Should atheists be banned from marriage?

[bernee51]

Opponents of gay marriage are largely motivated by their firm belief that such unions are displeasing to God and that only divinely-approved marriages should be permitted.

How long will it be, however, before they start fighting for other kinds of limits on civil marriages based upon their beliefs about what their god wants?

Should atheists be allowed to marry?

[micatala]

Interesting question, Bernee.

Yes, I think it is fair to say that the main opposition to gay marriage is religiously based. I would guess that more conservative believers in religions other than Christianity (eg. Islam) might also be against gay marriage, although I don't know that.

However, there are certainly other reasons given for opposition. Some of these are 'ostensible' in the sense that they are offered only to make it seem like the opposition is not solely religiously based, but I do think that some of the opposition is sincere in offering non-religious objections.

There is the arguement from tradition. Since marriage has traditionally been between people of the same sex, we should at least be careful about changing this tradition. I have heard non-religious folks make statements along these lines. They seem to based on the idea that 'this would be different, therefore it is probably not good.'

There is also the 'harm to society' arguement. If we allow gay-marriage, there are a number of possible harms that could or would occur to society at large, therefore we should not allow gay marriage. Some of these are related to gay couples raising children, some are related to 'health issues.' I haven't found any good arguement along these lines, but they are made.

One could certainly try to make the same arguements against atheists. Could it be objectively shown that atheist couples create certain problems at a greater rate than heterosexual couples? I could certainly see some fervent 'anti-atheists' trying to do some pseudo-science along these lines to try and justify a position banning non-religious weddings. I think it is extremely unlikely that this would get anywhere, but I could see it being pushed.

[juliod]

I voted yes, even though I am an atheist. It's part of a large opinion of mine that we should disengage society from marriage. Marriage should be under the control of the churches. Government (and the larger society) should have nothing to do with it. So marriage of atheists (homosexuals, feminists, apostates, etc) would be a perversity.

My view is this. Churches, rather than the government, should preside over marriage. They should be invested with the power to determine the conditions and requiremments for marriage, and to adjudicate over divorce, annulment, adultery,etc.

This would be easy to impliment. Prospective marriers would be shown the dooctrine of the church under which they want to get married. It would spell out the policy of annulment, divorce (if any), etc. By marrying under those terms they would be contractually obliged to obey the doctrine. The church authorities would be empowered to seize property, garnish wages, and other things, to enforce the marriage. They could withhold funds and property if, for example, one spouse ceased to live in the family home. Churches and denominations could negotiate amopng themselves for mutual recognition of each other's doctrine.

For those functions of marriage that are relevant to government, these would simply be nullified. The government and legal system would merely not recognize any difference between married and unmarried persons. Inhheritance, guardianship, and medical authority would be strictly by blood relation. Changes to this could be made by wills, living wills, powers attorney, etc. These things already exist so there would be no need for new laws or principles. The tax code would be simplified. Everyone would pay tax on their own income. Alimony, child support, and the like would be handled by the churches (if they allow such things) and distributed out of the net income.

The way I see it, everyone wins. Athiests are happy because it is a further separation of church and state. Theists are happy because their churches get the authority over marriage that they should really want. Homosexuals are happy because they can form their own churches and have their own marriages (but no one has to recognize it, of course). And we are all happy because the administration of government is simplified and reduced.

DanZ

[bernee51]

I voted yes, even though I am an atheist. It's part of a large opinion of mine that we should disengage society from marriage. Marriage should be under the control of the churches. Government (and the larger society) should have nothing to do with it. So marriage of atheists (homosexuals, feminists, apostates, etc) would be a perversity.

My view is this. Churches, rather than the government, should preside over marriage. They should be invested with the power to determine the conditions and requiremments for marriage, and to adjudicate over divorce, annulment, adultery,etc.

A radical viewpoint DanZ

And fFrom a religious viewpoint I agree with you, however there is nothing in the definition of the word marriage that states it as being 'religious'. Are you suggesting that there be a 'Church of Atheism' to preside over atheists' marriages? What about 'agnostics'?

I'm sure the churches would love to have the power you are suggesting. Another opportunity to 'cream it off the top' As Robert Ingesoll said "The church has always been willing to swap off treasures in heaven for cash down."

Personally I believe marriage should be removed from the church altogether and be a civil ceremony. People can then, if they wish, have their alliance later 'blessed' by their chosen god.

All marriages, regardless of the gender of the participants, should be recognised by the state and they should all carry the same rights and responsibilities.

[AlAyeti]

The numbers of children in jail and diagnosed with mental illness have a lot in common. A bizaare or deficient makeup of their family. A dysfunctional family denotes the absolute of a "functional family."

Christians do not force Christian marriage but do advocate the health of strong families made up of husband, wife and children.

The developing mind of a human being needs both parents.

Bernee's disingenous attempt to paint a picture of what Christians are trying to convey in their stand against re-defing the family and marriage is because of the intolerance of homosexuals and other sexually licentious hedoniststs.

Redefining the family and marriage has only children and society to hurt.

That dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional and indeed violent and criminal offspring, is undeniable when the numbers of those incarcerated, running the streets, involved in prostitution and pornography, are sexually depraved and the mentally ill are studied.

The makeup of strong nuclear families has shown its benefit accordingly.

Christians stand in opposition of redefining family and marriage. Imposing "Christian values" has already been proven to not be the motivation. Only the defending of the rational order of family and marriage.

Even atheists come from the union of a man and a woman. And those atheists that live productive lives outside of the criminal justice system and mental institutions more than not, came from a "good family."

[juliod]

Are you suggesting that there be a 'Church of Atheism' to preside over atheists' marriages? What about 'agnostics'?

I think there already is. I can't speak for them, but I understand that the Unitarian Universalists would be happy to marry atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, etc.

I'm sure the churches would love to have the power you are suggesting.

And why shouldn't they, as long as the members agree to it?

All marriages, regardless of the gender of the participants, should be recognised by the state and they should all carry the same rights and responsibilities.

I see no civic benefit to having marriage at all. It just complicates the tax code and law. Why are we spending public money adjudicating divorces?

Of course, my point of bringing this up is to show the hypocrisy of the theists. I expect my idea to be as popular to christians as a disfiguring skin disease.

DanZ

[juliod]

Christians do not force Christian marriage but do advocate the health of strong families made up of husband, wife and children.

So what do you think of my idea to return power over marriage to the churches? I assume you would be in favor of it.

Wouldn't it be great? The religions could prevent divorce. Why do they defer to the secualr government on that in the first place?

And think what good the churches could do. They could drastically reduce things like violence and abuse in marriage and parental child abduction. Our secular law enforcement agencies handle these issues very poorly since they can only act after-the-fact. But the church could be pro-active. They could place monitors in the household of a family suspected of being in need. They would have the power to adjudicate child custody, and to monitor the child to prevent abduction by one or other of the parents. And they could enforce their decisions by seizure of wages and/or property.

Think how seriously people would take marriage if they knew it really was for life. That not only could they not get a divorce, but that they would be compelled to habitate in the same house (to say nothing of the marriage bed).

OTOH, if there were suspicion of abuse or violence, the perpetrator could be immediately removed from the house (say, moved in with one of your deacons and given serious councelling).

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

Maybe Christians shoudn't marry. I bet you can find more on that in the bible then on Homosexuality.
But if you took out the tax breaks how would you convince them only corporate America is a person.
Corporations merge all the time.
Hey look my number of posts is the same as my zip code ..it is a sign..

[A 3rd Gentleman]

The numbers of children in jail and diagnosed with mental illness have a lot in common. A bizaare or deficient makeup of their family. A dysfunctional family denotes the absolute of a "functional family."

Christians do not force Christian marriage but do advocate the health of strong families made up of husband, wife and children.

The developing mind of a human being needs both parents.

Bernee's disingenous attempt to paint a picture of what Christians are trying to convey in their stand against re-defing the family and marriage is because of the intolerance of homosexuals and other sexually licentious hedoniststs.

Redefining the family and marriage has only children and society to hurt.

That dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional and indeed violent and criminal offspring, is undeniable when the numbers of those incarcerated, running the streets, involved in prostitution and pornography, are sexually depraved and the mentally ill are studied.

The makeup of strong nuclear families has shown its benefit accordingly.

Christians stand in opposition of redefining family and marriage. Imposing "Christian values" has already been proven to not be the motivation. Only the defending of the rational order of family and marriage.

Even atheists come from the union of a man and a woman. And those atheists that live productive lives outside of the criminal justice system and mental institutions more than not, came from a "good family."

Besides equating non-heterosexual families with dysfunctional ones, you also ignore one simple fact.

Marriage benefits any family of any makeup and a strong family, however non-traditional, is without a doubt a better environment for it's members and subsequently, the rest of society, than a family that is weaker in structure.

For example, the adopted children of homosexual couples benefit both from the presence of caring parental figures (in contrast to orphanages, poverty and potentially worse conditions) and being raised in a stable, marriage-endorsed family.

So, while the most healthy environment for a child to exist is one with both a dutiful biological mother and father, it is lazy and irresponsible to ignore the fact that these idyllic circumstances are not met for many children, and the care provided for them by non-traditional families should most definitely not be de-valued or provided second-class resources for attaining the fullest possible potential.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Curious that Christians do not seek to ban divorce or pre-marital sex. All this attention devoted to those evil gays. God forbid we focus on the real problems with society.

Why is there no cry to stop athiest marriage? If marriage is still dictated by Biblical doctrine as so many Christians assert, why do the rules not extend beyond same-sex partners?

Could there be an ulterior motive behind the anti-gay move? A more grisly motive that people are afraid to reveal, being that it strictly goes against the religion they subscribe to?

The belief that gays are "discusting" is the most prevalent reasoning I see. I got to talking about gay mairrage with this girl at my church once. I Argued that Christians have no right to impose their beliefs on the unbelieving populace. She agreed with that point, but still kept to her anti-gay view, arguing that she does not want her children growing up around such "nasty" individuals.

Frankly, I find homosexuality sickening as well. Likewise, they may find my orientation unappealing. Does this give either side the right to discriminate? Christ would have us respect ones individual decisions (albeit not necissarily approve of them).

What is this fear so many people harbor against a differing from the norm? Intolerance seems to be the grisly motive behind the anti-homosexual movement.

Reminds me of the Crusades. The Christian leaders then had selfish material motives that they tried to mask behind the word of God.




Al, from what I have observed, the majority of the dysfunctional families that you refer to are in fact heterosexual, lacking one parent, or lacking of both parents. Where does homosexuality come into play? Who says homosexual partners cannot be loving and ethical?

The gays I know seem no less moral than your average heterosexual person. How can you yoke homosexuality in with the problems in todays children? There seem to be other factors at play.




So why don't Christians lobby for marriage exclusive from athiests? Against divorce? Sex before marriage? If you are going to be oppressive enough to want to enforce your views on others, at least be consistent, right?