NoGodBlog.com

One important note that I feel has been ignored in the issue: If churches can not be forced into marrying gay couples because it violates their religion, cannot the same be said for churches that WANT to marry gays? Shouldn't the Unitarians (or someone else) be speaking up here, demanding the right to marry gays, under their Constitutional right to freedom of religion?

I don't think you can make this argument successfully, because the government isn't prohibiting churches from performing whatever kind of wedding ceremonies they want. If a Unitarian church in Iowa wants to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, the state won't stop them. It just won't recognize the marriage as a valid one under state law.

BUT then the married gay couple in Iowa could sue the state of Iowa for not recognizing their union, thereby trampling their religious liberty...

BUT then the married gay couple in Iowa could sue the state of Iowa for not recognizing their union, thereby trampling their religious liberty...

They could try but it's going to be a tough argument. It hasn't worked for polygamists, and they have a much stronger case that their desired form of marriage is actually mandated by their religion.

Great video explaining where virulent homophobia comes from-closeted gay men who are fighting their own same sex attractions. Thanks to religion for creating an environment where some men are terrified of their own sexuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcAcuS5aXMs&feature=related

Homophobia is SO gay.

Dear Fellow Atheist Bloggers,

As 50% of a long term (11 years) California gay couple, I hardly need tell you that this court case has had an effect on me.

The main thing I do with my time, since reaching retirement, is mock, ridicule, challenge, and debunk religious delusions and the evil done in their name. I own over 100 domain names and have over 80 active websites (no, really) Not all of my sites deal with religion, but the ones I treasure do. To celebrate yesterdays victory I posted on my most radical blog AtheistFag.com including a revised hymn I named, What a Loser We Have in Jesus. I also created a new website intended to directly challenge the lies of homophobic persons suffering from religious delusions. You are invited to visit SanctityofBigotry.com

Other websites I have created so far this week are thetalkingsnake.com and jesuswafers.com. Please do not visit these sites with any food or liquids in your mouth.

I would like to thank the many, many people in the atheist community who have been standing up for my rights, despite the fact that most of you are not gay yourselves. So much for atheists being immoral.

OK, that was my 2 minutes in the spotlight. please keep up the good work!

I tend to work 12 hour days on my sites, any help you can offer in promoting them would be deeply appreciated.

As far as this blog entry goes, it is the state that issues marriage licenses, any involvement of religions is purely parasitic (as in other areas of religion). So religious issues should not be conflated with civil rights.

Hugs,
Steve

Congrats Steve! Are there wedding bells in your future?

good point rusty...

Steve, I'm a minister in the Universal Life Church. I now pronounce you husband and husband. You may now kiss your husband. L'chaim!

Cry4turtles,

At this time I am deferring answers to this question, I appreciate your asking and your good will.

Dave,
He's at work, but I'll get him later :) Thanks!

Ellen announces she's getting married!

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=a7aa1135-3311-484b-9a05-b1593ae768c2

Ellen has been my personal hero for several years now and I wish her all the best.

Wrong Ellen!

Fair 'nuff, Steve. I wish you the best no matter what. I rejoice for our gay community. I can't wait until equal rights for all is accomplished, and this will be old news.

Bull!
I believe in certain gay rights but not all rights.

I know many here do not agree and that is fine.

A marriage is a man and women. No religion involved.

A civil union is for every couple. Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman.

I has been accepted that a "Marriage" is between a man and a woman. Get over it.

A gay couple is NOT the same as a man and a woman couple. If you don't understand that you need some sex education.

Opposition is not so much as what you do in your home. The opposition is having it thrust in our face and told our marriage is not what we think it is.

Have your civil unions, and if that is not good enough, create some other term than marriage or civil union if you don't like it. Be creative.

This is fabulous news, but unfortunately, here in the back-ass ultra red state of Idaho (outside of Boise), the voters recently passed a vote which placed a hate filled amendment to our constitution that bans gay marriage. It also includes that gay couples aren't even allowed to have a civil union.



Way to get with the times, CA! Now, let's just hope other states hop on this equality bandwagon. It's about fucking time that gays are treated equally.

DeepDiver

Opposition is not so much as what you do in your home. The opposition is having it thrust in our face and told our marriage is not what we think it is.

Allowing gays to marry doesn't tell me anything about my marriage, anymore than being with my le$bian friends tells me anything about my own sexuality. If you're secure in your marriage, something like this can't hurt it. If something like this changes your marriage, then something else is wrong within the marriage.

DD,

The opposition is having it thrust in our face and told our marriage is not what we think it is.

I have heterosexuality thrust in my face everyday yet I don't complain or care although I find the thought of it repugnant. How does me being allowed to marry another man somehow change your marriage? Is your marriage so weak and shaky that it can't survive two women tying the knot? You are talking like a right wing religious homophobe.

Have your civil unions, and if that is not good enough, create some other term than marriage or civil union if you don't like it. Be creative.

Creating parallel separate insitutions just isn't enough. It's full marriage or nothing and there is absolutely no room for compromise. Marriage is a civil institution which has evolved for millenia and by extending this right to same sex couples we are expanding equality which is the American thing to do. The same CA supreme court that granted gay marriage this week, made up of all republicans save one democrat, was the same court which made 1nterracial marriages legal in 1948 which was two decades before the federal ruling doing the same. Sometimes it takes a judical decision to do the right thing rather than waiting for the voters to catch up with the reality of peoples lives.
I just don't understand how an atheist like yourself could be opposed to gay marriage. Please provide me with your reasoning for your position since, try as I might, I can find absolutely no compelling secular reason to hold the position that you do other than outright bigotry.

If dimdiver or any other bigot or religious retard can tell me exactly how my lesbo marriage to my wife would affect them adversly in any significant way, I would appreciate it.

Just not liking it or because your imaginary friend says it is wrong DOES NOT count.

Significant.

Just not liking it or because your imaginary friend says it is wrong DOES NOT count.

The thing that is most disturbing to me about his comments are that he is an atheist and is not basing his opposition to marriage equality on an invisible friend.
Who needs enemies when you have a friend like that?

Alex, did I not say "just not liking it"

Duh.

PS My wife likes deep diving. Hee, hee!

DD...I agree with you. Except for one area. Marriage IS about religion. It was religion that gave us the term marriage.

I find it odd that those who claim to believe in the "myth", choose to force the government to change the definition of marriage...thus infringing upon the so called "wall".

It's simply more proof the Sep of Church and State is a myth...

Don't believe me? Let's look at the topic in reverse. Let's pretend marriage was a secular union and Christians used the courts to change the term to mean "one man and one woman"...

If that occurred you'd be screaming about the "myth"...

As for rights...

A gay man can't "marry" another man. Neither can a straight man.

So exactly what "right" are we discussing here?

Comment from: alexatheist

How does me being allowed to marry another man somehow change your marriage?

This is such a shallow, selfish way to look at the subject...

Come to my church one Friday night and let me introduce you to one of the most mixed up kids I've ever met...

Being raised by his gay mom...

Alex...are you so arrogant to believe that 2 gay men can raise a baby girl equal to a heterosexual couple?

carol...

Do you believe a lesbo couple can raise a child equal to a heterosexual couple?

Alex...are you so arrogant to believe that 2 gay men can raise a baby girl equal to a heterosexual couple?

I don't have to believe it, I have the data showing it to be so. Here is the abstract of a study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 showing that "children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or 1esbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual":

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

Unlike you phreedum, I tend to base my opinions on facts and not emotions or half truths told to me by a religious authority figure. You will of course dismiss this scientific study like you do any inconvenient facts that contradict your opinions.

DeepDiver,

Do you find it difficult to accept the fact that sometimes you don't get your way?

The highest court in the state of California looked at this matter very closely, and with 6 out of the 7 Justices being Republicans (Party of Jesus) the majority found that identifying one group of persons to be denied civil rights that are reserved for others is a violation of our Constitution.

There is a word for the irrational fear and loathing of homosexuals, that word is homophobia. You can cling desperately to your bigotry like a safety blanky, or you can take your own advice and get over it.

You can read the entire 172 page decision http://aintnogod.com/images/S147999.PDF or just climb back under your rock.

Hugs!

DD,
Im still waiting for an answer from you to justify your opposition to marriage equality. I would expect these sentiments from a person with religious conditioning but it really bothers me to hear it from a fellow atheist.
Thanks

Comment from: alexatheist

Alex...are you so arrogant to believe that 2 gay men can raise a baby girl equal to a heterosexual couple?

So...yes, you are arrogant.

Unlike you Alex I base my opinions on actual "real life" experiences, and not take the opinion of other arrogant pinheads...

There are certain attributes that ONLY a dad can give his children or ONLY a mom can give her children...

If you want to pretend otherwise fine...

Ungodly...what "civil right" would that be?

Wow Alex...

What a study. They look at 300 children out of an estimated number of 9 million being raised with at least one parent being gay...

Let's see...you're basing your belief on a .00003% of the study group. Wow...how scientific!!!

As stated...I look at "REAL" life.

"children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or 1esbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual"

That reminds me of a movie I watched last night, "The Bird Cage". Definetly ranks high on my list of favs.

I expected as much. A lot of labels placed on me by ignorance in this thread. I have always supported civil unions and equal rights for gay couples, with ONE exception. Only one! And that is that I am not COMFORTABLE with gays adopting children. Note I said COMFORTABLE.

I got a lot of flak on this stance and let me say this. There are many that absolutely cannot stand the idea the gay lifestyle. There are many that take the middle road and accept it but don’t want the rights given to them. There are many that want totally ALL and everything given to them. I am probably 99% on the latter side.

I have seen here real ignorance and intolerance on my views while I have supported most of the gay rights.

Just because I don’t agree 100% has caused some real discord amongst many here. Some have labeled me with homophobia. One has said I believe in an imaginary friend, that I was a bigot, a religious retard.

Some here, sound just like religious zealots. Just on a different side which make themselves no better.

I am proud of my gay friends and support them. They know my stance and appreciate me and my views.

And to the one that called me a bigot and religious retard, I hope you get your “Civil Union” and all the rights you want and deserve. I am not “tolerant” of your rights. I “Support” them.

Oh and by the way, if “Marriage” is a Christian custom, why do so many here support it and want it? Why not go with “Civil Union”?


That is what my wife (female) and I (male) have. Sorry if I offended any heterophobics here with my non same sex union.

I am beginning to wonder if this is this a gay blog or atheist blog?

Finally:

As far as MY preferring "Marriage” as a title to our relationship, it has nothing to do with religion, for us. It is simply a tradition of a man and woman.

Santa Clause to us is a tradition. To me, it too has nothing to do with religion.

Easter to us is a tradition. To me, it is the goddess Ester. A fairy tale.

There are many traditions that may have in the past had some religious history intermingled. So what!

Some here wish to destroy these traditions. You are the ones that are intolerant.

I will continue to celebrate Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and my Marriage of man and woman. If you don’t like it, go to hell.

I will continue to celebrate Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and my Marriage of man and woman. If you don’t like it, go to hell.

I not only like it, I agree with you 100 percent.

DD,
Thanks for your honesty even though you are dead wrong. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question why you support civil unions but not marriage. I'm curious to know the reason.
Thanks

Alex:
Tradition

Alex, why do you want a christian tradition?

I asked how my marrying my girlfriend would harm anyone posting here and didn't get an answer.

So, one kid being raised by a gay is messed up? Not news. I work for Social Services and see tons of messed up kids and families as the result of hetro marriages. So what should be done about that then?

Of course, the usual criticism that two gays can't raise a well balanced child. BS. What about single parents that can't raise a well balanced child?? So what should be done about that then???

At least diver admits he just doesn't like it. Well tough shit and he can got to hell, too.

Carol, you are one that uses emotions to control your thought processes. Obviously you are a very angry person.

Seing how you work for social services, I can see how it is so messed up now.

Next time, don't put words in my mouth. I said 'uncomfortable', not 'did not like it'. I also did not say harm. You read what you want to read, not what is said.

So what should be done with these kids? I sure as hell would not put them with a couple that is full of hate for the opposite sex.

AND before you convort what I just said, most gays do NOT hate the opposite sex, but there are a few that do. These couples need to have kids denied and they are the ones I have issues with.

Seing how you work for social services, I can see how it is so messed up now.

That was said in anger and sorry about that. The SS is in disarray, but obviously I don't know if she is really part of the problem.

But the rest stands.

Gee diver, I don't think I'm the one with anger issues.

Not to mention stereotyping. I don't think you have missed a single one attributed to gays.

And yes, I am single handedly distroying SS. Evil athiest, man hating, dyke that I am.

DeepDiver,
The civil right I was referring to is marriage. Your whole argument seems to be based on an extremely erroneous allegation.

If we assume that the context of this discussion is marriage in the USA, it is a perfectly clear fact that marriage is a civil matter.

When I wish to get a marriage license, as a resident of California, I must go to the County Clerk's office for my county. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not by faith-based fairy tale vendors.

I have now demonstrated to you that marriage is a civil matter, so your assertions to the contrary do not align with objective reality.

Further, a false claim often made by people suffering from religious delusions is that Jeebus or Yahweh or Allah or some other sky fairy invented marriage in the first place. This claim is as false and manufactured as all other Fundamentalist dogma. Marriage was around for thousands of years before any of todays popular sky fairy characters were invented. Families have survived despite the existence of religions and other forms of parasitic organizations.

Since marriages existed before the comic book-character God of Abraham, it is hardly a religious matter in its origins.

Apart from Fundamentalist-style baseless assertions, your arguments don't seem to have much meat.

As a Unitarian Universalist, most of the UU clergy I've talked with is in agreement with the position that Dave stated,"The only true solution to the Gay Marriage issue is to separate a religious institution from a civil one."
I agree that it is a separation of church and state issue, the government shouldn't be in the business of declaring that the marriages performed by one religion are recognizable by the state while those performed by another religious institution are not.
As a denomination, UU's (both atheist and theist) have a long standing history of fighting for equal rights for same-sex partnerships.

Here's a link to a brief synopsis of some of the nearly denomination-wide support for same-sex marriage amongst Unitarian Universalists:
http://archive.uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/

The right to preside over the marriage of whomever they choose is exactly what many of these clergy have been saying for a long time. The UUA's stance on issues like these are exactly the sorts of thing that make me proud to be a Unitarian Universalist.

I am having trouble understanding why denying same-sex couples the title of marriage is important for maintaining the "tradition" of marriage. How does the state conferring the title of marriage on same-sex unions in any way change anything about anyone's heterosexual marriage? It reminds me when Jon Stewart was on Larry King -- he said he was upset about gay marriage until he found out it wouldn't be mandatory.

I find it surprisingly naive that anyone who would try to make the argument that gays should be granted all rights except the right to raise children would be indignant about being called out as a bigot. All of my real-life experience shows me that same-sex couple raise kids who are just as well-adjusted, healthy and emotionally stable as their opposite-sex couple raised peers. This is by no means a scientific conclusion, since real-life experience is just another term for anecdotal evidence.

Even if we question the legitimacy of the AAP study, I have yet to see a scientifically valid study proving the opposite conclusion -that gays are doing worse at parenting than straights. I mean, the straight community sets such a ridiculously high standard in child-rearing, doesn't it?

Waltdakind,

A very dear gay atheist friend of mine hangs around at the UU church in his town. He is full of praise for the group.

I believe it was the UU, a few years ago, that ran a TV ad welcoming gay couples. I hope I'm not attributing this incorrectly. Anyway I was moved nearly to tears to find a religious organization (if it is indeed religious) in my home country (USA) that was not scapegoating me like the vast majority of religions and political organizations so dearly love to do. IIRC there were some TV stations that refused to run the ad in question. I had never known before that religious messaging on TV station was required to meet some certain base level of anti-gay bigotry.

AND before you convort what I just said, most gays do NOT hate the opposite sex, but there are a few that do.

I'd bet there are more people who hate the opposite sex in hetero-marriages.

carol, whatever.

ungodly,undisputed, civil unions have been around for many thousands of years. this entire discussion is around gays wanting to redefine the WORD marriage. Wedlock, civil unions, whatever you want to call it is fine. Give the same rights to gays no matter what you call the ceremony. The word marriage comes from xtianity for a union between man and woman. Even though language has changed over the years, and the word "Marriage" probably did not even exist a thousand years ago, the concept of that word is the union of man and woman. Why can that not be accepted? If a couple is united and have the same rights, where is the problem?

UnGodly,
Glad that the UUs near you were able to touch you so deeply, just sad that it is the result of so many other organizations being so close-minded and intolerant.
I call UUism my religion, but in these circles usually religion implies supernaturalism and dogma, two things that I abhor.
A significant portion of UUs I know are atheist, so in that regard it's non-religious (at least when it comes to expecting someone to accept belief in a deity). Non-UU atheist friends tell me that they don't consider it a real religion, and from them I know they mean that as a compliment, so I take it in stride.
It's so disappointing that the message, "you're allowed to be gay and go to this church" would be worthy of controversy.

DD

Alex:
Tradition

Slavery was a tradition in this nation for a long time too but we decided that it was wrong just as CA decided that second class citizenship based on sexual orientation is wrong. Not all traditions are worth hanging onto.
Anyway, expanding the right of marriage to same sex couples in no way infringes on straight peoples right to the tradition of marriage so your argument really isn't valid..

Why can that not be accepted? If a couple is united and have the same rights, where is the problem?

The problem is that separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal) does not work in practice and there is absolutely no secualr argument for creating parallel institutions like civil unions or domestic partnerships. Anything less than marriage means that gays really aren't equal to straights in the eyes of the law. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that marriage is a civil institution which has been "redefined" throughout the ages to reflect the changing reality of people's lives. Until the 1960s in this country couples of different races were forbidden to marry because people cited tradition and biblical passages to justify their bigotry but now most of us look back in shame at this prohibition.
There is nothing divine or unchangeable about a civil arrangment such as marriage and in the end it really doesn't matter if you are uncomfortable with gay marriage or not since it is now the law in the most populous state in the country and will eventually be the law in all fifty states. I suppose you will just have to adjust to it and hope your marriage can somehow survive if two men in your neighbourhood decide to get married.
We are talking about real people's lives here who have an unfair tax burden because of not being able to file joint tax returns, being left out of medical decisions or visiting a loved one in hospital because they are not considered family, or having less legal protection when it comes to raising kids.
I'm just perplexed that an atheist could be opposed to marriage equality!

Comment from: UnGodly

Since marriages existed before the comic book-character God of Abraham, it is hardly a religious matter in its origins.

Prove it...

And again I'll say...gay men are not prevented from marriage. A gay man can not marry another man. Neither can a straight man...

Comment from: alexatheist

Anyway, expanding the right of marriage to same sex couples

No Alex...you've asked the courts to redefine the definition of marriage. A clear violation of your so called "myth"...

Don't believe me? Let's look at the topic in reverse. Let's pretend marriage was a secular union and Christians used the courts to change the term to mean "one man and one woman"...

On what grounds would Christians sue in order to change the legal definition? The legal protections extended to citizens by civil marriage has to be given equally to all citizens because of the constitution. I don't see how you can make a constitutional argument to restrict it in the way you suggest.

No Alex...you've asked the courts to redefine the definition of marriage. A clear violation of your so called "myth"...

Legal definitions change all the time, and are not necessarily equivalent to regular English definitions. For example, a tomato is legally a vegetable, despite the fact that it is a fruit. I think you're confused about this issue, phreedm, because you're fixated on the whole "redefining a word which the Christians own" issue. The real issue is all about the right to equal protection guaranteed by the constitution. If they changed all marriages (even the straight ones) to "civil unions" or "Marklars" would you feel better?

And again I'll say...gay men are not prevented from marriage. A gay man can not marry another man. Neither can a straight man...

And now gay men can marry other gay men and 1esbians can marry other 1esbians in California and soon the entire nation.

No Alex...you've asked the courts to redefine the definition of marriage. clear violation of your so called "myth"...

Marriage has been redefined several times through the ages to reflect the changes in societal norms. Biblical marriage allowed for polygamy but in the West civil marriage was redefined to be limited to one man and one woman of the same race. In the 1960s it was redefined again to include 1nterracial couples. In the last few years marriage has been expanded in several countries, and now two US states, to include same sex couples. I'm sure that in the future marriage will be further redefined.

A clear violation of your so called "myth"...

I'm talking about civil marriage which is recognised by the US government. Clergy are granted the power to marry couples by the state not by the church. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that distinction?

The town idiot wrote this

And again I'll say...gay men are not prevented from marriage. A gay man can not marry another man. Neither can a straight man...

I propose that we restrict marriage to be between one human and one goat. None of us would be "prevented from marriage". We could all marry any old goat we want. ... Something tells me Phreeky already has.

Comment from: alexatheist

Biblical marriage allowed for polygamy

Wow...believing in another myth I see...

I heard that coporations can marry. Would that be gay or straight?

DeepDiver,
Would it fix things if they wrote on the liscence that it was specifically for a heterosexual marriage or a GLBT marriage?

Sorry, I still can not wrap my head around the selfish attitude of some people. I could understand the knee jerk reactionary responses we see from some people on the subject of gay marriage if Activist Judges™ were trying to force straight men to marry gay men.

Here is the point some folks may be missing, gay marriage is optional. If you do not like gay marriage, you are free to refrain from marrying someone of the same sex. It's freedom. I'm all for freedom for people that hate me and people that don't hate me.

Since marriage licenses are issued by the state, and not a vendor of fairy tales, marriage is a civil matter. Don't like it? Too bad.

I can't believe I'm doing the leg work for the phreakshow (and I can't believe how ignorant he is about this), but there are numerous examples of polygamy in the buybull:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/polygamy.html

One of the hundreds of reasons why I loathe religion.

Oh, and you keep talking about myth.
Sadly, you believe in the biggest myth of all.

Wow...believing in another myth {polygamy is biblical} I see...

Gen 4:19 Lamech married two women...

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Deut 21:15 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love

2 Samuel 12:8 God tells David that if his 700 wives and 300 concubines arent enough he will provide more

Isa 4:1-2 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our own bread and wear our own clothing; only let us be called by your name, to take away our shame. In that day shall the Branch of Jehovah be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth excellent and comely for those who have escaped from Israel.

alex, I actually enjoy discussing these things with you. At least you debate logically without being controlled by anger or other emotions.

I disagree with you on this basis.

A does not equal B. A union between and man and woman, is not the same as a union between 2 men or 2 women. I don't see how anyone can say that they are the same exact thing. No matter what you call the union.

septos came close to hitting the nail on the head, but it smacks too much as being sarcastic. I don't think he was being sarcastic, but it could be read that way.

I would just like to be able to have my child be able to say, my parents are married, and it to mean that they are man and woman. Saying they are 'heterosexual marriage' just doesn't sound right and is kind of weird. Don't know the word I want to use.

alex, I actually enjoy discussing these things with you. At least you debate logically without being controlled by anger or other emotions.

I enjoy discussing the issue with you too even though your position is totally indefensible. :-)

would just like to be able to have my child be able to say, my parents are married, and it to mean that they are man and woman

Why does it matter? are you so threatened by the idea of gays or the thought that someone might mistake you as gay that you must constantly assert your heterosexuality? most people who meet me assume that I'm straight which I think is funny and not bothersome at all because I am totally secure with my sexuality. I think you might want to recognise that you have homophobic feelings and try to learn why. In any case the word marriage will continue to be regarded by default as meaning heterosexual marriage, unless otherwise stated, just due to the fact that straights far outnumber gays.

Maybe I'm off the mark here but I'm guessing that you probably don't have any close family or friends who are openly gay so you don't really see the marriage issue in terms of the impact it has on real people's lives. If you got to know me, or someone like me, very well I think you would change you opinion.

Maybe I'm off the mark here

You are 100% correct.

I had a very good and close friend that was gay. Died of AIDS. He was extremely open about it. Loved him more than you would believe. (But not that way)

DD
In that case, I'm sure that you can understand the positive impact that your friend might have had if given the choice to marry. Marriage encourages men, gay and straight, to grow up, become responsible, and be less promiscuous.

alex, why are we labled homophobics when we have a disagreement?

We don't call gays heterophobics.

And, if he had a chance for full rights under a civil union, I am sure he would have been very happy.

By the way, he was married to a woman to start with and had 3 daughters. After his divorce, he continued to be a great father to them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html

Critics Slam Boston Doctor Who Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids

It's ludicrous to say that there's a single correct definition of the word "marriage." If that were true, then state legislatures wouldn't be able to define it in the first place, any more than they could define the speed of light.

alex, why are we labled homophobics when we have a disagreement?

I said you seem to have homophobic feelings and then I suggested that you might want to try to figure out why. If you were religious it would follow that you would have had these attitudes punded into you but as an atheist who can think for himself it makes no sense to me why you seem so upset that gays can now marry in CA or that someone might mistakenly think that you are gay. I have certain xenophobic tendencies too but I recognise them and I understand exactly where they come from.

We don't call gays heterophobics.

I've never heard of any gay person who advocated for restricting the equality of straight people based solely on their sexual orientation.

Thanx to Phreedm for reminding me that the religious arent the only ones brewing up intollerance.

First of all, i agree with u that marriage is a completely relgious term and i, myself would rather have a secular celebration when the time comes. However, to receive the same respect and recognition we have to take on the tradtional terms. Settling for civil unions (even though thats all i want) is seltting for seperate but equal and thats simply understood. Since marriage is ONLY a religious institution in the eyes of god, then only confirmed Christians should be allowed to enter into this "holy union" huh? Aside from ALL of that, simply put there are those that wish to be married under god (NOT ME) so ask yourself if this is important enough for you to influence a restriction on so many others' lives that doesnt even directly effect you. I mean this fuckin thing is LEGAL in South Africa. We are so behind!

Also, children with same sex parents suffer no more developmentally, intellectually or emotionally than those of the opposite sex. If there is any additional suffering it is most certainly inflicted by children influenced by parents with minds such as yours. Just live and let live dude, seriously. I cant imagine how this even affects you, and if at all its nothing compared to this restiriction on our lives.

First of all, i agree with u that marriage is a completely relgious term and i, myself would rather have a secular celebration when the time comes.

Marriage in America is NOT a religious institution! Only civil marriages are recognised by the government (although many people choose to have a religious ceremony). The power vested to clergy is the same power that the government extends to government officials such as a justice of the peace to conduct a marriage and issue a secular marriage certificate. My parents were married in a non religious civil ceremony at the village courthouse and I know people who have had non religious weddings conducted on the beach in Hawaii, onboard a cruise ship by the captian, or out in the woods here in NC. The fact is that a religious marriage means absolutely nothing legally unless it is officiated by someone who has the government authority and license to do so.

I've never heard of any gay person who advocated for restricting the equality of straight people based solely on their sexual orientation.

Have I implied that we should restrict your rights? You should have all the same rights that I have. I believe our only disagreement is on what your union and mine should be called. If that is so important to you then call it whatever you want.

Have I implied that we should restrict your rights?

Yes that is exactly what you are advocating.

Creating a separate but equal paralell institution to marriage based soley on an unalterable trait such as sexual orientation creates second class citizenship. Blacks in America after desegregation were offered seats on the bus and their space at lunch counters that were set apart from those used by whites which we now know was wrong. Seperate but equal is nothing but instituionalised prejudice and is unAmerican.

You should have all the same rights that I have.

Say that 10 times, and then tell Alex he can't get married if he wants to.

So, I see that Captain Asshat has disappeared now that we have again taught him something about his buybull, and the massive immorality that lives in it.

Fucking read the thing, jackass. It might just open your eyes to the horror that's in it.

There’s absolutely NO reason gays should be

allowed to escape the misery of matrimony

and the excruciating pain of alimony.

Hook ‘em all up.

Marriage is a social institution and there is no inherent "right" to have it apply to just any type of union between individuals. Like it or not marriage receives public support in various forms.

Are the majority of Americans bigots because they do not support changing the definition of marriage? We are not and it's absurd to cling to such an argument.

-Tim

Basically, four judges have attempted to overrule the will of the people in California. This is unjust on its face and will now require a constitutional amendment to rectify.

The whole argument used to justify the ruling is bogus. There is no inherent "right" to marriage. The institution of marriage is defined by society as a whole. It isn't subject to the agenda of a minority or judicial fiat.

-Tim

All you need to know about the purpose of altering and therefor nullifying the traditional definition of marriage is this:

It is a deliberate attempt to destroy the traditional family unit so as to usher in a "new" definition of society as envisioned by the Marxist philosophy. It's all there if you take the time to read.

Marxism is antithetical to our way of life and we ignore its creeping advance at our peril.

-Tim

Tim:

It is a deliberate attempt to destroy the traditional family unit so as to usher in a "new" definition of society as envisioned by the Marxist philosophy.

Ummm...'traditional family unit' is pretty much a myth.

Are the majority of Americans bigots because they do not support changing the definition of marriage?

Ummm...yes, you pretty much are.
Telling one targeted, specific group they're not allowed to have the same privileges everyone else is entitled to is called...drum roll, please!
BIGOTRY.
Really, an argument from numbers is pathetic. It really is.
Do better.

Oh, & this 1?

Marxism is antithetical to our way of life and we ignore its creeping advance at our peril.

We already have 2 court jesters here: 3's a crowd, as the adage goes.
Homosexuality as a gateway political move on the part of communists.
That's so vastly amusing on so many levels.

Here's a good one:

KA,

Greetings. It's been a while since we've had a chance to disagree!

It's pretty funny to see you post a response that itself is pretty "pathetic." When's the last time you opened a dictionary? You can't get by on simply calling everyone you disagree with a bigot.

Anyway, I can't take you seriously when you say that the traditional family unit is a "myth." Try taking a look around or perhaps even looking up the data on the makeup of families in the U.S. these days!

alexatheist,

I'm not convinced homosexuality is an "unalterable trait", but I'm willing to keep an open mind to the research as it progresses.

That issue is really not the reason marriage should stay as it is - between a man and a woman. As I have said many times and will continue to say, society has a vital interest in the institution of marriage. For one thing, if marriage did not provide the benefits of bringing in the next generation of people in a society, then we could pretty much do away with it. That's oversimplified, of course, but I'm trying to get folks to understand what mariage really is as opposed to what it is not.

Here's the essence of my argument: Why would a majority in any society want to give special benefits to relationships between consenting adults that holds NO possibility of a larger benefit accruing to society as a result of the union?

I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this, but here goes...

If society has no say in the definition of marriage and it is a "civil right", then let's take the "gay marriage" argument to it's logical conclusion. You would have to agree that as a society we should then grant marriage licenses to anyone for any purpose!

For example, three men and a woman. Or perhaps, three women and one man. Why not? It's their "right" isn't it?

If you say this is absurd, then you had better be prepared to explain how you are going to deny the "civil right" to marriage to anyone who wants it!

Tim

Anyway, I can't take you seriously when you say that the traditional family unit is a "myth." Try taking a look around or perhaps even looking up the data on the makeup of families in the U.S. these days!

OK, I'll take a look around:
My atheist marriage with nuclear family is on the skids after 33 years.

My best friend (believer) is on her second marriage, married to a bisexual man. They have one child together , two from the previous marriage. Her first husband has another child with a woman he has an on/off relationship with.

Another friend Baptist, is in 33 marriage (same anniversary as mine), but husband has been having an affair with neighbor for about 15 years. They stay together for appearances and the children.

Another friend believer, is on second marriage, one son from first, one child from second. Son in constant trouble, kicked out of military school. This friend's gay brother is married to another man.

Friend X, a pagan, and bisexual, is in on/off relationship with friend Y, a le$bian. Both are divorced from former husbands. Y has children, one gay, one straight. Last year they plannned to get married, but plans fell through.

My father-in-law, (don't know his beliefs, but he attends church) is on his sixth marriage. Has 6 children by 2 of his wives.

My brother-in-law divorced his catholic wife after having 6 kids and using prostitutes and charging them to his credit card. Blamed the wife for the bad marriage.

Other bro-in-law has been divorced twice--both wives cheated on him. He has one son. Both exes are remarried.

Sis-in-law married someone old enough to be her father-both ministers. Never wants children.

My son has one son with ex girl-friend, and one and one child on the way with his wife. Just got full custody of his son. The ex has 3 other children by 3 other men with a 4th on the way by yet another man(and at least one miscarriage). Her mother had 4 kids by two different fathers and is divorced and remarried-Both of them-(mother and daughter) are extremely religious. Oh, I forgot to say, my son thinks religion is stupid, but his wife believes.

My best friend's sister is in an inter_racial marriage-very religious, 3 kids of their own and two from his previous marriage/relationships. They were fostering/going to adopt two boys who were taken from his crack-addicted ex-step-daughter, but she got clean long enough to take them back. Those two boys have different dads, as does the one she's carrying now.

And in my teacher friend's school, it is not uncommon for a homeroom to have no more than two or three students with both a mother and father in the home. And that's not always the original parents.

Tim:

Greetings. It's been a while since we've had a chance to disagree!

Still taking Savage as a legitimate source, I see.

It's pretty funny to see you post a response that itself is pretty "pathetic." When's the last time you opened a dictionary? You can't get by on simply calling everyone you disagree with a bigot.

& the dictionary says (drumroll please)
1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Anyway, I can't take you seriously when you say that the traditional family unit is a "myth." Try taking a look around or perhaps even looking up the data on the makeup of families in the U.S. these days!

Wikipedia says (drum roll please):
"Family values is a political and social concept used in various cultures to describe values that are believed to be traditional in that culture and in support of the idea that families are the basic units of culture. The phrase has different meanings in different cultures. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the term has been frequently used in political debate, especially by social and religious conservatives, who believe that the world has seen a decline in family values since the end of the Second World War.[1] Because the term is vague, and means different things to different people, "family values" has been described as a political buzzword, power word, or code word predominantly used by right-wing or conservative political parties and media providers."
There goes those that set of talking points.

For example, three men and a woman. Or perhaps, three women and one man. Why not? It's their "right" isn't it?

Old Slippery Slope Tim-MAY is @ it again.
Next, you'll insist on intermarriage between species as a civil right.
I'm happily married to my couch, dammit!
No, we're talking 2 consenting adults here. This is a specious argument. You may as well argue that shoplifting leads to serial murder.

Tim,

If society has no say in the definition of marriage and it is a "civil right", then let's take the "gay marriage" argument to it's logical conclusion. You would have to agree that as a society we should then grant marriage licenses to anyone for any purpose!

Why do consider this to be the only logical conclusion? Are you perhaps relying on the Slippery Slope fallacy to make your argument?

alatham:

Are you perhaps relying on the Slippery Slope fallacy to make your argument?

Oh trust me: it gets worse from here. I've had run-ins w/Tim-MAY before. He just comes here to play PTA (prod the atheist), & get some negative attention.
He makes jcc look reasonable - I kid you not.

Oh Tim?
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.
If the shoe fits, as they say...

KA,

Aw, c'mon! Give me a break or at least a little credit.

Now are you up for the debate or not? Why is it a "specious argument" to postulate that folks out there will want the civil right of marriage to include what THEY want, hmmmm? Actually, they are already doing so!

Who says we're talking about 2 consenting adults and nothing else... you? Open your eyes, my friend, perhaps your mind will follow.

I have provided an argument and I'm waiting to hear some serious discussion.

alatham,

I didn't say my argument was the ONLY possibility. I'm simply following the logic of those who argue that marriage is a "civil right" equal to other natural rights as recognized by the writers of our Constitution.

KA,

I just love being judged by those who don't know me!

If your gonna rely on pronouncements about the character of someone you don't even know, you are going to look foolish. Worse, you won't be able to rely on this to make your points!

Tim:

I just love being judged by those who don't know me!

I know you well enough, old son.

Now are you up for the debate or not? Why is it a "specious argument" to postulate that folks out there will want the civil right of marriage to include what THEY want, hmmmm? Actually, they are already doing so!

Oh, I remember this waltz.
Still cruising the NAMBLA sites? That was the last time we had this argument, you managed to conflate pederasty w/homosexuality, if memory serves. Or @ least you tried.
People are people. They'll consistently try to piggyback off someone else. Regardless of rationale. Or apples being equal to oranges.
Fact is, your side is losing. Gay people have a RIGHT to get married. I can define civil rights, you won't listen. I can dredge up all sorts of quotes from the Founding Fathers to disprove your 'majority rules!' dreck. You still won't listen. Likely you'll pull the 'some of my best friends are gay!' canard. Still you'd deny them the right.
My personal theory on your hero, Michael Savage, is that him & Allen Ginsberg were having a fling, & AG left him for a younger man.
Hell hath no fury, as they say.

You're not looking for any serious discussion. You just want to start trouble for the sake of it. You've admitted as much in the past.

If we're allowing gays to marry under the guise of

"equal protection,"

then why can't the mormons have multiple wives

under the same laws?

And,

there’s absolutely NO reason gays should be

allowed to escape the misery of matrimony

and the excruciating agony of alimony.

Hook ‘em all up.

KA,

OK, let me try making my point another way.

For the sake of argument, imagine a tribe of Indians isolated from the world as we know it. The tribe has norms and standards of behavior regarding how people interact as sexual creatures, ie. coming together for the purpose of pleasure and/or procreation.

The social norms of the tribe dictate that a man and a woman coming together is acceptable in the right time and place. Two men or two women coming together is not.

Now imagine yourself visiting this tribe and trying to inform them that their social norms are wrong and that anyone in the tribe can come together with any other, it is their right. Would you be successful? What do you think they would say?

All I am trying to get across is that is that the "civil rights" line of reasoning regarding marriage is fatally flawed. After many attempts, I have yet to have someone be able to argue convincingly that individual civil rights include a right to marry!

Instead of dodging the challenge, why don't you make your case convincingly that natural, civil rights of citizens includes marriage?

Atheistud,

My point exactly. Why isn't polygamy recognized as a "civil right"?

I'll tell you why. Because it is OUTSIDE the norms and standards of the society as a whole!

Look, I realize there may come a day when our society as a whole will allow the definition of marriage to change into something different than it is today. That day has not come.

On the subject of Polygamy:

Here's another aspect that bolsters my argument about the "civil right" aspect as put forth by advocates of "Gay Marriage."

In Texas they allow that Polygamist sect to have their "marriages", but they are not recognized under the law. As long as no abuse of children occurred they were left alone.

So why is this so? How can it be that there is a religios definition of marriage that isn't recognized by the law? Conversely, why aren't the Polygamists prevented from practicing this form of marriage?