specifying what kind you're talking about.

and he is the answer to people like http://www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX?blend=1&ob=4 who likes to deceive and mislead people.

No it's not.LJS9502_basic

I should say, "Literalist Creationism" is incompatible, otherwise it depends.The term "Creationism" is not overly meaningful without specifying what kind you're talking about.

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]"...Those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood.GreySeal9

So you set up protections for them. Problem solved. It is no reason to not allow gay marriage.

We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.realguitarhero

Again, we can set up protections for people who don't wish to perform gay marriages.

I'm pretty sure that will not be happening. If someone says that they are agains gay marriage, they will be labeled bigots and homophobes. Trust me, no one will be all over heteosexual rights.

I mean, it is the current that chaplains have to marry gays. Not speculation.

Regardless of what you think would happen, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's no reason why people who don't wish to perform gay marriages can't be protected.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

"...Those of us who believe in traditional marriage and are in a regulated profession -- such as counselor, physician, attorney or accountant -- and act in concert with our beliefs, may be vulnerable to losing our professional license and our livelihood.realguitarhero5

So you set up protections for them. Problem solved. It is no reason to not allow gay marriage.

[quote="realguitarhero"]We can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling our mission by serving our community, such as by providing adoption and other services, but if we refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, we have the choice of abandoning our beliefs or ending our mission." From CNN

Another example is chaplains in the military. They sign up to teach the Gospel, but now they are required to perform marriages for gays despite any contrary beliefs they have.

Again, we can set up protections for people who don't wish to perform gay marriages.

I'm pretty sure that will not be happening. If someone says that they are agains gay marriage, they will be labeled bigots and homophobes. Trust me, no one will be all over heteosexual rights.

I mean, it is the current that chaplains have to marry gays. Not speculation.

Regardless of what you think would happen, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's no reason why people who don't wish to perform gay marriages can't be protected.