martinpribble

I don’t see why there wouldn’t be. There’s nothing in not believing in the existence of gods that makes one tolerant of same sex unions… Personally I’m all for them.
Spurs Fan

Seems like I’ve met plenty of skeptics who oppose marriage altogether or don’t like the institution at all, but I can’t imagine many opposing gay marriage, but being in favor of hetero marriage at the same time.
Laura Lou

The latest episode of The Atheist Experience talked about letters they got from Atheists who thought homosexuality was equivalent to murder because they don’t reproduce… or something like that.

http://www.atheist-experience.com

Just watch the video right on the homepage. YES, the letters they are referencing are from ATHEISTS.
JJR

I would like to believe homophobic douchebags are a distinct minority within the community of Atheists…but mere lack of god belief is no guarantee. I was an atheist from my childhood on, but it took one of my best friends in High School coming out gay to rid me of my latent homophobia for good, back in the early 1990s. It makes me cringe to remember how casually acceptable overt homophobia was in the 1980s when I was a teen.
Kyle

I can’t wrap my mind around the idea of an atheist or any nonbeliever having a reason to oppose same-sex marriage. If anything, most atheists are reasonable people, and I’ve never heard an argument against same-sex marriage that wasn’t somehow, even remotely, religiously motivated. Yeah, I’m sure there are some who are against the institution of marriage altogether because of all the religious definitions behind it. To me, marriage is more of a commitment towards another person, to love and care for that other for the rest of your life. It’s a lawful arrangement that doesn’t necessarily have to have any religious elements in it. If the argument is that same-sex partnerships don’t produce children, then I guess all post-menopausal women should never get married. Nor should infertile couples. Nor couples who choose, for ethical or medical reasons, not to bring children into this world. If anything, even if you don’t personally support same-sex marriage, or any marriage at all, it should still be an option for people who want it. Just as I view the idea of legal medical marijuana: I would not personally smoke it, but if others want to then it should be available to them.
BlueRidgeLady

…Reader Teresa would like to talk to you for a paper she’s writing..”

and also..fuck you.
Jeff Satterley

I don’t think the government should be recognizing marriages at all, but I assume that’s not what Teresa is interested in.
Hemant Mehta

BlueRidgeLady — Would it help to point out that Teresa’s an atheist who supports gay marriage?
yhj

I think BlueRidgeLady was referring to the atheists who are against same-sex marriage…
JulietEcho

There are plenty out there, but I don’t know how many frequent this site (and I would guess that even more are rarely online at all). The older generation is where to look, really. I know an atheist who’s a racist kook and probably opposes same-sex marriage for greed-based reasons alone (wouldn’t want the government spending a dime to change the system). He can also barely use a computer.
Heidi

I’m still in the middle of watching that video, but Jen Peeples referred to them as “both of those letters.” That gives me hope that there aren’t many atheists thinking that way.
kisarita

I am not an atheist but my opposition to gay marriage does not stem from any religion but because I believe in a biological basis to kinship.

The person up there who supports gay marriage saying that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction and childrearing is actually not in tune with the platform of the gay marriage proponents, who almost always link gay marriage to gay childbearing.

In fact the ONLY benefit to the status of Marriage that can not be obtained via civil union status, is the right for the non biological parent to be automatically recognized as the biological parent by virture of marriage to the mother- sometimes at the expense of the biological father himself, gay or straight.
Brian Macker

She should look up some communists because they’re atheists that have had entire countries under their control without allowing same sex marriage.
Leilani

I know we, as Atheists, don’t gather to discuss all the things we don’t believe in very often, if at all, but being rational, kind, equality loving people was something I thought we all had in common…

I want Teresa to be able to write an awesome paper, but I hope that there aren’t any Atheists out there that oppose marriage equality. Are there any Atheists out there that oppose a woman’s right to choose, my right to vote or desegregation? Now I am wondering if we have any closeted bigots…
Staceyjw

I never understood the biological argument for marriage, since many hetero couples either choose NOT to have babies, or are infertile. I would hope atheists are more rational, but not believing in god doesn’t necessitate rationality…
MikeTheInfidel

In fact the ONLY benefit to the status of Marriage that can not be obtained via civil union status, is the right for the non biological parent to be automatically recognized as the biological parent by virture of marriage to the mother- sometimes at the expense of the biological father himself, gay or straight.

I don’t know where in the world you live, but that’s DEFINITELY not the case here. In America, there are hundreds of legal rights and protections afforded only to marriage and not to civil unions.

As for the biological basis for kinship, nearly every species of animal on the planet exhibits same-sex behavior, which lends credence to the idea that there’s some sort of evolutionary benefit to same-sex relationships.

Besides, if your only argument has to do with biology, your opposition doesn’t make any sense. It’s like arguing that we shouldn’t build cities because our biological kinship is only based on families.

You’re trying to base a moral argument on a scientific dispute, and you just cannot get an “ought” from an “is” no matter how hard you try. There is no moral imperative to enforce some sort of “biological order.”
Eliza

@kinsarita

In fact the ONLY benefit to the status of Marriage that can not be obtained via civil union status, is the right for the non biological parent to be automatically recognized as the biological parent by virture of marriage to the mother- sometimes at the expense of the biological father himself, gay or straight.

Bullshit. (At least in the U.S.)

Currently, civil unions only grant rights at the state level, so couples with civil unions get none of the Federal benefits granted to married couples. The General Accounting Office (of the federal government) is widely quoted as having identified “more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.”

Also, marriage does not automatically grant “the right for the non biological parent to be automatically recognized as the biological parent by virture of marriage to the mother”. Legal parenthood is determined by the state law. “Step-parent adoption” is the route by which an adult gains legal parenthood of an existing child of which he or she is not the biological parent, but marries a legal parent (& the noncustodial parent either gives up or loses his/her parental rights).

You’re right that it’s generally assumed under the law that a child born to a married woman was fathered by her husband, but in the (few) state codes I’ve looked at, there’s nothing that looks like it prohibits a different man’s name from being entered (if the legal steps to claiming paternity are followed).
garth

“In fact the ONLY* benefit to the status of Marriage that can not be obtained via civil union status, is the right for the non biological parent to be automatically recognized as the biological parent by virture of marriage to the mother- sometimes at the expense of the biological father himself, gay or straight.”

*this isabsolutely, completely untrue

kisarita, you’re way, way off base with the “marriage rights are the same as civil union rights except for childbearing” argument. it’s frankly idiotic, but not only because you’re attempting, if i read your short post right, to tell other people how they love. it’s because, directly on its face, civil unions are not recognized federally but by states. thus a gay union doesn’t have the same rights in the US, but only in the states which recognize civil unions.
there’s a basic rundown in my website link.

all the above assumes you’re honest about your complexified reasons for being opposed to equal marriage rights. i think your first statement is the most telling: You’re not an atheist. the simplest answer is you’re religiously biased against gay people because an invisible man in the sky told you to be so. i’m relying on the old razor there.
garth

i like that eliza and i were writing the same post.
Leilani

No one should ever be given the status of ‘second class citizen’ because of another person’s beliefs in a sky daddy, biological basis to kinship, or man eating rainbows.

Marriage equality would boost our economy, give equality to a minority group and make the future brighter for my children.

Denying the LGBT community their right to marry is oppression. No human loving, respectful American would think that is okay.
selfification

+1 Jeff Satterley

Being a (kind-of) libertarian, I don’t support the government recognition of gay marriage as vehemently as I don’t support the recognition of any other marriage.

I in fact used to think that the entire system of marriage was pointless.. until I was convinced otherwise by a special person 🙂
Bill P. Godfrey

Dan Barker’s mother said that being an atheist meant “I don’t have to hate anyone anymore.”

You still can, you just don’t have to. If you still want to, you’ll need to find your own reasons.
Judith Bandsma

kisarita, according to the General Accounting Office (an agency of our government) there are 1049 benefits and protections offered to heterosexual married couples that are not afforded to those in civil unions.

Lamda Legal Defense puts that number at 1400.

Just a few:
1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.
AxeGrrl

In a conversation about same sex marriage with a friend of mine (who, as far as I know, isn’t religious), want to hear his ‘reason’ for not supporting it?

“I enjoy being a husband to my wife and I don’t really feel like sharing that”

I kid you not.

The religious don’t have a monopoly on f**ked up reasoning

(then again, we’ve already learned that from Bill Maher and his ongoing anti-Western medicine ‘campaign’, haven’t we? 🙂
AxeGrrl

Bill P. Godfrey wrote:

Dan Barker’s mother said that being an atheist meant “I don’t have to hate anyone anymore.”

You still can, you just don’t have to. If you still want to, you’ll need to find your own reasons.

And some people always seem to have the energy to find/create their own reasons, don’t they?

That unfortunate point is one of the most illuminating facts about human nature.
keddaw

You don’t have to be religious to be an ignorant bigot, but it helps.
hoverFrog

Judith Bandsma wrote

Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

I don’t see why not. You can have a contract drawn up for just about anything and expect a court to enforce it fairly.

Something like medical insurance is purchased from a private company. If they won’t sell you insurance to suit your needs then another company will. Even if they don’t currently then they are in the business of making money and will provide a service if there is sufficient demand.

As for something like joint tax filing is there any reason why a couple should have any preferential tax treatment over two individuals? I would suggest that such a system unfairly benefits couples. I only have a vague idea of how US tax works but here in England each individual has a tax threshold whether they are married or not.
Derek

Oddly enough, the only problem I had with gay marriage was the need to change the definition of the word. But that always bothers me with any word. I always felt that the lobby should have been to grant civil unions the same rights as marriage, it probably would have caused less of a uproar.
Ron in Houston

I know we, as Atheists, don’t gather to discuss all the things we don’t believe in very often, if at all, but being rational, kind, equality loving people was something I thought we all had in common…

Well, on the bright side I’d say Leilani is projecting. She’s probably very rational, kind and loving and is projecting that on other members of the group.

There are irrational, unkind, and unloving atheists. Loads of them. Simply read the comments by atheists on any atheist site and you’ll see plenty of those kinds of behavior. Crap, I’ll bet I get some irrational, unkind, or distinctly unloving retort to this comment.
AxeGrrl

Derek wrote:

the only problem I had with gay marriage was the need to change the definition of the word. But that always bothers me with any word.

Why did/do you have a problem with changing the definition of ‘marriage’? I ask because the definition has already changed throughout history quite a few times ~ is there any specific reason that you view the one-man/one-woman definition (in the U.S. at least) as being the ‘most right’ version?

The definition of the word ‘citizen’, at one point in time, didn’t include people of colour.

Would you feel the same reluctance in changing that definition?
t3knomanser

In a very technical sense, I do. But I oppose all state recognition of marriage, so I’m probably at outlier on this. Marriage is a business transaction, and it should be viewed, rightfully, as a special class of corporation. Once you make that change, the individual parties involved- gender and number- become irrelevant.

Give marriage to the churches.
AxeGrrl

t3knomanser wrote:

Give marriage to the churches

Why?

it didn’t originate with the churches.

Plus, the civil institution of marriage is a completely separate thing from the religious one…..so, why should the former ‘relent’ in deference to the latter?
Carlie

You can have a contract drawn up for just about anything and expect a court to enforce it fairly.

Except when you can’t.
Claudia

Derek, the only way to make civil unions a fair alternative to marriage would be to change ALL civil marriages into civil unions. You can’t have two institutions for two types of people. Separate is not equal.

So the real choice is not to go after marriage or civil unions, but to compare the uproar of people demanding marriage rights to the uproar over “demoting” all heterosexual marriages to “civil unions”.

It’s funny how many people (note I’m not including you) who claim they support civil unions and that they are equal to marriage change their tune really quickly when someone suggests that THEIR straight marriage be turned into a civil union. Suddenly, it doesn’t seem so equal anymore.
Ron in Houston

Derek, the only way to make civil unions a fair alternative to marriage would be to change ALL civil marriages into civil unions. You can’t have two institutions for two types of people. Separate is not equal.

Seems to be you’re getting a little too stuck on labels. Two things with different names can certainly be equal.

Having said that, I was “married” by a JP, so in my mind it’s nothing more than a “civil union.”

I know it’s a bit insane, but having two labels makes it more likely that the gay community may get closer to their goals. It will be far easier to get traditional conservative people to sign off on “civil unions” (however you define it) rather than “marriage.”
Vystrix Nexoth

Derek: Maybe the reason you feel uncomfortable redefining the word is because words have power. What reason is there to let opposite-sex couples have access to that word – and thus its power – while denying the word and its power to same-sex couples, besides the preservation of Privilege?

t3knomanser: Should we give government to the churches as well? Many of them believe the legitimacy of a government can only come from divine will. How about things like love and awe and beauty and justice?

Just because religion calls dibs on those things doesn’t mean they’re theirs, nor that their claims are to be Privileged over all others’.
Jeff P

@Ron

Crap, I’ll bet I get some irrational, unkind, or distinctly unloving retort to this comment.

Ron, It looks like you are in need of a “French taunting“.
Carlie

Also, think of the bureaucracy that would be involved with having two separate but equal statuses. It simply wouldn’t work. There’s already an easily available way for two people to become legally entangled, and it’s a way that is instantly understood by everyone. The only reason anyone has come up with to deny it to one group is “it makes me feel icky to think about it”, and that’s not good enough.

And no, religion does not own marriage. Its existence is based in property ownership, not some magical godly connection. If one wants to base marriage on religion (specifically the Christian ones), then marriage has to be defined as polygamy.
TPO

I’ve ran into a few non-believers who oppose same sex marriage, gays serving in the military, etc… The atheists I’ve debated on this subject can’t seem to grasp the fact that this is an equal rights issue, not a special rights issue.

Sometimes reason stops at the door of personal prejudices.
Captain Werewolf

I know a few atheists who don’t support gay marriage. In general, I’ve found that they fall into a few broad categories:
1. The “I’m not against gays, but I’m against a political group’s [ie, LGBT] attempts to shove a social agenda down my throat” group.
2. The “But marriage just means [insert limited definition of marriage here] and we shouldn’t change it” group.
3. The “I’m not really aware of all the benefits denied by the withholding of the legal term ‘marriage'” group.
4. The “I don’t like gay marriage because it will cost money/cause unrest/anger the real bigots/etc.” group.

These groups aren’t mutually exclusive. I think the major problem is that a lot of people who otherwise aren’t involved with LGBT issues honestly don’t realize the extent to which these nitpicky arguments are dwarfed by the real, substantive problems arising from not calling it marriage (like the innocent, but very naive notion that you can just contract toward something identical to marriage and the court will enforce it).
Leilani

The beauty of language is that definitions change over time. It’s happened forever and it’s happening now. We don’t need to make up a new word to define the same thing between two different sets of people. Let the religious have the term ‘civil union’ or ‘temple sealing’.

I refuse to negotiate with religious terrorists over the definition of a word that has changed many times over the course of history, just because they don’t want it to change now that they added ‘between one man and one woman’ to it.

I understand it might be ‘easier’ (it’ll be tough either way) to win the LGBT community their rights by giving into the right-wing crazies, but we will win regardless. What Prop 8 did was unconstitutional. And I hope America isn’t too far gone to be saved from the religious folks out who are ruining her.
bruce

In the U.S., marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. Religion can play a part in your marriage ceremony if you choose, but it is by no means required and it does not have the ultimate authority to grant you a marriage license. The State issues licenses, not the church. Marriage is a legal contract with many implied benefits and responsibilities. No, you cannot duplicate all of them through alternative legal contracts. For example, is it possible for a same-sex partner to get your social security benefits when you die? Even if your state recognizes gay marriage, the Federal government does not and will not treat your gay spouse the same way they treat a hetero spouse. And please, to anyone trying to defend the “sanctity” of a word, please stop, legal definitions change all the time. If they didn’t, Blacks would still be 3/5’s a person.

The fact that I have to even post this on an Atheist web site is troubling in itself. Alas, even I have known one or two people over the years who are atheists but still hold bigoted views toward others. Maybe we should be emphasizing the Humanist in us instead of just the Atheist?
Ron in Houston

Well, speaking someone who knows family law, let me say this “be careful what you wish for.” Many things that appear great have two edges.

Besides, there is a reason marriage is called an “institution.”
Kevin

This may not be the best place to be asking this question (perhaps a bit OT) but the other day, my father was staying with me in my apartment over a couple days, and we got into a discussion about gay marriage.

He’s a Christian, and he trotted out the claim that gay marriage proponents want to somehow make it so churches can’t preach – since they’ll refuse to allow gay marriage, it’ll be seen as a hate crime, and… yeah.

I told him that churches don’t have to marry anyone they don’t want to – Catholic churches don’t wed Protestant or atheist couples – and I gave him the example of him going to North Carolina and his wife getting injured, but he can’t visit because their marriage isn’t recognized, but he didn’t seem to understand.

Is there a line of argument I can use to get past this? My family doesn’t know I’m an atheist, but I’m sure that it’ll be coming up sooner than later with this kind of thing.
DemetriusOfPharos

To quote Robin Williams: “Anyone who has ever been married knows its always the same sex!”

Humor out of the way, I fall into the #1 group on Captain Werewolf’s list:

The “I’m not against gays, but I’m against a political group’s [ie, LGBT] attempts to shove a social agenda down my throat” group.

At least personally, I’m against the idea of any group being awarded special rights. Also, sometimes to get a rise out of people, or to be arbitrary when someone presumes to speak for me about supporting gay rights/marriage, I flat out say I don’t support it. However I am keenly aware that the current system is not set up to actually recognize the rights of individuals without special laws, so politically I support gay rights/marriage.
Kevin

@DemetriusOfPharos:

At least personally, I’m against the idea of any group being awarded special rights.

I think it’s more that homosexuals want equal rights. Heterosexual couples already have special rights compared to homosexual ones.
Derek

Axegrrl: Why did/do you have a problem with changing the definition of ‘marriage’? I ask because the definition has already changed throughout history quite a few times ~ is there any specific reason that you view the one-man/one-woman definition (in the U.S. at least) as being the ‘most right’ version?

The definition of the word ‘citizen’, at one point in time, didn’t include people of colour.

Would you feel the same reluctance in changing that definition?

The definition of citizen never had anything to do with colour, sex, etc. It’s the legal qualifications to obtain that status that has changed. And I’m perfectly happy with that. The word marriage, on the other hand, needed to have it’s actual definition changed. Am I upset and furious by it?… No. Note, that I’m like that pretty much anytime word meanings change…it causes confusions that are often unnecessary…and yes I probably would have been annoyed with the previous changes in the word marriage had I been aware of them at the time.

Vystrix Nexoth: Maybe the reason you feel uncomfortable redefining the word is because words have power. What reason is there to let opposite-sex couples have access to that word – and thus its power – while denying the word and its power to same-sex couples, besides the preservation of Privilege?

You’re putting way too much thought into analyzing my thoughts there Vys. That stuff never crossed my mind. I just don’t like it when words shift in their meaning. It annoys me, it doesn’t mean I won’t get over it.

Claudia: Separate is not equal.

True, but neither is equal necessarily the same.

I understand that living languages change. I just don’t always like it. But as a whole it’s really no big deal. It was my one gripe, and by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have a right to feel that way. It doesn’t mean I’m going to try to oppose it. =D

Cheers and Excelsior!
Alan E.

Derek said:

The definition of citizen never had anything to do with colour, sex, etc. It’s the legal qualifications to obtain that status that has changed. And I’m perfectly happy with that. The word marriage, on the other hand, needed to have it’s actual definition changed.

By your definition, the legal qualifications to obtain a marriage has changed over time, too. See Loving v. Virgina, Turner v. Safely, etc.
AxeGrrl

Derek wrote:

The definition of citizen never had anything to do with colour, sex, etc. It’s the legal qualifications to obtain that status that has changed.

Translation: the legal definition of ‘citizen’ has changed and one’s colour did indeed have a heck of a lot to do with it.

“1857 – The Dred Scott case holds that Congress does not have the right to ban slavery in states and, furthermore, that slaves are not citizens.”

“The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.”

We’ve been discussing the legal definition of marriage here and I was talking about the legal definition of citizen.
Jeff Satterley

@selfification

I in fact used to think that the entire system of marriage was pointless.. until I was convinced otherwise by a special person

Had the same thing happen to me, and I’m now getting married in June. Luckily in Massachusetts gay marriage is legal so I feel a bit less guilty about it. (I’m still against the government getting involved, but at least we all have the same rights and opportunities in this case.)
Ron in Houston

Yep and when someone has to cut that check every month for gay alimony they’ll be saying “what in the hell was I thinking?”
Kevin

@Jeff Satterley:

Congrats.
Derek

Alan E.: By your definition, the legal qualifications to obtain a marriage has changed over time, too. See Loving v. Virgina, Turner v. Safely, etc.

Agreed.

Axegrrl: We’ve been discussing the legal definition of marriage here and I was talking about the legal definition of citizen.

I know. We’re talking two different things really. I was talking about basic changes in vocabulary. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the term “problem” earlier. Simply put changes in vocabulary annoy me. I know they happen, and I know I’ll have to accept and get used to them…but they still annoy me. For me the annoyance has absolutely nothing to do with legal matters. It’s just a personal quirk.

Jeff Satterley: Had the same thing happen to me, and I’m now getting married in June.

Major congratz!

Ron in Houston: Yep and when someone has to cut that check every month for gay alimony they’ll be saying “what in the hell was I thinking?”

I can honstly say I’ve never thought about that. But I’m now quite sure that if I happen to see “Ron in Houston says” above a comment, I’m going to make dang sure I haven’t taken a swig of coffee before I read it.
Heidi

I am not an atheist but my opposition to gay marriage does not stem from any religion but because I believe in a biological basis to kinship.

As an adopted person, I find that statement both ignorant and offensive.
Anna

I am not an atheist but my opposition to gay marriage does not stem from any religion but because I believe in a biological basis to kinship.

As an adopted person, I find that statement both ignorant and offensive.

I’m with Heidi. I’m half adopted, and my relationship with my non-biological parent is just as real and meaningful as my relationship with my biological parent.

What on earth does it mean to say that you “believe” in a biological basis to kinship? That you deny the legitimacy of adoptive families? That unless both parents have contributed genetic material to their child(ren), you consider the family to be inferior and undeserving of legal recognition? It’s bewildering to me that you oppose same-sex marriage on these grounds given that there are far more heterosexual families that fail to meet your stringent biological criteria.
Lost Left Coaster

@DemetriusOfPharos: It’s depressing to see someone trotting out the “special rights” argument on an atheist blog. I mean, that’s the standard argument of the Christians, but they seem to be accustomed to holding on to completely irrational ideas, so it fits them better.

Let’s say it again: we’re talking about equal rights, not special rights. Granting a same sex couple the right to marry gives them the same rights as an opposite sex couple in that regard. I don’t know how it could be any more clear than that. If someone could explain clearly to me how this would constitute “special rights,” I’d love to hear it, because that does not make any sense to me.

It is positively charming of you, though, to feel free and tell people that you don’t support equal rights for gays. After all, that puts you squarely in the majority in this country and this world, and since you benefit every day from the privilege of being a straight person, you’ll never have to worry that your rights may be legislated away.

Because after all, it sure is annoying how vocal those gays and lesbians get about demanding their rights after hundreds of years of oppression and violence directed at them simply for being who they are. Who are they to stand up for themselves? Shouldn’t they know that they might annoy DemetriusOfPharos?
Darwin’s Dagger

There is no argument against gay marriage. It’s just a lot of noise from people who don’t want to admit that they’re haters. People talk about ‘tradition’ as if it were something sacred. It’s not. Owning people was a tradition in this country for a few hundred years. Sometimes tradition is just another word for atrocity.
cathy

Um, there have been marriages between people of the same sex before in western history. It was legal in ancient Rome for a man to marry a man and several emperors actually did so (there was a ban implemented by Constantanius after Rome was officially Christain) and there are a number of cases on record of same sex marriages being recognized by states during the middle ages, most notably in Florence. Also, pre-Enlightenment laws actualy considered marriage to be a transfer of property (the woman) from her father to her husband, no love or consent needed. And, legal, i.e. civil marriages were only used by nobility for most of Europe until the late middle ages. Under US law, until the eighteen hundreds, married women could not legally own property and marital rape was legal. Slaves could not marry , Asian immigrants could not marry, and people of different races could not marry. My grandparent’s marriage was illegal in many states when they married. Thinking marriage has been static in even Rome and later western society is a huge failure to understand history.
cathy

A side note on the ‘look for communists’ comment, the history of communism and sexualtiy is pretty complex, both in the US and abroad. I recommend that you read Sherry Wolf’s ‘Sexuality and Socialism’ if you want to know more about the issue. Find a hardcore Stalinist and you will might find an anti-gay communist, but there’s no garauntee even then.

If you find a member of the Comminist Party USA, odds are they support gay rights. It is, in fact, part of their party platform right now.
Vene

I get the feeling that atheists who are homophobic are only that way because they were when they were religious and have not lost that part of the mindset. Because there is a Christian worldview and losing belief in Yahweh doesn’t mean that you’re going to recognize that the entire thing is useless and needs to be built from the ground up. So, instead, they still believe in Christian morality if only because they know of nothing else.
Godless Monster

It’s pathetic and disgusting that equal rights for all human beings is still only a dream and a goal-even in the USA.
DemetriusOfPharos

@ Kevin:
You are absolutely right: its about equal rights – regardless of the special interests of the group involved – and that is the sole reason I support the idea.

@ Lost Left Coaster:
Congratulations, you’ve completely missed my point. I say I’m against it to be arbitrary – and usually only when someone presumes to speak for me or put words in my mouth, as you have done – not out of personal malice or bigotry.

You assume I’m straight, yet you do not know me nor my personal preferences. You focus on the idea that I tell people I don’t support gay rights and completely gloss over the fact that I said that I understand the system isn’t set up to do recognize gay rights any other way so politically I support it. You dismiss my viewpoint and lump me in with Christians simply because you disagree with me, all while accusing me of doing something similar.

For those of you for whom I lack a sarcasm sign as an indicator, I do support equal rights and have participated in many activist activities to that effect. Please don’t presume to speak for me by assuming anything else.
martinpribble

“You don’t have to be religious to be an ignorant bigot, but it helps.” – This was kinda my point
Ross

Heather Mac Donald is a conservative atheist who has been critical of legalizing gay marriage. She blogs at secularright.org. See this link for an example.
Buffy

@DemetriusOfPharos

At least personally, I’m against the idea of any group being awarded special rights.

What “special rights” are you referring to? All we’re asking for are the same rights others have and take for granted.
Anna

Wow. Heather MacDonald is arguing against same-sex marriage on the basis that it might “depress” the African American marriage rate even further. Therefore, it’s in the best interest of young black boys to refuse to legitimize same-sex relationships. I guess gay African American boys don’t figure into the equation at all.

If the black illegitimacy rate were not nearly three times the rate of whites’, I would have few qualms about gay marriage. Or if someone can guarantee that widespread gay marriage would not further erode the expectation among blacks that marriage is the proper context for raising children, I would also not worry. But no one can make that guarantee.

I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals.

What patronizing, elitist, and, dare I say, racist garbage. I guess theists don’t have the market cornered on irrationality. This “argument” is quite possibly the most inane one I’ve ever seen.
DemetriusOfPharos

@Buffy
Specifically, what I was referring to was the idea that we need special laws in place to protect the rights of individual groups. I know that wasn’t exactly clear. I understand all to well that the LGBT community is actually asking for ‘equal’ rights, or rather equal protection of their existing rights.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I know the system is not set up to actually recognize everyone equally, so I understand the need for such laws. What I object to is the idea that such laws actually need to exist.

Personally I think that one of the major problems is that we focus on the differences, but in reality it comes down to one very basic fact: we are human, and any rights granted to one person should not be denied to another person regardless of what tribe they belong to (crime being an exception.) Obviously there are differences, but in reality what you want is equal protection of rights you already (or should already) have. I get that, I respect it, and as I’ve said, I support it.
Twin-Skies

Atheists against same-sex marriage.

Kinda like looking for a Vegan who works as a butcher if you ask me 😛
shaded Spriter

To the people advocating the seperate but equal civil unions – think ofthe married/civil unioned transexual who has to change there type of marriage when they change the gender on their documents. This is currently a problem in the UK.
Bjorn Watland

Here is another question for gay marriage supporters: Would you support polygamous marriages? Why or why not?
MikeTheInfidel

Anna: Holy shit. Thanks for quoting Heather for me so that I don’t ever have to expose myself to that.

Bjorn: Yes, though the tax regulations could get a bit confusing. I don’t have a problem with legally formalized relationships between consenting adults. The content of the relationship may be objectionable, but the mere fact of it isn’t, to me.
Revyloution

Because of the complex issues with plural marriages, people marrying their horse, or people marrying non-biologic items, I am against legal marriage.

Marriage should be a private issue, between those who want to call themselves ‘married’. All of the other legal reasons for being married should be available through other legal institutions.

If two brothers want to adopt their sisters child, they should be able to. If two asexual best friends want to give hospital visitation rights to each other, they should be able to. If seven people want to live together, have sex and raise children, they should be able to.

We need a flexible law system that accommodates all different ways of living, even heterosexual monogamous couples.

It would require a complete revamping of marital law that would rival the health care debate in brewing up controversy. I don’t think we will get a logical, reasonable set of laws anytime soon. But that won’t stop me from fighting for it.
Autumnal Harvest

Revyloution: While I think that your argument that the government should be out of the marriage business has significant merit, I have trouble seeing that argument appropriate as a full response to the current discrimination in marriage law. Because marital status is intertwined in literally thousands of government laws, getting the government out of marriage would be an effort that would dwarf, not just rival, the health care debate. Even if you’re going to fight to end government marriage, given the reality that we’re going to have government marriage for the foreseeable future, shouldn’t you also fight to remove discrimination in that government marriage?

Suppose we had explicitly different income tax tables for white and black people, and people were fighting to get rid of the different tables. Would it be a reasonable response to say “Ah, well, I’m not in favor of tax tables for anyone, because I’m opposed to any income tax.” Regardless of the merits of the no-income-tax position, wouldn’t that strike you as an inappropriate response to the question of discrimination in the income tax that we do have?
hoverfrog

Bjorn, is that a prelude to a slippery slope argument? Meh, doesn’t really matter. I support marriage between consenting adults as a matter of equality. Similar to Revyloution I would prefer that this equality be achieved by granting a basic set of rights to “designated partners” and stripping away all the silly, superfluous ones that favour only hetero married couples. I think that the state should offer only minimal recognition of ‘marriage’. Churches can do whatever they like with it except interfere in anyone else’s business.
Jared

Well I don’t know any atheist’s who are against gay marriage but I do know someone who is a gay creationist who is against same sex marriage.
Kevin

@DemetriusOfPharos:

My post should have been deleted by now, but thankfully you got the general idea of what I was trying to say without me actually saying it. I foolishly posted it in haste, without fully understanding the post I was responding to.

@Bjorn Watland:

Marriage should be granted to consenting adults. The problem with polygamous marriages is that it’s largely about one man having multiple wives, and none of the women are treated well. I have yet to hear of a polygamous relationship where it’s not a man dominating over a group of women.

If a group of three or more persons all care equally about each other, and see each other all as equals in rights, I would see no problem with granting them a poly-amorous marriage. When it’s about domination and control, though, that’s not a good type of marriage.
Bjorn Watland

I think there are challenges with any legal set up. How do you determine that a marriage is polyamorous and not polygamy? Are there restrictions in place to protect the rights of parties in a marriage? Would those rights not exist in other forms of legal marriage?

The main reason why I bring it up, is that there are people in polyamorous relationships, which, is most states, is legal, but would like to see similar rights granted to heterosexual marriages, for example, visitation rights, medical benefits, child support, etc.
Seattle Slough

Bjorn:

Well that is up to us is it not? We can choose who gets to marry and who doesn’t on a case by case basis as we always have. As others have pointed out, we’ve been sliding down that slippery slope for a century. Marriage used to be man and his chattel. Then it was man and woman of the same race. Then it was man and woman.

So it is up to us.

Obviously there are massive complications with plural marriage. Complications that simply don’t exist with homosexual marraige. i.e. what is the relationship between fellow wives? If wife one enters into a debt is she indebting wives 2, 3 and 4 in addition to husband 1? If wife 1’s son gets sick, can wife 5 make decisions about his treatment? What if wife 3 wants a divorce, not from husband, but from wife 1?

These practical complications do not arise in homosexual marriages which function identically to straight marriage.

So it is up to us to decide if we want to open that can of worms. Certainly an argument can be made that being homosexual is an indelible part of someone. Unlike the desire to marry more than one person. So it is easy to distinguish.

Lastly, if you are in favor of marriage, the last thing to want is to solidify and formalize civil unions. THATS what destroys “marriage.” One need only look at a nation like Sweden to see what formalized civil unions (Sambolagen) does to marriage rates.
hoverfrog

Jared

Well I don’t know any atheist’s who are against gay marriage but I do know someone who is a gay creationist who is against same sex marriage.

That is awesome. Other people have the most amazing friends. All my real life friends are boring in comparison. Except may for the Jehovah’s Witness ::jealous::
Revyloution

Autumnal Harvest, I totally agree with you. My statement was more of a ‘If you were King for a day, how would you fix it’ response.

Im a hard rationalist, and understand that the best possible option today is pushing for equal marriage rights under todays laws. After the LGBT movement is protected, then we can work on plural marriage, then extra species marriage. Stepwise action that will eventually dissolve any legal binding to the concept of marriage.

Stepwise action is the only possible course in an established government. Bold action is only really possible through revolution, and I don’t see a violent revolution over marriage rights.
Robbo

I’m atheist and ‘agnostic’ on gay marriage.
I don’t like that in some jurisdictions gay couples need to declare in an affadavit that they are in a ‘loving relationship’, but only if they are same-sex. Why don’t hetero couples have to do that?

For that matter, why do they have to be gay? Why can’t I (hetero) ‘marry’ my roommate for financial reasons — maybe I’m dying and I like him better than my family? I mean, if we can say two (or three) guys can get married, why do they have to prove they are gay? And yes, there is the plural marriage part of the equation.

In Florida we had a vote on the restricting-marriage-issue. It was directed, by conservatives, against gay marriage. I voted against it, but because the proposed statute would also restrict hetero, retired seniors from coupling in a way that would benefit their estates, rather than the State.

My final thought: even though Godbots can oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, that doesn’t stop us atheists from questioning it on logical grounds. We really have to hash out some of the second order consequences before granting a blanket benefit.
JustSayin’

“We really have to hash out some of the second order consequences before granting a blanket benefit.”

Yea, O magnanimous Robbo, please, please condescend to us groveling f*gs and d*kes. We implore that you deign to “grant” us this benefit in your infinite benevolence.

Yes, the truth of the matter is that we gays and lesbians are indeed at the mercy of the hetero majority in this matter. But in saying so I certainly don’t mean to imply that such a power imbalance is somehow inherently just. I’m simply acknowledging the reality of the situation. The tone of your post, however, leads me to think that you feel it’s A-OK that you and your peers get to make such a determination. Why the hell do you think it’s acceptable that you should be able to make such a huge decision regarding others’ lives?

In all seriousness, this really isn’t something that you or anyone else should have (or even feel you should have) any right to “bestow” upon any group. I would think a concept that basic would be implicitly understood by anyone who cherishes the right of an individual to self-determination.
BlueRidgeLady

yeah, my f bomb was for anti-gay bigots 🙂
Marco

Same sex marriage would long be happening here in the philippines. Anyway, Im against marriage, why go through all the hassle. Two persons can still be together in the end.
AxeGrrl

JustSayin’ wrote:

The tone of your post, however, leads me to think that you feel it’s A-OK that you and your peers get to make such a determination. Why the hell do you think it’s acceptable that you should be able to make such a huge decision regarding others’ lives?

In all seriousness, this really isn’t something that you or anyone else should have (or even feel you should have) any right to “bestow” upon any group. I would think a concept that basic would be implicitly understood by anyone who cherishes the right of an individual to self-determination.

Bingo.

The presumptuous, condescending air of (for lack of a better term) ‘natural entitlement’ that some heterosexuals display re: this issue is eye-roll-inducing.
Anna

I don’t like that in some jurisdictions gay couples need to declare in an affadavit that they are in a ‘loving relationship’, but only if they are same-sex. Why don’t hetero couples have to do that?

For that matter, why do they have to be gay? Why can’t I (hetero) ‘marry’ my roommate for financial reasons — maybe I’m dying and I like him better than my family? I mean, if we can say two (or three) guys can get married, why do they have to prove they are gay?

I’m not aware of any such restrictions. Which jurisdictions are you talking about? As far as I know, there is no requirement that opposite-sex couples be romantically involved in order to marry, with the exception of marriages that would grant the other party citizenship, so the same should be true for same-sex couples. You should be perfectly free to marry your best friend, if it suits you, for any reason at all.

My final thought: even though Godbots can oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, that doesn’t stop us atheists from questioning it on logical grounds. We really have to hash out some of the second order consequences before granting a blanket benefit.

And what, pray tell, are those “second order consequences” you’re talking about? This is usually the point where people start screaming about children or other irrelevancies like (per Heather MacDonald) African American marriage rates. Seriously, what possible logical reason could there be to deny same-sex couples the right to legal marriage? And why should you (or anyone else) get to vote on a matter of civil rights?
JustSayin’

As AxeGrrl wrote:

The presumptuous, condescending air of (for lack of a better term) ‘natural entitlement’ that some heterosexuals display re: this issue is eye-roll-inducing.

Thanks for the backup. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make. It’s fascinating to me–and also absolutely maddening–that the many otherwise fair-minded people who make statements such as those Robbo made have so obviously never paused to consider the heterosexual privilege inherent in their stated position. (Otherwise, I doubt they would say such innately condescending things in the first place.)

By the way, love the avatar. Freeway is a favorite of mine.
Robbo

Well, maybe I’m wrong, thanks for your thoughts. Sorry not to comply with the party line.

>Yea, O magnanimous Robbo, please, please condescend to us groveling f*gs and d*kes. We implore that you deign to “grant” us this benefit in your infinite benevolence.
It’s called voting

>I’m not aware of any such restrictions.

It’s called Google

>And why should you (or anyone else) get to vote on a matter of civil rights?
Because tax exemptions are not civil rights.
Anna

Robbo, there’s no official position atheists must take on any issue, let alone this one. But there seems to be no logical reason to deny same-sex couples the right to legal marriage. If you have one, perhaps you could present it?

It’s called Google

I tried Google. I plugged in a number of different keywords, but nothing came up that said same-sex couples must affirm that they are in a romantic relationship in order to marry. So, in which jurisdictions is this the case? It is not mentioned in the information for either Vermont or Massachusetts. The law should be the same for both heterosexual and homosexual couples (that’s the point) and there’s no law requiring heterosexual couples to make such a statement. Gay or straight, you should be (and seemingly are) free to marry a platonic best friend.

Because tax exemptions are not civil rights.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a civil right. See Loving v. Virginia (1967).
Autumnal Harvest

It’s called Google

That’s a very clever way of refusing to back up claims that you’ve made! I’ll have to remember that.

I’m not even clear what the point of this example is supposed to be anyway. You’re bothered by gay marriage, because some states put extra requirements on it, that straight marriages don’t have? Well, yes, if that is the case, the states should remove those restrictions, and treat all marriage between any two consenting adults equally. Since that’s exactly what gay marriage supporters want, it makes no sense to use some jurisdictions discriminatory rules as evidence that the whole idea of not discriminating is unworkable.
JustSayin’

Robbo, your response of

It’s called voting

to what I originally (and, I admit, very snarkily) said here

Yea, O magnanimous Robbo, please, please condescend to us groveling f*gs and d*kes. We implore that you deign to “grant” us this benefit in your infinite benevolence.

doesn’t make any sense to me, at least not in the context of my argument. What are you saying? What is called voting? Are you referring to “the will of the people” here? And if so, then you’ve completely missed the point of the argument I made further down in that post. (Not to mention the arguments of many others in this thread.)

It’s NOT just about tax exemptions, although that would be a nice little side benefit. To use one example, do you have any idea how difficult it can be for same-sex partners to get not only respect, but even basic human decency from healthcare providers and their gatekeepers in emergency situations? There are two very well-documented examples, one in red-state Florida (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flrxgaysuit0626sbjun26,0,3396801.story) and another in liberal California (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4107-Gay–Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m6d2-EXCLUSIVE–California-lesbian-couple-allege-discrimination-at-Fresno-hospital), in which lesbians were denied access to their partners, and in BOTH cases all of the supposedly sufficient legal documents were in order. In the Florida example, the ill partner actually died, and her partner was never even permitted to be by her side. Nor were their adopted children. Yes, it’s unbelievable but true. (The surviving partner later sued the hospital, only to have the case dismissed: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/09/court-dismisses-suit-by-lesbian-who-couldnt-see-dying-partner-at-miamis-jackson-memorial-hospital.html)

You see, it’s a very common misconception that gay couples, if they go through the proper legal channels, can ensure that, should some emergency situation arise, they have some say-so over how the injured or ill partner is treated, should s/he not be in a position to communicate her or his will. The people I’ve mentioned–and others, as I’ve read of many similar cases–did everything they were supposed to, thinking the law would protect them. Unfortunately, all it takes is one bigoted assh*le to undo many hours (and often, many thousands of dollars’ worth) of careful planning.

Now my question to you is simple: Do you honestly think this would have happened had a heterosexual couple been in the same situation as either? We all know very well that there would be no legal basis for a hospital employee to refuse to let a husband visit his dying or critically ill wife, all other things being equal. Further, who would be so heartless as to try? And failing that, even if someone did indeed try, the hospital wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of having the lawsuit dismissed. So why are we gays at the mercy of everyone else? This is truly tyranny of the majority.

And I haven’t even begun to discuss the issue of property and inheritance rights, which at present are in no way any more in our favor than are hospital visitation rights. (For a heartrending and infuriating-to-any-fair-minded-individual example of this: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-brokeback_05tsw.ART.State.Edition2.3e898b0.html)

The simple fact of the matter is that these protections must be codified, and the only way to do that in a thorough, comprehensive manner is through the granting of marriage rights to same-sex couples. No less will do. The current pastiche of incompatible state-by-state laws will not suffice.

So while it may be some peripheral non-issue for you, marriage rights for gay couples are far from trivial to us. Unfortunately, it’s you–and the straight majority you evidently represent–who get to thoughtlessly dismiss us and our concerns at the voting booth while we are left to deal with the very real, sometimes devastating, consequences.
JustSayin’

Sorry for the broken links.

Here’s the one for the third link, should anyone care to read the article: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4107-Gay–Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m6d2-EXCLUSIVE–California-lesbian-couple-allege-discrimination-at-Fresno-hospital

And for the fourth link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-brokeback_05tsw.ART.State.Edition2.3e898b0.html
JustSayin’

Okay, one last time. The above links work, but the first is incorrect. Here is the link discussing the lawsuit dismissal, should anyone be interested: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/09/court-dismisses-suit-by-lesbian-who-couldnt-see-dying-partner-at-miamis-jackson-memorial-hospital.html
Anna

You see, it’s a very common misconception that gay couples, if they go through the proper legal channels, can ensure that, should some emergency situation arise, they have some say-so over how the injured or ill partner is treated, should s/he not be in a position to communicate her or his will. The people I’ve mentioned–and others, as I’ve read of many similar cases–did everything they were supposed to, thinking the law would protect them. Unfortunately, all it takes is one bigoted assh*le to undo many hours (and often, many thousands of dollars’ worth) of careful planning.

Very true, and I’d also like to point out the unfairness of forcing same-sex couples to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket in order to obtain some of the same protections that heterosexual married couples get automatically.

I was raised by two lesbian moms, and my parents spent a lot of money trying to protect our family when I was growing up. At that time, no state offered domestic partnership benefits. Second-parent adoptions were not available anywhere until 1985, and our family’s was not completed until 1993. This meant that for nearly all of my childhood, my non-biological mother was not even our legal parent. Not only did my parents have no link to each other, my brother and I had no link to one of our parents. We couldn’t be on her health insurance. She had no right to custody. While my parents had to pay lawyers to draw up papers in an attempt to make their wishes clear, who knows if any of that would have held up in court? It’s lucky that we never had to find out.

Sadly, millions of people are still in the same kind of precarious legal situation today, as your links unfortunately show. There are only a handful of states that have same-sex marriage, and none of those provide federal benefits and protections. States that have domestic partnership registries are likewise in the minority. Second-parent adoptions are also dicey in many states, and, in a few, they are expressly forbidden. There are many gay men and lesbians who simply are not able to protect their spouses and children the same way they’d be able to if they were heterosexual. It’s a scary situation for people to know that they might be denied access to their loved ones in a time of crisis, or that the legal system does not recognize the the legitimacy of the family they have formed. Marriage would be such a simple way of solving the problem.
Meghan

I am an atheist who is against gay marriage.
No I’m not an ignorant bigot. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe that gay marriage would destroy the sacredness of marriage.
hoverfrog

Really? ‘Sacredness’?
Ben

for gay marriage without children! Scientifically and Historically prooved: 1. homosexualist can be learned 2.Phedophylia often (in history too) is connected to homosexualism. Free the children from gay and phedophyl`s victim`s fate
Bobby CalDor

Julia Gillard the Australian prime minister dose not believe in god and is against gay marriage.

go figure?
Poppet

I am not atheist myself; I am agnostic/Buddhist. I am fine with gay marriage — as long as gay couples are not given the same insurance and other monetary benefits as straight couples. The reason straight couples are given insurance benefits is that there is always the possibility that they might get pregnant and therefore one of them will have to miss work for some time. Therefore they are given couple-insurance as a way to “insure” that even during that time that one of them has to miss work, the family as a whole, including the children, has health insurance. Yes, this is even true for infertile couples — the chance is always
there that they might suddenly become fertile. It has happened before.

Gay couples never have to worry about accidentally producing a child. A gay couple consists of two able-bodied people that are each capable of working and supporting himself or herself, and there is no biological imperative for which they would have to insure. If they want to have children, it is always planned for and often only arrived at with a great deal of effort — adoption, etc. Therefore, they can also plan to save money and buy insurance separately for the child.

Old people who might newly remarry get retirement pension and all that good stuff, even though they are definitely not going to produce any children. But that is fine because they have already worked all their lives and they have earned their golden years. They are no longer able-bodied potential workers. That’s why we have social security.

I think gay people should be able to marry, visit each other in the hospital, oh sure, all of that stuff, why not. But insurance is a state issue that will put the burden of paying for it onto all other people in the state.
Alex H

Civil Unions? Definitely not, I think gay couples should be able to gain all the same rights equal to marriage, but call it a marriage would be like asking for a gaggle of ducks.
Anna

I don’t understand what you mean by rights which “pertain only to both members being biological parents.” There are no such rights. The law is only concerned with legal parentage. Once someone has been designated a child’s legal parent, that parent is not treated differently based on biology. When married couples adopt or have children through donor insemination or surrogacy, they are both considered the legal parents of those children, irrespective of biology.

I’m confused by your statement. Do you have an objection to same-sex parents having same rights as heterosexual parents? Or to their children having two legal parents? And why is it a problem to call a civil union “marriage?”