What if a state banned marriage between two athiests?

06-27-2009, 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?

03-08-2010, 06:00 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 151

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.

04-29-2010, 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.

04-29-2010, 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.

04-29-2010, 01:01 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 70

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.

05-08-2010, 06:26 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 204

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

05-10-2010, 02:04 PM

ChristyR
Denton, TX
Posts: 151

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?

05-10-2010, 05:08 PM

MrWonder
Medium City, TX
Posts: 204

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