Should atheists be allowed to marry?

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

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

Theokhoth

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!"

"So there's this girl I LIKE TEH LOTS"

Yes, and I encourage them to have many atheist offspring.

And while were at it I've got another ? What the hell does meh or teh mean? I get most of the shorthand internet words, but I see those all the time and have no idea what people are talking about.btaylor2404

Meh is simply a sign of dissatisfaction, just like if somebody said *sigh* or "Gah."

The word "teh" is just a bastardized version of the word "the", just like how "lawls" or "lulz" is a bastardized version of "lol".

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]And while were at it I've got another ? What the hell does meh or teh mean? I get most of the shorthand internet words, but I see those all the time and have no idea what people are talking about.-Jiggles-

Meh is simply a sign of dissatisfaction, just like if somebody said *sigh* or "Gah."

The word "teh" is just a bastardized version of the word "the", just like how "lawls" or "lulz" is a bastardized version of "lol".

Thank you kindly. Sigh or BS still sounds better IMO.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]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.btaylor2404

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.

Lets also forget that marriage was a practice that pagen's did before monothiesm even existed.sSubZerOo

And Paganism is. . . ?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Lets also forget that marriage was a practice that pagen's did before monothiesm even existed.Theokhoth

And Paganism is. . . ?

Any form of theism, especially polytheism but can be applied to some monotheistic faiths. I have yet heard it used in the context of atheism.

Marriage is religious, so should an atheist be allowed to marry someone of a different sex? Why or why not?

I have no opinion of this matter, other than that if marriage is to be kept with the place of worship, then I feel that place should be obligated to determine marriage however they feel is appropiate.

Genetic_Code

That offended me, and yes why shouldn't they and marrige is not a religous act havn' you heard of gay marrige?

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]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.

I hope you realize that "separation of church and state" doesn't literally mean dividing churches and states; it's separating religious beliefs from government affairs, and marriage is a government affair. Whether you think that marriage should be between a man, woman and your god is an opinion at most--a opinion the government does not care for.

That offended me, and yes why shouldn't they and marrige is not a religous act havn' you heard of gay marrige?

linkinpark494

The reasons why I think atheists shouldn't marry is because marriage originated from various religions. I have heard of gay marriage, but that doesn't make the terminology any more correct than the term "irregardless".

What I'm willing to gage in this debate is regarding marriage's role on society today. Its origins are now history and what's more important is how marriage is implemented today.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Lets also forget that marriage was a practice that pagen's did before monothiesm even existed.Genetic_Code

And Paganism is. . . ?

Any form of theism, especially polytheism but can be applied to some monotheistic faiths. I have yet heard it used in the context of atheism.

Pagens worshipped multiple gods, and most did not marry with god being a important factor.. Infact most pagens asked for blessings but that was it, gods in those times were feared and not loved.. Gods were seen just as selfish, and dangerous as regular humans... Infact for the longest time people did not have choices to who they married, it was a means for economics and poltiical power it had nothing to do with love. So that being said there really is no standard definition for marriage other then being between two people, because it has vastly changed through out the years depending ont he social advancements of our society.

I hope you realize that "separation of church and state" doesn't literally mean dividing churches and states; it's separating religious beliefs from government affairs, and marriage is a government affair. Whether you think that marriage should be between a man, woman and your god is an opinion at most--a opinion the government does not care for.

-Jiggles-

And that's where I disagree. I need to illustrate my reasons why.

First of all, if government keeps on redefining things, such as how one obtains savaltion into the heavens, then it would reduce the role of that religion for all of its adherrents. That would be a poor example, but the point I'm trying to make is that each religion has their own input as to how salvation is achieved. If the government made it to where atheists could enter heaven, then that would defeat the purpose of so many religious beliefs.

The expected argument that would go against this is that "marriage exists and heaven doesn't (or at least empirically; you'll find no atheists who don't believe that marriage exists)", but marriage in reality is a concept, just like heaven, and it doesn't exist in a physical form more than a wedding band is concerned. The concept of marriage originates from the metaphysical concept of love. The only body designed to "govern" how that marriage should be defined derives from those that deal with the metaphysical.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

I hope you realize that "separation of church and state" doesn't literally mean dividing churches and states; it's separating religious beliefs from government affairs, and marriage is a government affair. Whether you think that marriage should be between a man, woman and your god is an opinion at most--a opinion the government does not care for.

Genetic_Code

And that's where I disagree.

Why is that?

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

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Lets also forget that marriage was a practice that pagen's did before monothiesm even existed.sSubZerOo

And Paganism is. . . ?

Any form of theism, especially polytheism but can be applied to some monotheistic faiths. I have yet heard it used in the context of atheism.

Pagens worshipped multiple gods, and most did not marry with god being a important factor.. Infact most pagens asked for blessings but that was it, gods in those times were feared and not loved.. Gods were seen just as selfish, and dangerous as regular humans... Infact for the longest time people did not have choices to who they married, it was a means for economics and poltiical power it had nothing to do with love. So that being said there really is no standard definition for marriage other then being between two people, because it has vastly changed through out the years depending ont he social advancements of our society.

Depends on the god(s) in question.:| Some, such as Branwyn, Celtic goddess of love and sexuality, Eostre, goddess of Spring and new beginnings, Kwan Yin, Chinese goddess of mercy, Aphrodite, Greek goddess of love, and many others were greatly respected and adored, and some embodied love itself, let alone were loved.

Anyway, you missed the point. Paganism is a non-Christian, Muslim or Jewish religion.:|

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

I hope you realize that "separation of church and state" doesn't literally mean dividing churches and states; it's separating religious beliefs from government affairs, and marriage is a government affair. Whether you think that marriage should be between a man, woman and your god is an opinion at most--a opinion the government does not care for.

Genetic_Code

And that's where I disagree.

The government agrees with you.

I one day will be marrying people together but will not marry non-Christians to one another. I'm not against marriage for non-Christians, I just won't marry two people without the blessings of God. I can't ordaine a marriage under God unless I feel God is a part of the relationship can I?

Why is that?

-Jiggles-

I noticed that I failed to elaborate. I edited my message, but in case you didn't read it, here's the rest:

First of all, if government keeps on redefining things, such as how one obtains savaltion into the heavens, then it would reduce the role of that religion for all of its adherrents. That would be a poor example, but the point I'm trying to make is that each religion has their own input as to how salvation is achieved. If the government made it to where atheists could enter heaven, then that would defeat the purpose of so many religious beliefs.

The expected argument that would go against this is that "marriage exists and heaven doesn't (or at least empirically; you'll find no atheists who don't believe that marriage exists)", but marriage in reality is a concept, just like heaven, and it doesn't exist in a physical form more than a wedding band is concerned. The concept of marriage originates from the metaphysical concept of love. The only body designed to "govern" how that marriage should be defined derives from those that deal with the metaphysical. The government does not qualify as such.

I one day will be marrying people together but will not marry non-Christians to one another. I'm not against marriage for non-Christians, I just won't marry two people without the blessings of God. I can't ordaine a marriage under God unless I feel God is a part of the relationship can I?

mindstorm

Of course not, which is why I don't think atheists should be allowed to marry, or anyone for that matter, because the government says so.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I one day will be marrying people together but will not marry non-Christians to one another. I'm not against marriage for non-Christians, I just won't marry two people without the blessings of God. I can't ordaine a marriage under God unless I feel God is a part of the relationship can I?

Genetic_Code

Of course not, which is why I don't think atheists should be allowed to marry, or anyone for that matter, because the government says so.

This is why we can't have nice things!

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

Why is that?

Genetic_Code

I noticed that I failed to elaborate. I edited my message, but in case you didn't read it, here's the rest:

Well, despite the fact that we're talking about whether marriage shares any strict religious ties to it's own definition, I'd like my own arguement to stem off of real-world concepts instead of those revolving around faith.

Since marriages between two people benefit from the government by tax exempts, specific laws (adultery), etc, I see it as a government affair, simple as that. Although marriage has many ties with the Christian faith, it also has ties with many other faiths outside of Christianity as well, so only allowing those within a certain religious faith to get married (Christianity, Muslim, etc) seems discriminatory (is that even a word)?

Since many people debate whether marriage originated from religion and I have no advance knowledge of the subject, I'll keep my opinion on such in the dark. I will say, however, that humanity should always be adapting to the world around them, and concepts of humanity should as well--one of which being marriage.

The minister doesn't have to know if the couple are atheists. It's not his/her business.dracula_16

It is if they want him to marry them in his church. . .

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]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.

Jiggles made a much better argument than I, but you say that it "should" be a legal union between man, woman, and God. I know you acknowledged Christmas, but it's at the heart of the discussion. A practice that was already being done that Christians took for themselves, just like marriage. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. I've had a wonderful 9+ year marriage, and we will be married til I die. And nothing anyone says can take that away, or change that. Yes we're recognized as married by the state, as I stated before, but our commitment and love is what matters, not that I don't believe in God as she does.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]The minister doesn't have to know if the couple are atheists. It's not his/her business.Theokhoth

It is if they want him to marry them in his church. . .

They could always lie about it.

Sure, it's not in good taste, but if it helps get them past that obstacle...

Edit: After all, it's easier to lie about your religion over your sexual orientation when it comes to marriage.

I one day will be marrying people together but will not marry non-Christians to one another. I'm not against marriage for non-Christians, I just won't marry two people without the blessings of God. I can't ordaine a marriage under God unless I feel God is a part of the relationship can I?

mindstorm

I think you have that right, as does your church. And if your faith is such that God must be a part of marriage, then you have that right.

The minister doesn't have to know if the couple are atheists. It's not his/her business.dracula_16

I won't marry a couple unless I put them through pre-marital counseling first. If I don't think the marriage will last, I won't marry them. They can go to someone else if they don't like it. I'd have a lot of criteria such as them not being allowed to live with one another before they marry. If they are living together... they'd have to move out for a time. God would have to be in the center of the relationship without question before I marry a couple. I perhaps would be more strict than many other ministers but it's what I feel I need to do. The divorce rate among Christians, who pride themselves in morality, should not be the same as the rest of the world.

Well, despite the fact that we're talking about whether marriage shares any strict religious ties to it's own definition, I'd like my own arguement to stem off of real-world concepts instead of those revolving around faith.

Since marriages between two people benefit from the government by tax exempts, specific laws (adultery), etc, I see it as a government affair, simple as that.

-Jiggles-

Those laws can be restricted to just civil unions.

Although marriage has many ties with the Christian faith, it also has ties with many other faiths outside of Christianity as well, so only allowing those within a certain religious faith to get married (Christianity, Muslim, etc) seems discriminatory (is that even a word)?

-Jiggles-

I am no know-it-all, but my opinion is of the matter that it has to be considered a religion to be marry. Atheism is not a religion, unless you count the First Church of Atheism.

Since many people debate whether marriage originated from religion and I have no advance knowledge of the subject, I'll keep my opinion on such in the dark. I will say, however, that humanity should always be adapting to the world around them, and concepts of humanity should as well--one of which being marriage.

-Jiggles-

I agree that the implications of terms change. I mentioned this earlier in this thread about the days of the week and their names. Yet, we still refer to each day as its name. We don't redefine Monday as Tuesday and so forth. It's just that we don't realize its religious implications; even if the definition has lost its meaning, it has not lost its purpose.

I realize I sound extremely bold in my assertions, because I find myself confused between redefining marriage and pandering to tradition and I'm favoring tradition. Hell, I guess one could make the argument that I'm actually taking a step back in saying that religion shouldn't discriminate based on sexuality, but on religious beliefs. I'll admit that I don't like it myself being an atheist but I do think that some common ground is more important and satisifiable than legalizing all forms of marriage to the point where so many people will think of the term as a cancer. I think that would only be applicable if we take marriage away from the public sector and back into the place of worship where it belongs, that way the government doesn't have to decide whether or not interracial marriages or same-sex marriages or any marriages that goes against a religious belief is discriminator and are obligated to take action to be "politically correct".

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]The minister doesn't have to know if the couple are atheists. It's not his/her business.-Jiggles-

It is if they want him to marry them in his church. . .

They could always lie about it.

Sure, it's not in good taste, but if it helps get them past that obstacle...

Edit: After all, it's easier to lie about your religion over your sexual orientation when it comes to marriage.

Words this true are rarely said.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

Why is that?

Genetic_Code

I noticed that I failed to elaborate. I edited my message, but in case you didn't read it, here's the rest:

First of all, if government keeps on redefining things, such as how one obtains savaltion into the heavens, then it would reduce the role of that religion for all of its adherrents. That would be a poor example, but the point I'm trying to make is that each religion has their own input as to how salvation is achieved. If the government made it to where atheists could enter heaven, then that would defeat the purpose of so many religious beliefs.

The expected argument that would go against this is that "marriage exists and heaven doesn't (or at least empirically; you'll find no atheists who don't believe that marriage exists)", but marriage in reality is a concept, just like heaven, and it doesn't exist in a physical form more than a wedding band is concerned. The concept of marriage originates from the metaphysical concept of love. The only body designed to "govern" how that marriage should be defined derives from those that deal with the metaphysical. The government does not qualify as such.

GC, you lost me here. First of all I doubt government will define how one obtains salvation. But on the experience factor, to me, marriage isn't a concept. It's a commitment, which the government honors. I see it's cause and effects daily, and enjoy the good and bad times that I or my wife tend to cause. When outside factors cause good or bad times, we work thru them together. I see no correlation between believing in heaven and believing in marriage. Maybe that's just me.

GC, you lost me here. First of all I doubt government will define how one obtains salvation. But on the experience factor, to me, marriage isn't a concept. It's a commitment, which the government honors. I see it's cause and effects daily, and enjoy the good and bad times that I or my wife tend to cause. When outside factors cause good or bad times, we work thru them together. I see no correlation between believing in heaven and believing in marriage. Maybe that's just me.

btaylor2404

I could say the same about salvation. When people think that they're saved, you can see a direct cause and effect with some of them.

This is why we can't have nice things!

Shad0ki11

You're not an atheist. >_>

Of course they should be allowed to marry. Are they not people?

They just can't be married in a church.

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

This is why we can't have nice things!

Genetic_Code

You're not an atheist. >_>

I know. You tell me as if I didn't already know that myself.

I have friends who are atheists. I don't think it would be right if they were denied the right to marry.Denying someone to be able to marry the person they love is evil.

Atheists are just the same as Christians. The only difference is their beliefs. Even if the marriage isn't under God, it's still a bond between two people. A marital bond between two atheists (or non-Christians) is just as important as the marital bond between two Christians.

By the way, Bible passages would be appreciated. >_>Genetic_Code

Hell no.

Those laws can be restricted to just civil unions. Genetic_Code

However, many countries across the world do not recognize civil unions, only marriage. You may end up fine and dandy here in the states, but if you and your loved one go on a vacation to a country that does not recognize civil unions, you'll be in for a hard time. Conclusively, it's best we stick with marriage in this discussion.

I am no know-it-all, but my opinion is of the matter that it has to be considered a religion to be marry. Atheism is not a religion, unless you count the First Church of Atheism. Genetic_Code

I myself think the "church" of atheism is bogus, since atheism isn't a religion, but a state of mind.

As for your opinion on marriage requiring a religion, keep in mind that it's just that--an opinion. Your opinion would be hard-pressed if marriage was officially declared a government affair in the future, but that's slowly drifting into the "what if"s territory, which is best left untread.

I agree that the implications of terms change. I mentioned this earlier in this thread about the days of the week and their names. Yet, we still refer to each day as its name. We don't redefine Monday as Tuesday and so forth. It's just that we don't realize its religious implications; even if the definition has lost its meaning, it has not lost its purpose.

I realize I sound extremely bold in my assertions, because I find myself confused between redefining marriage and pandering to tradition and I'm favoring tradition. Hell, I guess one could make the argument that I'm actually taking a step back in saying that religion shouldn't discriminate based on sexuality, but on religious beliefs. I'll admit that I don't like it myself being an atheist but I do think that some common ground is more important and satisifiable than legalizing all forms of marriage to the point where so many people will think of the term as a cancer. I think that would only be applicable if we take marriage away from the public sector and back into the place of worship where it belongs, that way the government doesn't have to decide whether or not interracial marriages or same-sex marriages or any marriages that goes against a religious belief is discriminator and are obligated to take action to be "politically correct".

Genetic_Code

I agree that marriage is starting to lose it's pure, divine meaning and is slowly turning into a (albeit serious) fad among people, but that shouldn't hold people back from getting married overall. Despite what precautions the government may take to uphold the sanctity and righteousness of marriage, it is still discriminatory in nature to only allow a certain few people to get married, especially considering that marriage has many legal benefits as well.

Marriage may be religious at it's roots (at least according to most religious groups), but the more the government and/or religion "glamorizes" the whole aspect of marriage, the more people you'll see wanting a piece of the pie. The fact that most countries around the world use marriage as a display of social class rank and/or power, it'll only end up pushing back those who are not allowed to be married--in this case, atheists.

Okay, I'm going to add Biblical verses relating to marriage.

"The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." -Genesis 2:21-24

"For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.

And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by baptism and God's word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. No one hates his own body but lovingly cares for it, just as Christ cares for his body, which is the church. And we are his body.

As the Scriptures say, "A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one." -Ep 5:23-32

Here is a mentioning of husband and wife.

"In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands, even those who refuse to accept the Good News. Your godly lives will speak to them better than any words. They will be won over by watching your pure, godly behavior. Don't be concerned about the outward beauty ... You should be known for the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God ... In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard." -1 Peter 3:1-5,7

"It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." -1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Okay, I'm going to add Biblical verses relating to marriage.

"The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." -Genesis 2:21-24

"For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.

And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her to make her holy and clean, washed by baptism and God's word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife. No one hates his own body but lovingly cares for it, just as Christ cares for his body, which is the church. And we are his body.

As the Scriptures say, "A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one." -Ep 5:23-32

Here is a mentioning of husband and wife.

"In the same way, you wives must accept the authority of your husbands, even those who refuse to accept the Good News. Your godly lives will speak to them better than any words. They will be won over by watching your pure, godly behavior. Don't be concerned about the outward beauty ... You should be known for the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God ... In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard." -1 Peter 3:1-5,7

"It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." -1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Genetic_Code

.