Election Thread

[LemmingofGlory]

If you are an atheist, then you shouldn't believe in marriage. From the atheist point of view, marriage is an anachronism of treating woman as the property of the husband. Perhaps you would not even believe in that quaint old notion of monogamy. Biologically, it is only the women who desires monogamy to attract the beefiest bull to hang around to insure her progeny survive. The male is driven to pollinate as many flowers as are blooming. Please forgive the mixing of metaphors.

I find terms like "believe in" terribly vague, as they convey no meaning to me.

Now, how are you qualified to state what an atheist should believe? More correctly, you might say this: A religious marriage does not have the same meaning to an atheist as to an adherent of that religion. However, the ritual is not necessarily without meaning to the atheist (especially because the atheist may be married to an adherent). For example, a married atheist may view such a marriage as a lifelong commitment to his/her mate or as a symbol of his/her relationship.

Additionally, there is no singular "atheist point of view." To say that someone is atheist means exactly one thing, and that does not have anything whatsoever to do with egalitarian notions. That is to say, being an atheist and viewing women as property are not contradictory notions. It's not even accurate to say "To the atheist, marriage is a religious notion." because, culturally, the term marriage is used in reference to both courthouse and churchhouse marriages. But it is accurate to say that many adherents are suddenly wanting to distinguish between the two types because they find one of the notions (at the very least) distasteful when it involves people of the same sex.

The greatest problem in this debate is the fact that the word "marriage" does carry two meanings. One side wants courthouse marriage and the other side argues it in terms of churchhouse marriage. In terms of courthouse marriage, the same-sex marriage problem is not homosexuality but that the license is allowed to discriminate on the basis of the gender of the licensees. In terms of churchhouse marriage, the same-sex marriage problem is religious teachings regarding sex between people of the same sex (sidenote: I've never heard any Biblical quotes regarding about same-sex romantic relationships -- just quotes about sex). And so, the two camps never seem to communicate effectively because as soon as someone says "marriage" the other side isn't thinking about the same thing.

My recommendation would be to do nothing to marriage. Leave it as the mish mash of tangled traditions that it has become. The state has no problems if they create their own things, call it civil union, then license it and recognize it in the states purview to be equal to marriage. Marriage can remain untainted for the religious, and civil unions can exist for everyone else. Messing with marriage is to religious people the same as declaring that baptisms will now only be done in bars from 11 to midnight, but with beer instead of holy water.

I do think that a change of terminology is in order so that people understand the subject under discussion, because miscommunicating is going nowhere. After such a change, however, I am curious as to whether couples who enter into civil unions would call themselves "married" and whether doing so would vex religious folk.

-Lem