What if a state banned marriage between two athiests?

2009-06-27 10:58 PM

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 27

One of the principle arguments used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California was that marriage is a "sacred institution" between a man and a woman. So if we were to accept this "sacred" argument, how would the various churches that heavily campaigned for the ban on gay marriage on sacred grounds view marriages between two athiests (man and woman)? How could a marriage between two non-believers be considered "sacred" under the church doctrine? If those same churches got together and sponsored a measure similar to proposition 8 but targeted athiests instead of gays, might it pass? Athiests are a minority in California.

Would a marriage of an athiest man and athiest woman be more "sacred" than a marriage of two Christian lesbian women?

As the American Athiests pointed out, the California voters and the California Supreme Court have set a dangerous precident in allowing the majority (mostly Christians) to remove the civil rights of a minority based solely on Biblical Christian beliefs. What's next? Where does it all stop?

2010-03-08 06:00 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

At some point there has to be a revolution, doesn't there?

It's hard enough to find someone who isn't repulsed by the idea of not being married in a church! :)

I don't think that would fly. Wouldn't an Atheist and Christian marriage would be less "sacred" in the church's eyes than a fully atheist companionship?

I would think it would rule out any marriage that wasn't 100% Christian. I doubt a Baptist church would find it any more "sacred" for a Christian woman to marry a Muslim man over an Atheist man.

As much as they may try for it, there are too many factors to consider for it to happen.

2010-04-29 12:17 PM

Kim.rel100
Lincolnton, NC
Posts: 5

Frank K Wrote: One of the principle arguments used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California was that marriage is a "sacred institution" between a man and a woman. So if we were to accept this "sacred" argument, how would the various churches that heavily campaigned for the ban on gay marriage on sacred grounds view marriages between two athiests (man and woman)? How could a marriage between two non-believers be considered "sacred" under the church doctrine? If those same churches got together and sponsored a measure similar to proposition 8 but targeted athiests instead of gays, might it pass? Athiests are a minority in California.

Would a marriage of an athiest man and athiest woman be more "sacred" than a marriage of two Christian lesbian women?

As the American Athiests pointed out, the California voters and the California Supreme Court have set a dangerous precident in allowing the majority (mostly Christians) to remove the civil rights of a minority based solely on Biblical Christian beliefs. What's next? Where does it all stop?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with awoman. both of them have committed an abominations; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

This applies to women also. So there is no such thing, per God's word, of a marriage between lesbian women. They are homosexual and that is a sin. So just the by saying Christian lesbians is wrong all the way around. Two athiest marry but not under God but under their own beliefs and/ or feelings. Homosexuals are also not committed to each other under a "Christian biblical marriage" Now whether this should be banned is not for me to say. If an athiest couple committ to each other then I would hope that committ for love and respect that love of each other for always, the same goes for a homosexual relationship, just like a christian marriage they just hold their love of God into their marriage. These two groups should not be married by a religious person ex. preacher. father, priest, etc. They should be allowed to be lawfully married under different rules maybe at the court house or something.

2010-04-29 12:19 PM

Kim.rel100
Lincolnton, NC
Posts: 5

Two Athiests or two homosexuals becoming committed to each other is not scared. One is just as bad as the other.

2010-04-29 01:01 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

There is a separation of church and state in this country. So, in order to have any real argument against allowing gay marriage, you need to find something more than a religious one.

Where in the Bible does it say two atheists getting married is an abomination? And how do you know that two women laying with each other is just as bad as two men if the Bible doesn't state that? Is premarital sex ok? There is a lot of that in the Bible and, as I recall, there is no mention that sex before marriage is wrong, just having children out of wedlock is frowned upon.

2010-05-08 06:26 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Religion is not the basis for the sacredness of marriage. The innate natural fact of a man being made for a woman and vice versa and the normal capability of producing a family with natural-born children as the basic building block of society is the sacredness.

To forbid people to marry based on religion or lack of religion is pointless. A male atheist and a female atheist could produce godly, Christ-loving children. Homosexuals who are true to their homosexuality cannot produce children of any kind. They have to depend on heterosexuality to propagate the species.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

They may pass all the laws they please to pass. People can marry a mule, in their own heads, that is. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and always will be, no matter how many laws man passes, for God has already made the immutable law.

A man complements (not compliments) the woman and the woman the man, for the woman came from the man and all men now come from the woman. In other words, each COMPLETES what is lacking in the other.

To answer the questions of the last post, two women together sexually is just as bad as two men and the Bible states it. The short answer is all sex outside of the marriage relationship is sin and marriage is between a man and a woman, always, as I have already stated.

MrWonder

2010-05-10 02:04 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

MrWonder Wrote: Homosexuals who are true to their homosexuality cannot produce children of any kind. They have to depend on heterosexuality to propagate the species.

Artificial insemination is a regular occurance in the gay community. While it is much more expensive, it is a great alternative for a lesbian who refuses to have sex with a man.

A lesbian/gay couple who adopts or uses alternative methods of having children can still raise heterosexual Christian children.....

So does that make forbidding a gay marriage just as pointless as stopping an atheist marriage?

2010-05-10 05:08 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 226

Hi Christy,

No, it is pointless to try to stop an atheist marriage. I have never heard of such a thing as forbidding atheists to marry, and I don't even see anything Scriptural about it.

However, the idea of homosexual marriage is ludicrous in the extreme, from my viewpoint, and all the laws in the world won't make one. A male completes the female and the female completes the male. Two males don't complete each other - they have the same equipment. Likewise with the ladies.

The pure fact no children can come of such a union is proof again that it is not meant to be. Not only do male and female complete each other physically, but they do so mentally, also. I'm a man. Another man is redundant, and superfluous. Don't need one. What I need around here is a woman, not a man. Got a man already - ME! :-)

Homosexuals can form whatever alliances they wish to form and call it whatever they wish, but it will never be a marriage, no matter how many laws are passed.

MrWonder

2010-09-16 06:11 AM

archaeologist
Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 79

Frank K Wrote: One of the principle arguments used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California was that marriage is a "sacred institution" between a man and a woman. So if we were to accept this "sacred" argument, how would the various churches that heavily campaigned for the ban on gay marriage on sacred grounds view marriages between two athiests (man and woman)? How could a marriage between two non-believers be considered "sacred" under the church doctrine? If those same churches got together and sponsored a measure similar to proposition 8 but targeted athiests instead of gays, might it pass? Athiests are a minority in California.

Would a marriage of an athiest man and athiest woman be more "sacred" than a marriage of two Christian lesbian women?

As the American Athiests pointed out, the California voters and the California Supreme Court have set a dangerous precident in allowing the majority (mostly Christians) to remove the civil rights of a minority based solely on Biblical Christian beliefs. What's next? Where does it all stop?

1. there are no christian lesbian women or homosexual men.you cannot practice sin and still claim to be of God.

2. when the Bible defines marriage, it restricts it to men and women not religious beliefs or unbeliefs thus the church cannot restrict atheist men and owmen from getting married to the opposite sex.

3. homosexuality is NOT a race nor a minority. it is a sexual preference which is sin and violates what is natural.

4. it stops with the biblical definitions. christians cannot impose any further restrictions and remain scriptural.

2010-09-16 03:43 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

archaeologist Wrote:
Frank K Wrote: One of the principle arguments used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California was that marriage is a "sacred institution" between a man and a woman. So if we were to accept this "sacred" argument, how would the various churches that heavily campaigned for the ban on gay marriage on sacred grounds view marriages between two athiests (man and woman)? How could a marriage between two non-believers be considered "sacred" under the church doctrine? If those same churches got together and sponsored a measure similar to proposition 8 but targeted athiests instead of gays, might it pass? Athiests are a minority in California.

Would a marriage of an athiest man and athiest woman be more "sacred" than a marriage of two Christian lesbian women?

As the American Athiests pointed out, the California voters and the California Supreme Court have set a dangerous precident in allowing the majority (mostly Christians) to remove the civil rights of a minority based solely on Biblical Christian beliefs. What's next? Where does it all stop?

1. there are no christian lesbian women or homosexual men.you cannot practice sin and still claim to be of God.

2. when the Bible defines marriage, it restricts it to men and women not religious beliefs or unbeliefs thus the church cannot restrict atheist men and owmen from getting married to the opposite sex.

3. homosexuality is NOT a race nor a minority. it is a sexual preference which is sin and violates what is natural.

4. it stops with the biblical definitions. christians cannot impose any further restrictions and remain scriptural.

Even if this true, why does it matter. This nation was founded on the idea that one religion would not impose it's beliefs on another group. Marriage in Christianity can stay the same. A change it the legal definition that does not discriminate against gender is what is needed.

2010-09-19 03:21 AM

archaeologist
Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 79

the above poster really doesn't know about his own nation's founding. there is NO 1 religion forcing their belifes upon others when marriage was defined as an act of union between a man and a woman. that has been the way it has been defined since time began and secular parties have recognized it for milleniums.

women cannot marry women, men cannot marry men for it is unnatural and wrong and it doesn't take a religious belief to see that. if homosexuals were allowed to marry from the beginning how would they 'be fruitful and multiply'? they can't, it is an impossibility and legal changes do not alter the truth.

2010-09-20 01:28 AM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 119

There are plenty of things that man has believed for a thousands of years that have been changed. Slavery, kill women that are not virgins before marriage, stone people to death who work on the sabbath... etc. Things change because a rational society realize that don't make sense at all. Two consenting adults should be able to marry without old, out dated, religous dogma being forced on them in a nation of religious freedom.

Do you just toss out random statements and then not back them up? You know nothing about my background in History.

2010-09-20 12:40 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

Luckily, society has come up with many ways around the traditional ways of creating a family. From artificial insemination, to surrogacy, to adoption... Any two people who would like to have a family, can.

If you feel it is unnatural and wrong, don't do it. It's that simple. But why should your views be pushed on to people who don't think it's wrong? They aren't hurting you by being married. They are going to be together regardless.... what difference does the title make? Other than given certain people who want to feel superior a sense of power over other's actions and rights.

I'm honestly on the verge of believing that the concept of marriage should be done away with completely.... civil unions for all.

2010-09-20 07:12 PM

archaeologist
Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 79

ChristyR Wrote:
Luckily, society has come up with many ways around the traditional ways of creating a family. From artificial insemination, to surrogacy, to adoption... Any two people who would like to have a family, can.

If you feel it is unnatural and wrong, don't do it. It's that simple. But why should your views be pushed on to people who don't think it's wrong? They aren't hurting you by being married. They are going to be together regardless.... what difference does the title make? Other than given certain people who want to feel superior a sense of power over other's actions and rights.

I'm honestly on the verge of believing that the concept of marriage should be done away with completely.... civil unions for all.

'traditional' ways include adoption and 'surogacy' is not anything different from traditional methods except the mother is different. artificial insemination is still doing things the 'tradtional' way it just adds the help of doctors.

you do not get it, it is not a matter of me not doing it if i do not like it. it is wrong plain and simple. homosexuals have chosen an abnormal lifestyle, they have given up the right to normalacy because of that choice. they do not have th eright to marry, they do not have the right ot adopt or have children. they opted out of those rights by their sexual preference choice.

if you do not like christians or religious groups dictting what the definition of marriage is, what gives you a right to dictate to others what it should be or if it should be allowed. if you do not want to marry a man, then stay single--that is your choice.

marriage has been set for thousands of years, you are no one to make a change to that institution just because you do not like it or want it. you do not get to over-rule the billions who do and who practice it each day

2010-09-21 11:14 AM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 197

archaeologist Wrote: it is wrong plain and simple.

Accordingly to your standard of life, a large percentage of people are wrong in their lifestyle. Should people who get divorced not be able to remarry? People who are unfaithful?

... Actually, people who commit adultery should be condemned to death by stoning. Also, women who lose their virginity before marriage should be stoned to death.

... and technically any man who doesn't stone these people to death is not following God's orders.
Leviticus 26 14:39 explains in gory detail what happens to those people. Something to do with beasts taking your children, God torturing you, and then giving you back your children and making you eat their flesh.

That's your standard of life.

By my standard of life, you are delusional. But you are allowed to be delusional as long as you don't force it on me or anyone else. I would never force you to marry a man. Also, I have no intention of marrying a woman.
But it is not my right, or yours, to tell someone who they can or can't love. And if they are in love, they should be able to have the same rights as everyone else.

archaeologist Wrote: "marriage has been set for thousands of years, you are no one to make a change to that institution just because you do not like it or want it. you do not get to over-rule the billions who do and who practice it each day"

You act as though someone is trying to take away your rights?? No one is challenging heterosexual marriage, or it's practices. No one is asking the billions of people who like heterosexual and practice each day to change their patterns.
We are asking to allow the percentage of people who don't enjoy or practice heterosexual marriage to have rights also.