If we allow Atheists to marry, why not homosexuals?

Question

Bear with me, this will take some explanation.

The conservative Christians are saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because God doesn't approve of homosexuality. Does God approve of people who don't believe in Him? Heterosexual atheists marry in civil ceremonies every day. Why can't homosexuals be offered the same choice??

OK, I think jim_darwin is the only person who got my point. Well, him and the person who said being gay is a worse sin than being atheist. Frankly, that scares me.

Thank you Draga, that's my point too.

john s: So *all* child molesters are homosexuals??? I don't think so...

t_a_m_i_l: Orphaned children would be better off in a group home or being bounced from one foster home to another than with a loving gay couple??? Oh, and I love your exception to the "2-parent rule" for single parents. As long as they're hetero, it doesn't matter how many there are, right? Whatever.

Answer 1

I think the real issue is the term "marriage." If our nation truly believes in separation or church and state, then all marriages outside of a christian-based church should be considered a "loving union," "joining ceremony," "civil union," or something like that and should be legally recognized.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to unite in a civil union. All people should be entitled to the same rights; if a homosexual's partner dies, they should be entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual spouse. As long as civil unions are banned, even if they spent 30 years together, the living partner would not be entitled to death benefits, or job-related pensions as a spouse would.

Some say that civil unions will increase divorce rates. Up until the last 5 years, all divorces came from hetersexual unions, so I don't see why it would be any more of an issue than it already is.

Answer 2

Well, Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman (Matthew 19).

If one atheist is a man, and the other atheist is a woman, they can get married according to this definition (which,btw, is the historic definition of marriage in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence).

A man & another man cannot marry for the same reason that a man cannot marry a brick. The term "marriage" has no meaning in this context.

"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, like saying I'm for "brick marriage", or I'm for "tomato marriage". What does that actually mean? I suppose that I could write up a legal contract saying that I am committed to care for this brick for the rest of my life, but is that marriage?

The main reason that people do not want marriage to be redefined is, where does it end? Does the government recognize polygamy? (Any Mormons want to comment?) How about a union of three men and five women (some of whom are already married to other people as well)? Can a business marry another business, or an individual, for the tax break? What about the family dog, or the house plant?

Are two or more people living in the same house considered to be "married" for the purposes of signing legal documents, tax breaks, etc.?

What does "marriage" mean? In the Neatherlands (where gay marriage is legal), only a small fraction of gay people living there bother to use the instution at all, so why do American gays want it so much? I assume that most of them will simply live together, rather than put up with the paper work of a divorce in the future.

Answer 3

The other thing that bugs me is that a marriage document, in the eyes of the state, is a legal document that basically changes the way two people acquire and divide assets. There's nothing "spiritual" about it. Technically, two people could get married "in the eyes of God" without ever signing a marriage licence. This is one of those cases where we really need to address the idea of the "seperation of church and state" as the current state of affairs is that some people are allowed access to this contract and others are denied based on a set of religous values. One of the big reasons homosexuals want the right to marriage is because they want the legal protection that two heterosexual people receive. There is a disconnect in the rights people have in a civil union and ones they have in a marriage. Additionally, it would be unfair to allow homosexuals the right to a civil union but not heterosexual couples that don't want to get married.

Answer 4

Because homosexuality defies the Lord more than not believing in God. Maybe God is sad that the athiests do not believe in him, but is relieved by the fact that they don't worship any other god. Saying that "God made me gay" is a lie. A deception by the Satan. Even if a person is "born" gay, they can still change. Homosexuality should be banned from the USA, and so should gay marriages. Also, as many of you point out to "the ignorant Christians", adultery is also a great sin which should also be stopped. We do not "ignore" this problem. So there!

Answer 5

In the beginning, God made them male and female. God blesses the man who finds his woman (proverbs). A man should love His Wife even to give His life for her (like Christ). For Christ gave His life for His church.

No where in the bible does God especially bless a same sex union. No where in the bible does God especially bless disbelief. Of course there are blessings that fall on all His creation. God doesn't especially bless those things that go against His Word. It is written to cast down any imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

It would mean nothing to God if homosexuals got married. Only problems would follow. If they or atheists marry, God will not bless the wedding special. If an atheist acknowledge God in their wedding, God will bless it (even if their faith isn't quite there yet).

It's the same as if someone comes to ones door preaching a different gospel other than the bible: God tells us to not bless them: So that we would not be found guilty with them.

Also, with homosexual relationships/marriage, just think of all the orphans & other children for adoption that would be adopted by these relationships. They either are without a father or a mother. Life experiences show that same sex parents to adopt are not giving a good family home environment for that child adopted. Also, it is likely child will be very confused & abused. These children are more important to God than this.

I don't think people should adopt unless it is a married mother (to be) & father (to be) who adopts child.

Obviously a single parent should raise own children, though. That would be the best for their children.


In response to other answers: I'm a christian & I don't believe jews are hell bound. I love the bible & God fearing Jews wrote it inspired by God.

Reading Duckphup: That is a big reason why not. This is how bad it can get. Yeah & that is taking away Marriage benefits. I believe this is the whole plan anyway. To do away with regular weddings & God's blessing on a marriage. So the whole thing would be confusing to the children of USA.

Answer 6

Yes , atheist should be allowed to marry, though they need to realize that their vows mean nothing, since marriage is an institution made by God... (a God they don't believe in) The issue is not a general issue, but a specific issue. It is not about God denying anyone that does anything that He dislikes from getting married. Murders, thieves, and liars can all marry, even though God does not approve of their sin.The specific issue is, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

Answer 7

God "approves" of all of us. If He didn't, it would be impossible to receive salvation. The problem lies in the fact that atheism doesn't have anything to do with human sexuality. God ordained marriage as a manner in which to procreate and replenish the Earth; anything else is a defilement of God's law. There are a plethora of things under the heading of human sexuality in the Bible that are an abomination against God, not just homosexuality. For instance, sex with a woman on her period is wrong, beastiality (YUCK!!!!!!) is wrong, and etc. Atheism, while hurtful to God, isn't connected to human sexuality and therefore isn't a good comparison. The fact that the Bible speakes out against homosexuality is what makes it wrong, coupled with the fact that marriages of that nature are a crime against God.

Answer 8

Most (honest) Christians believe Jews are hellbound too, so shouldn't Jews be forbidden to marry also? I mean, they'll only bring into the world more lost souls, yes?

And let's bring back stoning for adulterers, while we're at it. That should cover about 84% of married Christians -- actually 99% if they follow that "lust in the heart is the same as doing it" judgment attributed to Jesus.

Answer 9

Olive Green had the closest thing to a real answer here. Just because I'm gay or athiest (or anything other than Christian for that matter) doesn't mean that I am unable to love someone and commit to that person. Here's a question: Why can't we just leave each other alone and let everyone live their own lives, finding happiness how they may?

Answer 10

I think that everybody is approaching this problem from the wrong angle. We need to think 'outside the box'. Try this on for size: Abolish marriage itself as a social institution with legal status. In its place, institute a 'Domestic Partnership Contract'. The only requirements would be that the two (or more) parties be of the age of consent (or otherwise legally emancipated) in their political subdivision of residence. The contract might be perpetual ('til death do us part), or it might have a 'term' expiration clause... 5-years, for example... with an optional renewal clause. Law would require that these conracts address, of necessity, things like division of responsibilities, child care and custody, disposition of assets in the event of dissolution of the contract, provisions and penalties for breech-of-contract... you get the idea.

'Marriage' might continue to exist... but only as a social consideration, optional, and with no legal standing at all... totally separate from and unrelated to the contractual aspects.

There would be no more divorce... just simple contractual disputes. And the concept of a 'Domestic Partnership Agreement' would totally eliminate consideration of the sexual makeup and sexual orientation of the parties to the agreement.