I delve into the flaws in opposing gay marriage, from an atheist standpoint.
Related Products:
Save Your Marriage
Save Your Marriage
Save Your Marriage Help
I delve into the flaws in opposing gay marriage, from an atheist standpoint.
Categories: Save Marriage |
25 Comments »
Yes, but in the same vain, I’m not violating YOUR rights by marrying someone who’s not YOU.
YOU have the right to define marriage how you see fit, but when a group of people’s LEGAL rights are viewed differently because they can’t call it what you call it, we reach a conflict. You’re just fighting to defend your taste at that point. I, a heterosexual ATHEIST can get married legally and be afforded all the rights though I don’t even believe in god or what the church stands for.
If I had a say in it, I’d just change the legal definition by not calling it marriage. I’d level the field and call them all “domestic partnerships” and leave the definition of said partnership up to the people involved and their church. Since the episcopal church agrees with gay marriage, how are their religious rights not being violated when you say they can’t marry? Once all partnerships are viewed the same legally speaking, I’ll stop fighting for it.
Interesting that you are the one who is trying to bring “religion” or “God” into this discussion. I’m not going there because you will simply dismiss my “religious” beliefs.
Here is the bottom line:
1. You can’t redefine marriage. Look up the word in dictionaries as far back as you can go (and not the pc revisions that have come about in the last several years). In every case there is no mention of same sex marriage. In other words marriage “is what it is”. One man and one woman.
…And that is it. Now, in terms of the institution of marriage. An “institution” is just that because, by definition, it provides stability to society. Making a radical change in this institution would thus be destabilizing to society. Government has an interest in elevating the status of traditional marriage because we know that both male and female working together in raising children is the ideal social arrangement. It is in government’s best interests to promote this arrangement (cont).
…No need to put up the false argument that some married couples don’t/can’t have children. That is beside the point.
2. The idea of discarding or violating a social arrangement that has worked very well for eons is arrogant and absurd. Never mind the bizarre nature of homosexual relationships (look up “bizarre” if you doubt that word applies).
By the way, you made the claim that “…but it’s not violating your personal life…they are not trying to marry you”. (cont)…
I simply refuted that logic by stating that if I shoplift from a store, I’m not stealing from you so it doesn’t directly affect you. Agree?
Have a nice day.
You’re still stating opinion by saying it’s unstable to have gays be families. I was raised partially by a gay couple. Am I gay? No. I have no criminal record, I pay my taxes, I’m college educated and make a very decent living. I’m a very active member of society and that is in part by how I was raised, not who I was raised by. Why then, is it not in society’s best interest? And they didn’t teach me to be atheist. I found that on my own. They’re religious.
Now, I’m only using religion in my argument because 90 percent of the arguments against it are on a religious basis. In islamic countries, you are not allowed to render depictions of Alla. That would be silly in this country to think a person couldn’t draw a picture of Alla, but it is against their beliefs. Furthermore, the dictionary has no legal stance. It matters not that it says marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m arguing equal legal rights, not what to call it.
We don’t need to bring “religion” into this discussion…because you could simply discount it as not your “religion”. There are plenty of other solid and rational reasons to not grant gays the status of being “married”. I understand your comment about the dictionary…but you can’t call it “marriage” if that is not the definition of marriage. Like I said…”it is what it is”. Likewise, we can’t re-define, for example, what the sun is or a tree is (to use a couple random examples).
I accidentally removed your last comment. I have to say that I think the “ideal” situation is to be raised by a happy couple. My mother and father hate each other to this day and I’m quite glad they’re not married. Both of them individually have been perfectly strong role models, but being raised in a single-parent household by an educated, successful woman was the best experience I could have. I think that it’s far too idealistic to assume all straight couples are capable of providing that.
Words are constantly being redefined. “Marriage” is only what it is in the dictionary because it hasn’t changed enough as of yet. The dictionary is not infallible. It’s constantly going through change. 80 years ago, the word “gay” did not mean homosexual, but now it is a definition. I’m speaking about legal rights here and it’s why I don’t want to argue semantics in terms of the word itself, I’m simply arguing for the rights it affords. Civil unions do not unfortunately.
Words are not constantly being redefined. “Gay” is also used by many kids to mean “stupid”. I’m sure you’ve heard this too. The word “gay” was hijacked (for lack of a better term) to desribed those who are homosexuals. Marriage has for thousands of years meant one man/one woman. Do you doubt that? Gays have the same legal rights as do straight people. They now want additional rights.
You are using the word “unstable” to describe families with gay parents. That wasn’t my terminology. What I stated is that government has a vested interest in providing special status to marriage relationships because we know that females and males together bring unique & critical perspectives into the social arrangement of raising children. This is the ideal…and thus what we should strive for. I think it is incredibly arrogant to attempt to radically change an institution like marriage.
I think you need to read up on your dictionary. New definitions are added to words every year. Society, technology, and language constantly force us to add meaning to different words. Think of words that have been modified by slang like “cool” or “radical”. Words are always subject to earning new definitions.
Well, I’m not trying to radically change the institution of marriage, I’m trying to make sure all people are afforded the same rights under a domestic partnership. Marriage is the most comprehensive legally protected partnership, therefore special consideration is being granted solely on sexual preference. Again, I don’t care if we just change the legal term so that the individuals involved may call it what they want, but until that happens, I must demand fair consideration.
Like you said, that is “slang” which is a completely different situation. Of course, people can use words that already exist for different purposes. If people started calling hip people…say…”lamps”, that doesn’t mean that the original definition of a lamp has changed. Make sense?
You absolutely are trying to radically change marriage and what it has been defined as for eons. Gays can hire an attorney to provide legal coverage for their “partner”…and no, the “special consideration” isn’t soley due to sexual preference. It is granted because government rightly recognizes that a male and a female working together as parents provide a unique and critical ideal social arrangement in which to raise children. Do you not agree with that?
PS Gays have the same rights.
Indeed, but I was using slang as an example. The main thing I’m trying to illustrate is that it adds another, equally valid definition to the equation. Let’s think of the word “Nut”. It was once only a legume, but now it can also refer to a perforated and threaded metal hexagon or a part on the neck of a guitar. Both are valid, exclusive definitions and don’t conceptually affect the others.
They do not have the same rights, first off. Look into the custody laws if one partner were to die. It’s very flimsy at best in unions.
Second, I do not agree that there’s anything “ideal” about a man and a woman. I don’t see two men or two women as being any different. You’re assuming I buy in to traditional gender roles, which I do not. I’m still doing very well for myself socially speaking and I’ve never had gender identity problems, despite being from a very complicated parental background.
Every man in the U.S. can marry a woman and every woman can marry a man. Thus, everyone has the same rights. This can’t be disputed. Gays want to have rights expanded just due to their sexual proclivities. I’m very surprised that after many years of life that you don’t recognize that males and females each provide a different and important perspective in how they view life. I’ve never heard anyone challenge that. The family structure has been dad, mom, and children for eons.
I agree that the most ideal situation is to be raised by a “happy” couple (male/female). Unfortunately, your parents allowed hatred to rule their lives instead of forgiveness…and you paid the price. Happens all too often in this world. This is a broken world, and we see divorce as the “solution” far too frequently. Problem is, we still carry forward our “issues” to the next relationship. Gay marriage should not get the same status by government because it is not the social arrangement…
…that is in the government’s best interests to reward with special status as is traditional marriage.
And then there is the problem of turning our backs on the natural (and obvious) design of men and women to be in union physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. that is clearly the way it was meant to be.
Dude we have all messed up in sin. To pratice divinity is a sin. I made a video on homosexuality and why it is not good. the god ooooon the dollar is not the God from the bible “Ra Osirus” or satan. This country was founded by occult members, free masons. Our Four Fathers. I will compare all of your statements with what the bible says and explain it in easy terms. By the way I follow the bible and I am not mad with what you said. I agree though, alot of christians suck
The first one I’ll put up is on homosexuality. Titled, satan is homosexuality. Oh religion does not start wars…men start wars. Wow. I have alot of work to do. lol
Any religious definition attached to marriage was surrendered by religion when that term was written into the law. The state does not require any result of any marriage license or contract. No children need be raised, no real minimum time to stay married, no affiliation to any religion is required, not even cohabitation necessary. Any mention of children is utterly irrelevant in regards to civil law matters of marriage.
Marriage, in state matters, means that stuff/rights granted by the license