If You Don’t Like Gay Marriage, Don’t Have One
A simple philosophy that is so mindbogglingly easy to follow, yet the religious seem to be up in arms about gay marriage, and they get worse every year. Somehow the religious seem to think that they came up with this great idea called “marriage” and that is has been violated by homosexuals. The truth, as it so often is in these cases, is completely the opposite.
Marriage predates verifiable recorded history, essentially a social extension of the mating procedure for reproduction. The Greeks and Romans had marriages, both opposite sex and same sex. There were no civil ceremonies, only an “agreement” for husband and wife, or husband and husband, wife and wife accordingly.
So what violated this traditional standard of marriage? Oh that’s right…it was the Christians.[1] In 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans banned same-sex marriage. In 390, three other Christian emperors, Valentinian II, Theodoisus, and Arcadius, made homosexual sex a crime punishable by death (burned alive because Christians are so merciful).
As I write this, religious fundamentalists across several different religions are rallying together to support a California proposal that effectively bans homosexual marriage. Marriage, they reckon, should be up to the religions, not the state. I ask, why can’t you have it both ways?
It would be simple. Define a state marriage that has all the perks of “regular” marriage, allowing anyone to marry anyone. Let the religions decide what they want to do about marriage within religion. There would be no difference in opinion either way. Religions would still reckon that state marriages weren’t governed by God, whilst the religious homosexuals forced to take a state marriage as their only option would argue that they were.
It has worked in the UK for the last few years, and there is no reason why it couldn’t work anywhere else. Secularisation is the only sufficient train of thought that respects the wishes of all groups. It calls for a separation of church and state. The state cannot control the church and the church cannot control the state. A very simple relationship that allows people to either align with one or both, depending on what they want to do.
So yes, let’s be traditionalists. Let’s take marriage back to its original status: An agreement between two people to be loyal and faithful to each other for the rest of their lives.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
I would like to address the original question of why there is such a strong objection to gay marriage by so many.
In all states, all marriage is a function of the state. It can be performed by a minister who is sanctioned by the state, but the couple must still have the completed state documents.
If the state allows gay marriage, then the state is giving “official” recognition to a relationship that is anathema to true homophobes. If, and when, gay adoption becomes a real possibility in states, you will see the same kind of outcry for this state-approved function – just different reasons why god doesn’t like it.
I have been around for many decades in the deep South and have come to this conclusion: it is not about marriage, per se; it is misogyny.
From what I have heard around the country and certainly in the South, there is nothing worse than a man who gives up his “god-given entitlement” to be the penetrator to take on the “woman’s” role. This is extremely threatening to many men. Better an ax murderer than effeminate! Then there is much anger over lesbians who remove themselves from the “pool” of available mates (possibly not like dick?). Another threat.
Of course, gay marriage would not impact straight marriage at all! And, of course, that is not the real issue, which is, once again, to keep any official recognition from homosexuals. After all, who could we harass, belittle, maim, and kill if we acknowledged homos as actual people?
Just wanted to let you know Norway changed a law recently, allowing gay couples to get married..
While I Think that state sponsored marrgies would be great the topic of seperately but equal come to mind.
Mind you it would be between religion and state (two thing that should never mix there is some reasoning behind it.
I don’t care if a guy marries a goat. The whole thing is about money. People can do whatever they want, just don’t ask me to pay for it. Like a married tax exemption, death benefit or whatever. You do what you want….You pay for it…..simple.
If you follow a consistent philosophical approach to marriage, the only sensible outcome is to keep government out of the marriage business altogether.
What proponents of ‘gay marriage’ fail to see is that they are simply expanding a problem rather than solving it. The problem is government meddling into the free relationships established among free individuals. If we are rational we see that for example, polygamous marriage should be as legal as any kind of marriage, yet you don’t see advocates of getting government involved into ‘gay marriage’ mentioning this.
Apparently even when people claims to want to make the system more ‘fair’, ends up wanting to make some people more equal than others, that is why the only solution is to get government out of this business and let people arrange whatever legal (though contract law) relationships they freely choose.
I completely agree with Uriel. A nice illustration in fiction of zero gov’t involvement in marriage is in Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
For some reason my wife disagrees w/me & thinks allowing gay marriage somehow discriminates against religious people. I don’t think she gets the point, and hopefully after she reads this post she’ll change her mind.
This issue is just one example of why the Libertarian Party should become viable in the future. Those in favor of socially liberal issues such as this should not have to hitch their wagons to the Democrats’ ruinous Marxist leanings on economic issues.
oh, dear, Darlane pulled out the ‘you can’t prove god doesn’t exist’ trick…
Well looks like fear and ignorance prevailed over reason in California this time…
@ #59
Like many of her ghastly ilk, Darlanne considers that anything she believes is true by default.
While anything she doesn’t believe requires ironclad proof before it can merely be considered.
There is a usable rule of thumb, however…
CD
Totally agree, no one can tell you or give you permission to love who you wanna love. Props.
I am so tired of this. I have considered all the repercussions of this “Gay Marriage” issue and have come to the conclusion that nobody “gets it”. Below are three arguments AGAINST gay marriage that are more intelligent and clearer than others. Go and read all of the con arguments that you can find and then read the following arguments against Gay Marriage and I think you will agree that my arguments are at least as intelligent if not more intelligent than any being proffered by anyone else:
#1. Because.
#2. God said “no”. He talks to me. I know. (send money)
#3. If gays can marry each other, they’ll be have gay children who will have gay marriages and more gay kids and pretty soon, ungays will be in the minority and then it might be our marriages that are a sin in the eyes of god (It is a sin. He talks to me. I know.) and a moral travesty capable of destroying the very fabric of society.
b
@Bill
#1 is not an argument.
#2 is not backed up by anything.
#3 is not even supported by biology…not just because gay people cannot have children with each other, but because upbringing has no effect on sexuality.
I have two gay son’s I love and restpect them in their relationships.we are all a family. But Gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God. they have had civil union’s in their like commitements.
But they realize God made marriage for a man and a woman. they agreeand are happy living their life. why try to fight over what the people have spoken on. we don’t want it.
I want my son’s treatrd fairley. But not to go againest God word.
That’s right, Sue! So you be sure and stone those li’l tykes to death if you catch them working on the Sabbath. Or eating shellfish. Or wearing clothing of mixed threads. Or cutting their beards.
Or is it just the parts of the ‘word of God’ that hapopen to match your own disgusting bigotry that you uphold?
Definition of bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Look in the mirror lately Chris? Because that’s also you. And not just intolerance but downright hate. You say that I believe anything is true by default and yet I’m pretty sure if God Himself came down right now and said hey Chris, I’m REAL, you’d turn your eyes away and deny it. It’s fine if you don’t want to believe in God, or can’t, or find it absurd, whatever suits your life and heart. But the only “ghastly” attitude I’ve seen here in these comments is yours. You are NO different than those you set out to tear down and despise. It’s sad really because no matter what, we all have to live in this world together, regardless of what comes after. Negativity breeds negativity and nothing else. Nothing good, nothing productive. It breaks down any real true communication as to how two sides with opposing beliefs can make any real progress as to making this a better world.
Not one single time did I tear you down for you not believing as I do. And Sue was expressing her own beliefs and I thought she did that without being “disgusting” as you called her. She believes it’s wrong in the eyes of God. YOU don’t accept that and yet you demand with a lot of ugliness that everybody put down their bibles and not believe. I don’t know how you don’t see the hypocrisy in that.
As for the topic of this post … I live in California. I’m a Christian. Guess what? I didn’t VOTE. And why? Because while I stand by my faith for my own life, I also don’t believe I should impose it on others who do not believe as I do. Therefore, I felt it was the right thing to do, to not vote on the matter. Whereas, I’ve no doubt that if we had a proposition come out this next election that involved anything anti-Christian, you’d have voted yes all over. And that’s just as wrong.
These are the types of attitudes that demand tolerance and acceptance but give NONE. Nothing gets solved that way but two constant lines drawn in the sand.
Well, stap me vitals, it’s Dachau Barbie! Well done you for growing some testicles – it’s nice to hear you actually express your spite directly for once. I think I’ll take some credit for that, whether you like it or not.
Which is where you’re PRECISELY wrong. I’m a keen student of truth, evidence and the scientific method, and if such an event were to occur I would without hesitation conclude that – despite the overwhelming evidence against it – an outside context event had occurred. I would try at once to discover the explanation.
Unfortunately for your thesis, the odds are stupefyingly high that it would turn out to be an hallucination brought on by substance abuse. It wouldn’t be the first time.
So – you demand tolerance of me. Tolerance, in point of fact, for someone else’s beliefs – though I’m sure you’re on all fours with Sue, sharing as you do the same delusion. You ask me to tolerate … Sue and your INTOLERANCE of others.
And you do this, hiding behind your protestation that the intolerance here is God’s, not yours. You LOOVE pooves – can’t get enough of them. But God, you maintain, is a bit of a homophobe, despite being the entity responsible for their very existence.
No, actually. I don’t tolerate intolerance, especially nasty, scheming, vindictive, conniving intolerance tricked out in pompous, righteous livery like yours.
There was a line in a film: ‘Kiss my ENTIRE ass’. I believe it applies here.
CD
Oh please … Just because I have attempted to treat you with some fairness and kindess in previous comments does not mean I’m some wilting flower. But you just take that credit if it makes yer day. ;)
If you don’t tolerate intolerance then how can you look at yourself in the mirror? How can you claim to be tolerant? Tolerance is being accepting and respectful of others and what they believe. Your angry words contradict that statement. OR is it that you insist on tolerance for your beliefs but don’t see a need to follow that same rule?
You’ll take credit for my own words but not your own. Of course you would, because they were allegedly “spiteful” and that seems to be your kick.
“Unfortunately for your thesis, the odds are stupefyingly high that it would turn out to be an hallucination brought on by substance abuse. It wouldn’t be the first time.”
“So – you demand tolerance of me. Tolerance, in point of fact, for someone else’s beliefs – though I’m sure you’re on all fours with Sue, sharing as you do the same delusion.”
That ain’t tolerance dude. That’s called mocking.
“You ask me to tolerate … Sue and your INTOLERANCE of others”
That’s almost laughable. I don’t know Sue so I can’t speak for her … but there is nothing intolerant with how I conduct my life. Other than having a problem with intolerant peeps themselves.
Live and let live.
And you pretty much summed up my point with that last comment. Good job! :)
That part about the Greeks is a good point. In many writings and myths of Greek culture you can see how many are said to love other men and ect. I just don’t understand the big deal. Also if I remember right, within the Bible there is maybe one reference that is taken out of context and then warped. Oh I love jow religion brought us such great times as the Inquisition and the Dark Ages.
A little something for those – like Dachau Barbie – trying with difficulty to maintain divinely-mandated ethical standards that oblige them to be nasty to queers, even though they wuv them, really:
The MoralMaster 2.0
After all, heaven forbid you might do something Scripture says is immoral, no matter how rational or civilised it might seem.
CD
I'm straight, but I support gay rights. I'm not married, but I support anybody's right to consenting adult marriage. All of this debate over the definition of marriage, separation of church and state, and other peripheral arguments brings to mind the George Orwell quote from the book, Animal Farm.
Some animals are more equal than others.
I find myself a bit post script here, but will post a comment anyway. Darlanne, I am trying to rid the world of all religion, I'm married,my wife and I don't consider our commitment to be more, special than any pair, or more as the case may be, than their commitment. In fact the only commitment that's any of our business is our own. I do however, for once, find myself understanding where a christian is coming from in your comments. I do believe that you could take one more step, and find your definition of self without a ubiquitous invisible, inaudible, unprovable, megadude. I do however think that you were far more excepting of another's views than was my atheist brethren. My hat to you. Chris, though I know you are factually accurate, but you are still being a jerk. I apologize for my candor, but not my opinion
In Norway, same sex marriages are allowed (even in some churches, if the priest thinks it's ok)
Your argument is factually (as far as I know) and logically correct. Do you think that will make any difference to the religious reich? Their position has always been that they must control everything and impose their beliefs on everyone.
This attitude is and always has been the source of most of the problems in the world. People will neber tryuly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the light of facts and logic.