Well, I initially misread the title’s first word as “Are”. The atheists I know are a fairly diverse group, as are redheads, left handed folks, and guitar players.
I, for one, used to believe this, despite not being a libertarian (though being an atheist.) And even then, I certainly didn’t consider myself anti-SSM. Firstly, for the reasons that John Mace and Anne Neville stated earlier: that realistically state-recognized marriage ain’t going anywhere for now, and in the meantime it’s wrong to discriminate against homosexual couples. But also - it’s important to draw a distinction between being against state recognition of marriage and being anti-marriage. Since I wasn’t anti-marriage, I wasn’t anti-SSM.
Yes, please, the correct term is ‘single bonus.’
A libertarian who is neutral on the issue wrote an interesting article on the possible unintended consequences.
I consider my self as an agnostic and I’m against gay marriage
Anyone who has read your posts could have safely guessed that.
I would completely agree that it is prejudiced. However, the question was is it possibly to be anti-ssm and not anti-gay. The situation I described fits that criteria.
An amazingly poorly reasoned article. The section on welfare causing the collapse of marriage as an institution in the inner cities makes an amazing number of assumptions, and ignores a huge number of important factors, such as the rise of drug abuse and the high incarceration and mortality rates among young black men. And even if you except her arguments about welfare, her attempts to tie that to gay marriage are particularly hollow. Arguing that extending welfare benefits to unwed mothers would lead to an increase in unwed mothers sounds unlikely, but there is a logical connection. Arguing that letting gays marry would cause straights to stop getting married makes no logical sense whatsoever. Really, a pathetically poorly formed argument, and rather gutless to boot.
Speaking of which…
And why would that be?
Yeah but … the OP is drawing a connection between believing in God and opposing gay marriage, i.e., that such belief is the ultimate justification for such opposition. He then wonders if lack of such a belief would lead to not opposing gay marriage.
It seems a bit gratuitous to throw in comments about redheads and lefthanders unless you are attempting to establish that inclusion in those groups signifies a fundamental belief of some kind.
But, believe it or not, that is exactly the argument that many conservative/Christian/politico types are making. Bill Bennet on the Daily Show, and (I forgot his name) from Focus on Family or some such on Catherine Crier live, each citing statistis from Holland since gay marriage was allowed there, claim that gay marriage directly leads to a decline in heterosexual marriages. The first time I heard it I could not believe it. The second time was when Bennet was ducking and weaving during Stewart’s interview.
It is like a mantra–Holland! Holland! Holland!
Musta gone out in the newsletter.
That would be Dr. James Dobson.
Gay marriage, or more precisely societal acceptance of homosexuality, might cause a decline in straight marriage. The idea is that there are some gays who don’t want to admit that they are gay, and even go so far as to marry someone of the opposite sex to convince others (or themselves) that they’re “normal” (meaning not gay). There might also be some bisexuals who really wanted to marry a member of the same sex, but because they couldn’t do that, they settled for someone of the opposite sex.
Now, whether it’s a good or a bad thing that those straight marriages don’t exist is another question. I think marriages entered into “because you’re supposed to get married” or marriages where you’re settling for one partner when you really wanted another are more likely than others to be unhappy and probably end in divorce. Personally, I have enough respect for marriage that I don’t think anyone should get married (to a member of either sex) unless they really love their partner and think they have a good chance of being happy together for the rest of their lives. But there are people who think there should be more straight marriages, irrespective of whether those marriages are happy or not. Some of these people would like to restrict or outlaw divorce, so that an unhappily married couple is forced to stay married.
I guess what leaps out to me are the words ‘might’ and ‘decline.’ How likely is it to cause a statistically significant decline? Is this simply an opinion, or do you have some data to share?
But the argument, in the linked article, is that SSM might lead to the total collapse of marriage as an institution. While the continuing mainstreaming of homosexuality will lead to more and more closeted gays coming out (which, needless to say, is a good thing) it won’t be in such numbers that opposite-gender marriages virtually vanish.
It’s just an opinion. I doubt anyone knows- “I’m secretly gay” isn’t something a lot of people would want to admit to anyone else, or even to themselves in some cases, in our society.
I certainly don’t think that opposite-sex marriage would disappear if same-sex marriage were legal and socially acceptable.
As an agnostic that flip flops between that an being an aethiest…I couldn’t care less if homosexuals want to be married. I think they should be afforded all the ‘priviliges’ society confers on marriage. Marriage is just a word; who cares whether it is between same sex or not? The point is if you are in a long term loving relationship, your partner should be eligible for survivor benefits, medical etc. as they are paying the same fees, taxes, etc. as heterosexual partners. What they do in private, is their business. The measure is, “Do these relationships impact negatively on society?” I don’t think so…homosexuality normally occurs in a population. Bottom line, we survive as society with a homosexual element without ill effect. Prove me wrong…if you can prove recognizing homosexual marriages is going to have in increase in crime, murder, fraud, crumble Christian fundamentalists (where is the fun in fundamentalist?), erode Muslims, end Buddha and so forth----I am waiting for your proof. Family values tend to begin in the family (and are shaped by society)—who says homosexuals can not abide by “Do unto your neighbour as you would have them do unto you and so forth?” Crap…They are just people; life is hard enough without our being stupid and narrow minded towards another human being.
I’m an atheist who’s all for SSM.
Yup. The arguments go like this
Religion unifies social groups and gives them common ground, augments the placebo effect (if you get sick and think god will make you healthier, you get healthier) and acts as a police force (what god condemns is usually what society at large condemns). As a result people predisoposed to superstition & religion have a survival advantage over people with no inclination for that.
Evolution is sweet.
OK, I guess I should bow out. To me, my religious belief (I am an atheist) has absolutely nothing to do with my stand on homosexuality. Reading this thread I see others view things differently.
I am not an atheist and I am supportive of same sex marriage, but I have heard people argue that same sex marriage should not be allowed because a majority of people are opposed to it and their gov. officials should be representing the people that elected them so therefore it should not allowed under our current system. This was a few years ago when I believe that poll numbers showed a stonger opposition to same same sex marriages than today. I know that this isn’t really an argument against same sex marriage, it is more of a justification of why they are not going to argue with you (“The reason that I don’t want gays to marry is because most people don’t want it and I don’t want some appointed judge going against the will of the people.”)
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” --Benjamin Franklin