I Am An Atheist And I Am MARRIED

the state SAYS so! (in fact BOTH my marriages were "marriages" and NEITHER had a damned thing to do with ANY god)

get it?

"Marriage" has NOTHING to do with ANY god

cut the shit

You have a strange enfatuation with rear ends (reference to your sig).

Ooops. I mean, right on.

:-)

I thought those with tatoos had found God?

Another urban myth dies.

Happy Greek Easter!

oh gosh - can't say that I guess -it is hard to post to a not married in a church person - - - - - not!

:-)

whatever floats your boat - and wishing you many more years of a happy marriage

:applause:

:loveya:

we exchanged vows in a wedding center and we had a judge perform the ceremony. We didn't send god an invitation and yet the state of TX recognizes us as a married couple anyway.

no god involved.

I wonder if I should be able to call him my "husband" or if some religion has decided to co-opt that word. :sarcasm:

my mother-in-law is a born again now. we have many "interesting" conversations on the whole gay civil rights issue. Sure, Britney Spears can get married 5 times in a weekend but heaven forbid we allow two people of the same gender who've been together for decades get married. :eyes:

:P

nothing to do with God.

For someone who has faith, that faith is part of their whole life, marriage included. It's part of who they are.

If God is not part of your life, then it makes sense he wouldn't be part of your marriage.

marriage in any religion. It is not limited to those with religious beliefs and therefore religion should really butt the hell out of the definition of marriage.

It didn't. Some protest it did. They are wrong.

the two were intertwined.

And in Western and non-Western cultures, marriage has been a religious institution for a very long time.

Furthermore, most people in America today see Marriage as having religious connotations.

There was a post in the other thread that proved this.

And, again, just because most Americans believe marriage has religious connotations, that does not change the proven fact that marriage existed before organized religion.

Sorry you don't like that fact, but it remains true.

and ceremony in house of worship of your choice.

:)

I like the way most European countries do it. Civil ceremony to make it legal. Religious ceremony if you choose.

only in America are Lefties trying to keep ritual aspects tied into joining households.

We just have a more tolerant attitude.

In the Netherlands marriage is ONLY recognized when it is performed in the city hall by a public official.

You can have a religious ceremony if you want one, but it is not recognized by the state unless the the civil one has also been performed.

Oh, it's *way* better than nothing, don't get me wrong. And at least our other legal paperwork (Will, Power of Att'y, medical directives, etc.) means something in this state -- whereas their legitimacy can still be called into question in places like Ohio and Virginia, due to recent laws passed there. (I don't have the complete state list, but unfortunately it keeps growing.)

It's funny though, all these arguments about preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage from people like my same-sex wife and myself -- when my marriage is plenty sacred by the definitions of the Wiccans, the Unitarians, the Reformed Jews, the Buddhists, etc. and so on...

-Technowitch

and we were married in a Gatlinburg Chapel by a Methodist.

We just liked the chapel. He never asked us if we were Christians.

Since we were married by someone outside our religions, would some say that mean's we weren't really married? If so, then why is it costing me so damn much to get a divorce?!??!? :shrug:

:thumbsup:

MARRIAGE certificate. I did not receive a CIVIL UNION certificate, there is NO SUCH THING as a civil union certificate nor should there be, imo.

Those who want to 'civil unionize' my marriage sound like Frank Luntz in trying to change the facts by using cover words, imo.

Away with thee foul beast!



No really, great post. You and Mrs. Matcom are so awesome! :loveya:

:loveya:

:D

I wondered the same thing. :o


:P

...he's doing the "Y" part of the "YMCA" dance? (OK, I'm going to hell for that. But I was anyway.)



Pagan child of married atheist parents here. :hi: No holy water's ever touched our family and we've never been in a church together (except for funerals and other people's weddings once a decade or so) but we're just as much a family as any Christian one, thank you.

As I wrote on the other thread, I don't care what the churches do. They can marry or not marry whoever.

I have a STATE sanctioned marriage license. State marriage licenses have NOTHING to do with religion. Hence, seperation of church and state.

On an aside, I thought this tidbit about the Catholic church performing Gay marriages was interesting:

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

power..oftentimes the spouse..

all others civily unioned, lol. you would rather have battle over a word. this doesnt do it for me. why do you want the word so. what does it matter.

period. it means "equality"

defining THEIR unions is unequal by definition. period. it isn't fair.

the argument is that CHURCHES define marriage somehow. it bullshit. i, as an ATHEIST, have EVERY right to "marry". so do gays. my point is if you want to play the "theist" card, you lose.

i am proof of that

give up that title. isnt that even more profound in the support of a gay union. what if majority, in suppoort of gay unions then say they are in union not in marriage. isnt it a payback to the religion that wants the word. ultimately thru their ugliness dont they destroy the very word they hypocritically hold onto

its MORE than a word.

our marriage licenses give us certain rights by definition. in fact, *I* don't even have a CHOICE to walk away from the word (short of divorce)

"civil unions" don't provide my right to hold my "wife's" hand in the hospital.

the argument is bogus

i went into court house, i can hold hand in hospital

i really dont give a shit about anothers definition of marriage. i watch divorce all over, i watch married treat each other poorly. in a name, matters not to me. just wouldnt be a deal to me. what is a deal is gays having equal rights, in all things in all ways. if this is a compromise to resolve, i will bring that title to me and be a part of their group. hurts me not. matters to me not. if it doesnt work, and gays arent equal in the eyes of law, not religion, then it is not a solution. you are right

making the other side bacdk down, not my deal, i dont care about their hypocrisy, i care about equal rights

we would be redefining a word

and if everyone is then free to opt for a religious ceremony in the church of their choosing then what's the problem?

How is that unequal?

It's bizarre that some can't get a simple point.

nt

Despite what some believe, marriage was around loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before organized religion.

are to step outside their own preconcieved notions.

:shrug:

wherein many of us are able to see that:

a legal contract from the state if very different than
a sacred ceremony conducted by the church

Since a legal contract and sacred ceremony are two different things there should be language to reflect that.

Seperation of Church and State

And since the word "marriage" is associated with Religion then "civil union" will do just fine for those of us who want to live with one another legally with no religious mumbojumbo.

If I and another person want to join households... we should be able to go to the court house and sign a legal contract with no ceremony of any kind necessary.

No marriage, justice of the peace or religious ritual necessary.

point, as in my locked thread?

The point (of mine) that you missed is that as far as government is concerned they should only recognize marriage in a civil context. You can call it marriage if you want, but if the legal term was changed to civil unions and applied to ALL (no separate, no unequal) civil marriages the state would find it difficult to exclude gays from the union.

Churches, of course, would be free to perform a religioius ceremony (which they also call marriage) upon whomever they choose.

By simply choosing an alternate term for the legalese we could take the wind out of the religious rhetoric surrounding the issue, and promote our cause of ending the legal discrimination against gay couples.

all you straight people think I should call the rights I am not receiving :hi:

This is a continuation of an
argument from another thread.



DU Moderator