Beware of governments granting the "right" to enter onerous lifelong contracts

It may not be, but it is being used as such. If that were the case, why does the government restrict it based on the religious/traditional sentiment that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I am curious to know what the average atheist thinks about same-sex marriages.

There is the church's version of marriage and then there should be the governments. The government's should have nothing to do with societal norms, religion, or whatever. Its job is to allow for equal opportunities, incentives, and rights to all its people. The government is currently taking the religious standing, by stating that marriage was intended to be between only a man and woman.

 

Because that's what marriage has always been - even in completely non-religious societies and societies pre-dating the existence Christianity, marriage was between men and women. When brides were given away as property, it was a contract between man and woman. Again, religion makes a claim on that, but the history goes well beyond that.

We can try to change that - and that is what is happening today. But the man & woman concept existed far longer than most modern religions have been around.

Government always has and always will connect with societal norms - because it's power is granted to it by the people it governs. Government can respond to changes in societal norms, or it can push through changes in societal norms - but it always has to come with the support of its people, or the government will simply be replaced by the people it governs.

 

And this is wrong. Our government was set up to be different from other governments. We are supposed to an impartial government whose fundamental function is to ensure equality among its citizens.

It's the religious voice that is getting the last word here. Marriage is not the same as it was just 2-300 years ago. Governments are not the same as they were just 50 years ago.

We need to decide as a society, what's more important...
Having a government who sees everyone as equals in the eyes of the law?
or, a government who conforms to the mob.

The United States was supposed to rise above intolerance, not stand amongst it. We've been down this path before, we denied African Americans their rights and we should be ashamed of it. What is so different about this? Marriage is a privilege offered to heterosexual couples, why are they [the Government] discriminating? Because the religious right wants marriage to remain a religious institution.

I don't see how both sides can't just come to a simple compromise. Churches don't have to marry gays, gays don't have to get married at churches. If it makes that much of a difference, call it something else! Civil unions. If they hold the same merit as a marriage than everything is equal.

 

Nothing is different about it - in fact, it's exactly the same. The government didn't give African Americans rights until societal norms demanded it and a majority of people of the country saw slavery as bad. Government always has and always will govern based on the moral views of its people.

That doesn't make it right - it's just what it is.

 

Agreed. You'd be hard pressed to find an atheist that has a problem with same sex marriage. Some might buy into that ridiculous "slippery slope" argument, but I say if a government can tell you what consenting adult you can't marry, it's just as easily a slippery slope to tell you who you must marry. It works both ways, doesn't it?

Seriously, no one against same sex marriage can be taken seriously, and no one is proposing FORCING churches to perform the ceremonies, so I don't see where religious liberty comes in to play.

 

You say nothing is different about it, so you agree that it is shameful?

It's not the government's job to administer morals. It's only job is to administer and execute the laws and business of the state.

Separation of church and state. Not just marriage, abortion, prayers in school, etc. The church can recognize whatever they want, but the State is supposed to be equal and fair to all. It's not doing its job.

 

It is if you're gonna redefine it. Anyway, I'm unconvinced about your claim that marriage was defined to be exclusionary based on race.

Western tradition. Inherited or not, it's Western tradition. It's been that way for hundreds of years. It's the only definition for some people.

 

Not based on race, but between races.

These were the laws that defined marriages back in the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

 

I'm sorry does that make it right?

Does that make it constitutional?

 

Those were laws. The law was still conscious that marriage was still between man and woman.

 

You need to just come out of the closet already.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/gay-marriage-goes-way-back/

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/gay-marriage-medieval-style.html

 

Beware of crochety old self proclaimed "libertarians" who don't give a flying **** about your freedom as long as it's the state government ("states rights!") trying to screw you over and it comports with their own moral diktats of the moment.

 

I don't see why not. It was adopted as a simple union between man and woman, free of any religious meaning.

 

Yes and we are talking about using laws to define or not define marriage. Again merely relying on tradition doesn't work.

 

Yes, and they change as we realize that the laws are discriminatory and exclusionary.

Is there really any reason, beyond "tradition" to keep gays from marrying?

 

We're not on the same page here.

I'm saying marriage has, traditionally (again, in the Western tradition) - without respect to what was actually in law - been defined to be a union between been man and woman.

What you presented were just laws preventing marriage between people of different races.

 

And he's saying that we've had a lot of stupid traditions.

What's your point?

 

What's stupid about it?

 

The argument that others will make is that it's a tradition which discriminates against others, so it's bad. We've had traditions where blacks could be discriminated as well as woman, and we abandoned those traditions.

That, however, is not what interests me. You argue that "Western tradition" means that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'd like to know if this is say, a fundamental aspect of Western tradition - if a Western society permits homosexuality, would you argue that we are no longer than a Western society? If so, why? And if laws aren't the origins of the concept that marriage is between a man and a woman, that what is?