Should atheists be allowed to marry?

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

A pro-life atheist? Blasphemous!

domatron23

Actually I'm rabidly anti-fetus if anything.

Although the leader of the atheism union is pro-life.

Ah... I suppose I'm "anti-fetus" as well.

By anti-fetus I just mean that I justify abortion based upon the less than human state of a fetus and embryo rather than by the choice of the woman.

Wow this thread has gone way off topic.

Really, there are two very good discussions on totally different subjects going on.

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

A pro-life atheist? Blasphemous!

domatron23

Actually I'm rabidly anti-fetus if anything.

Although the leader of the atheism union is pro-life.

Ah... I suppose I'm "anti-fetus" as well.

By anti-fetus I just mean that I justify abortion based upon the less than human state of a fetus and embryo rather than by the choice of the woman.

Wow this thread has gone way off topic.

That's why I justify it too.

I knew you were :). No, because it was my wife's second marriage, and we were going to pay for it ourselves, we went to a resort in northern Arkansas, Eureka Springs. Great set up, the owner was a pastor, the wife the photographer, and we were going to be married next to the beautiful river that runs thru their land, but it was pouring down rain. So we got married in our cabin. We both loved it. At the time I was an Atheist, but fairly quiet about it, was still trying to learn enough on all sides to have a decent disagreement. Now I have asked, very harshly, not to have a funeral service in a church, even though I love my church, and my pastor understands, funeral services always seem like their trying to sell religion to me, and I don't want that.

btaylor2404

That sounds pleasant.

Actually, only one of my friends know that I'm an atheist, one of them think that I'm agnostic, and another one think I'm a pantheist. The others think I'm an adamant Christian. I don't want to think of the time when I'm pressured into marrying someone.

One in a million, eh?

*chews on sternum*

-Jiggles-

Make that two. >_>

Although to be honest, I've argued on a Biblical case for abortion... just because I felt like it. Although it was pretty much dismantled.

Of course. Just not by a priest because that would be weird.

But I don`t really think marriage is all that important. I could live with my significant other just as happily without it. How she would feel about that is up in the air though.

lobodob

Then they can go get married by a tomato

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

I knew you were :). No, because it was my wife's second marriage, and we were going to pay for it ourselves, we went to a resort in northern Arkansas, Eureka Springs. Great set up, the owner was a pastor, the wife the photographer, and we were going to be married next to the beautiful river that runs thru their land, but it was pouring down rain. So we got married in our cabin. We both loved it. At the time I was an Atheist, but fairly quiet about it, was still trying to learn enough on all sides to have a decent disagreement. Now I have asked, very harshly, not to have a funeral service in a church, even though I love my church, and my pastor understands, funeral services always seem like their trying to sell religion to me, and I don't want that.

Genetic_Code

That sounds pleasant.

Actually, only one of my friends know that I'm an atheist, one of them think that I'm agnostic, and another one think I'm a pantheist. The others think I'm an adamant Christian. I don't want to think of the time when I'm pressured into marrying someone.

One in a million, eh?

*chews on sternum*

-Jiggles-

Make that two. >_>

Although to be honest, I've argued on a Biblical case for abortion... just because I felt like it.

Do you keep changes your views or something? I could have sworn I've read posts by you saying you believe in God, and others saying you're an atheist.

Do you keep changes your views or something? I could have sworn I've read posts by you saying you believe in God, and others saying you're an atheist.

xMOBSTER23x

For a while I thought he was an agnostic. He's an atheist, or at least, that's what I last heard. >_>

[QUOTE="lobodob"]

Of course. Just not by a priest because that would be weird.

But I don`t really think marriage is all that important. I could live with my significant other just as happily without it. How she would feel about that is up in the air though.

groovdafied

Then they can go get married by a tomato

[QUOTE="lobodob"]

Of course. Just not by a priest because that would be weird.

But I don`t really think marriage is all that important. I could live with my significant other just as happily without it. How she would feel about that is up in the air though.

groovdafied

Then they can go get married by a tomato

Do you keep changes your views or something? I could have sworn I've read posts by you saying you believe in God, and others saying you're an atheist.

xMOBSTER23x

I play the devil's advocate a lot, especially in threads made by users like Deity_Slapper. But I've been an atheist for 16 months for the most part, although there was a brief stint of a few months where I considered myself agnostic.

Well, I feel bad for the people who vote No, or say it's determined by the church. There are many tribes that practice Marriage and it has nothing to do with christian religion.

Secondly, Marriage is not an act o religion but an act to display socio/economic strength between families. It has very little to do with Religion, and it's origination is not from Religion. The ceremonies may be religious but do not have to be. They may just be a community celebration.

I really wish people would learn this. I even understood this concept when I was 8 and I was raised as a catholic.

I'll say it one last time. RELIGION has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.

Atheists should be allowed to marry because marriage has nothing to do with religion.

EDIT: Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage.

Atheists should be allowed to marry because marriage has nothing to do with religion.

EDIT: Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage.

ElectronicMagic

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with religion.

GC "Pressured into marrying someone" You shouldn't be pressured. Don't you do the asking?btaylor2404

Well, that was partially in jest. I'll know when my parents are wondering why they don't have more grandchildren.

On your beliefs, just like being a Christan or of any other religion, it takes time to fully formulate your arguments and beliefs. If someone (mother-in-law) questions my beliefs, or lack there of, my wife is the first one to jump to my defense.btaylor2404

Atheism isn't something that I'm willing to argue though. I hardly doubt I'll ever mention it, because I think it's for the best that you keep your religious beliefs or lack thereof, to yourself. I guess with religion's influence on society, it'll be hard to avoid though.

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

Atheists should be allowed to marry because marriage has nothing to do with religion.

EDIT: Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage.

123625

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with religion.

It is a government institution. It doesn't matter what religious authority thinks.

I consider myself more of an atheist than a christian, but I was born and raised believing in God, Jesus and all the things the Bible teaches.

Personally, I'd love to get married in a church, but that's only because I don't see myself as a 100% atheist, but more of a mix of believing and not believing (if you can follow me).

If it's people who're 100% atheist's they could get married in a Town Hall, because that seems so much less a holy ritual of the christian church. But of course, I'd let them choose to get married whereever and whenever they pleased, I'm not one to command them

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

Atheists should be allowed to marry because marriage has nothing to do with religion.

EDIT: Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage.

ElectronicMagic

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with religion.

It is a government institution. It doesn't matter what religious authority thinks.

It was a religious institution before it was a government institution. . . .so how did the government make it a government institution, without violating the Establishment Clause, again?

In todays time marriage is more of a legal ordeal so I believe Atheists, along with homosexuals should be allowed to marry.Thagypsy

That, right thar. ^^

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

Atheists should be allowed to marry because marriage has nothing to do with religion.

EDIT: Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage.

Theokhoth

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with religion.

It is a government institution. It doesn't matter what religious authority thinks.

It was a religious institution before it was a government institution. . . .so how did the government make it a government institution, without violating the Establishment Clause, again?

Why don't they just make civil unions legally the same as marriage? Then we don't have to argue about all this ****.

Why don't they just make civil unions legally the same as marriage? Then we don't have to argue about all this ****.

xMOBSTER23x

Better yet, why don't they take the "legal" out of marriage altogether? That way, people would be able to marry whomever they want (within reason, of course). This gay rights crap wouldn't exist, theists wouldn't be complaining, and the government would have a little less authority to abuse.

No they should not. A marriage is a union of man, woman and God. They shouldn't be allowed to celebrate christmas(even if its pagan) and easter either.Silenthps

Hmm... well, I'm not going to challenge you on that, but I would like to know what you think government's role should be in order to abolish marriages for nontheists.

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

Atheists should be allowed to marry because marriage has nothing to do with religion.

EDIT: Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage.

Theokhoth

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with religion.

It is a government institution. It doesn't matter what religious authority thinks.

It was a religious institution before it was a government institution. . . .so how did the government make it a government institution, without violating the Establishment Clause, again?

But it was a human institution before a religious one. Again although religion is intertwined left and right with marriage, it does not own it, holds no claim to it's invention, and therefore cannot rule completely over it as it wishes to with most everything else one does in their lives.

No they should not. A marriage is a union of man, woman and God. They shouldn't be allowed to celebrate christmas(even if its pagan) and easter either.Silenthps

In the US it's a legal contract. Yes Church's are involved in it, but are you married? Before you get married you go not to the church, but to the town hall/city clerk's office, it's a legal union. If one chooses to add God into that, so be it. Christmas is an age old tradition, long before the birth of Christ, and who is anyone to tell others what they can and cannot celebrate? Your rationality in your sig is not showing.

But it was a human institution before a religious one. Again although religion is intertwined left and right with marriage, it does not own it, holds no claim to it's invention, and therefore cannot rule completely over it as it wishes to with most everything else one does in their lives.

btaylor2404

"Marriage" is in itself a religious term. . . originally, humans would have sex and boom, they'd be what we consider "married." Then religious ceremonies were created and became a part of the process. It's been that way for a very, very long time. By the time America came along, marriage was deeply rooted in religion.

So I ask again: How did the government make it a government institution without violating the Establishment Clause? From a secular viewpoint, EVERY religious belief and tradition has secular roots, so wouldn't that logic allow the government control over anything religious?

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

Atheists should be allowed to marry because marriage has nothing to do with religion.

EDIT: Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage.

Theokhoth

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with religion.

It is a government institution. It doesn't matter what religious authority thinks.

It was a religious institution before it was a government institution. . . .so how did the government make it a government institution, without violating the Establishment Clause, again?

It doesn't matter what it was before, what matters is what it is. It's a government institution, which makes it secular and religion a moot point. We don't live in a theocracy.

It doesn't matter what it was before, what matters is what it is. It's a government institution, which makes it secular and religion a moot point. We don't live in a theocracy.

ElectronicMagic

You ignored my point. How did it become this way without violating the Establishment Clause?

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

But it was a human institution before a religious one. Again although religion is intertwined left and right with marriage, it does not own it, holds no claim to it's invention, and therefore cannot rule completely over it as it wishes to with most everything else one does in their lives.

Theokhoth

"Marriage" is in itself a religious term. . . originally, humans would have sex and boom, they'd be what we consider "married." Then religious ceremonies were created and became a part of the process. It's been that way for a very, very long time. By the time America came along, marriage was deeply rooted in religion.

So I ask again: How did the government make it a government institution without violating the Establishment Clause? From a secular viewpoint, EVERY religious belief and tradition has secular roots, so wouldn't that logic allow the government control over anything religious?

I disagree Theo, we cannot know how "committed" people were 40,000 or 200,000 years ago, but in written times there is proof, especially in Egypt and Persia that two people would be bound to each other. As to the Establishment Clause, I don't have a good answer. Government and God have intertwined way too much. But as it is now, it's a legal union, and more to those that believe in God. None of which affects my marriage or how much I love my wife. Who's the band in the new sig?

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

Why don't they just make civil unions legally the same as marriage? Then we don't have to argue about all this ****.

Theokhoth

Better yet, why don't they take the "legal" out of marriage altogether? That way, people would be able to marry whomever they want (within reason, of course). This gay rights crap wouldn't exist, theists wouldn't be complaining, and the government would have a little less authority to abuse.

That would make sense too. But since it has legal aspects to it, like visitation rights, decision making in hospitals, etc; if civil unions had all those same implications, then gay people won't have to complain, they can just get a civil union and have the same legal bonding. And religious people will be happy because it won't be called "marriage".

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

It doesn't matter what it was before, what matters is what it is. It's a government institution, which makes it secular and religion a moot point. We don't live in a theocracy.

Theokhoth

You ignored my point. How did it become this way without violating the Establishment Clause?

I didn't address your "point" because the establishment clause has nothing to do with this. How the heck are you interpreting it anyway?

I disagree Theo, we cannot know how "committed" people were 40,000 or 200,000 years ago, but in written times there is proof, especially in Egypt and Persia that two people would be bound to each other. As to the Establishment Clause, I don't have a good answer. Government and God have intertwined way too much. But as it is now, it's a legal union, and more to those that believe in God. None of which affects my marriage or how much I love my wife. Who's the band in the new sig?

btaylor2404

My goodness, I was just thinking about how the government centers around a seven day week, which originates from religion and the names of the seven days originates from pagan gods, yet all of us refer to these in their original sense.

I disagree Theo, we cannot know how "committed" people were 40,000 or 200,000 years ago, but in written times there is proof, especially in Egypt and Persia that two people would be bound to each other. As to the Establishment Clause, I don't have a good answer. Government and God have intertwined way too much. But as it is now, it's a legal union, and more to those that believe in God. None of which affects my marriage or how much I love my wife. Who's the band in the new sig?

btaylor2404

If the government violated its own rules in establishing marriage as a government institution, then it needs to be overturned, making marriage a religious institution.

Not that any of this matters. The federal government has NO SAY WHATSOEVER in marriage, for the simple reason that for it to do so would violate the Establishment Clause;). Only the State does, and the States can rule not to recognise heterosexual marriage if they want. However, even this is too much government intervention.

Click the siggy.;)

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

I disagree Theo, we cannot know how "committed" people were 40,000 or 200,000 years ago, but in written times there is proof, especially in Egypt and Persia that two people would be bound to each other. As to the Establishment Clause, I don't have a good answer. Government and God have intertwined way too much. But as it is now, it's a legal union, and more to those that believe in God. None of which affects my marriage or how much I love my wife. Who's the band in the new sig?

Genetic_Code

My goodness, I was just thinking about how the government centers around a seven day week, which originates from religion and the names of the seven days originates from pagan gods, yet all of us refer to these in their original sense.

Don't forget the months. And the planets. And the "B.C." - "A.D." dating system. And several body parts.

Don't forget the months. And the planets. And the "B.C." - "A.D." dating system.

Theokhoth

Aw, yes. I don't know if that is an argument for or against nonreligious marriages though. :?

I guess you could argue that society eventually redefines terms into their own liking eventually.

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

It doesn't matter what it was before, what matters is what it is. It's a government institution, which makes it secular and religion a moot point. We don't live in a theocracy.

Theokhoth

You ignored my point. How did it become this way without violating the Establishment Clause?

Because it passed the Lemon Test. Honestly for the life of me I have no idea why they went with such a suggestive name in the first place...but that is besides the point. Lemon is the ltimus test for Establishment Clause.Vandalvideo

But the federal government still has no role in marriage. . .

But the federal government still has no role in marriage. . . Theokhoth

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

I disagree Theo, we cannot know how "committed" people were 40,000 or 200,000 years ago, but in written times there is proof, especially in Egypt and Persia that two people would be bound to each other. As to the Establishment Clause, I don't have a good answer. Government and God have intertwined way too much. But as it is now, it's a legal union, and more to those that believe in God. None of which affects my marriage or how much I love my wife. Who's the band in the new sig?

Theokhoth

If the government violated its own rules in establishing marriage as a government institution, then it needs to be overturned, making marriage a religious institution.

Not that any of this matters. The federal government has NO SAY WHATSOEVER in marriage, for the simple reason that for it to do so would violate the Establishment Clause;). Only the State does, and the States can rule not to recognise heterosexual marriage if they want. However, even this is too much government intervention.

Click the siggy.;)

Ok, I see where your coming from now. And I agree with the States having the power. As much as I am for homsexual marriage/civil unions, I wouldn't want the Feds to decide that, what works in Arkansas may not work in New York. Didn't notice it was a link, cool thanks, need to expand my tastes from NIN a bit. Again I'm old and cranky and set in my ways though, aren't I) some little story I remember.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

I disagree Theo, we cannot know how "committed" people were 40,000 or 200,000 years ago, but in written times there is proof, especially in Egypt and Persia that two people would be bound to each other. As to the Establishment Clause, I don't have a good answer. Government and God have intertwined way too much. But as it is now, it's a legal union, and more to those that believe in God. None of which affects my marriage or how much I love my wife. Who's the band in the new sig?

Genetic_Code

My goodness, I was just thinking about how the government centers around a seven day week, which originates from religion and the names of the seven days originates from pagan gods, yet all of us refer to these in their original sense.

Now your wondering OT, GC! Yes it's quite fascinating how most of our terms in our daily lives revolve around Pagan Gods, then Christ. It's one of the things I enjoy learning about most when studying ancient civilizations.

Now your wondering OT, GC!

btaylor2404

My wondering OT? I don't own OT. :?

Yes it's quite fascinating how most of our terms in our daily lives revolve around Pagan Gods, then Christ. It's one of the things I enjoy learning about most when studying ancient civilizations.

btaylor2404

Well, I'm still undecided if that means that marriage has been "secularized".

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

Now your wondering OT, GC!

Genetic_Code

My wondering OT? I don't own OT. :?

That's my shtick, damn it!:evil:

That's my shtick, damn it!:evil:

Theokhoth

I just couldn't resist. :P

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

That's my shtick, damn it!:evil:

Genetic_Code

I just couldn't resist. :P

I meant off topic in this thread. Page 2 went in 20 different directions. Good one though GC. Great discussion. We need so many more threads like this instead of "help me spend $13" or "OMG this kid in class!"

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

That's my shtick, damn it!:evil:

btaylor2404

I just couldn't resist. :P

I meant off topic in this thread. Page 2 went in 20 different directions. Good one though GC. Great discussion. We need so many more threads like this instead of "help me spend $13" or "OMG this kid in class!"

Or "ZOMG PROPOSITION 8!"