While there is no religion of atheism nor is there a doctrine of atheism to which all atheists need to subscribe to, many atheists have united together and formed freethought and humanistic communities which promote rational thinking, education, and reason over superstition.

Because of the emphasis on rational thought and education it is not a surprise that most of the People of Reason in these groups support gay marriage and equal rights for our friends in the gay, lesbian, and transgender communities. In fact, the only reason people seem to give against equal rights for gays seem to be religious in nature. While some religious people will try to give non-religious reasons, it quickly becomes clear from the poorness of those reasons that the real reason really is religious.

The Religious Right has made this issue one of the top issues in their Culture War, but that is not the only reason why this issue has become so important to the larger atheistic community. Our community values equality and fairness and in general we see no valid reason for restricting the rights of our homosexual friends. Such an attack on their rights and the rights of others is irrational and based solely on bronze aged mythology, fear, and ignorance.

So when I hear the Religious Right or anyone else for that matter attacking gay rights or trying to ban gays from marrying, I feel like I have to step up to the plate and defend them. So I would defend gay rights even if it weren’t part of the Culture Wars simply because it is the rational and humane thing to do. But since it is part of the Culture Wars, I am even more motivated to fight side by side with my gay friends against the attacks from the Religious Right and others.

The greater atheistic community has a lot to learn from the activism of our friends in the gay community. As our rights are constantly under attack from the Religious Right, we walk in similar paths and have to fight for our rights in much the same way. Their fight is our fight and we must stand with them and hope that when the time comes, they will return the favor.

It is also important to note that many gay people are also People of Reason. Because the Religious Right and other religious people have such big issues with homosexuality, many gay people end up leaving their religion for more secular company. Gay people are more than just friends of the greater atheistic community; many of them a part of it.

I have always been amused by the argument that allowing gays to marry would destroy the American family. I say if anything is destroying the American family, it is the high divorce rate, which obviously can't be pinned on the gays.

Absolutely. There is no rational reason to opposite for it beyond religion and/or personal bigotry. Arguments concerning disease or AIDS are truly lame since heterosexual couples are also open to getting disease just as easily.

I with you 100%. I'm not the slightest bit gay. I'm 100% heterosexual and the thought of becoming sexually intimate with another man does not appeal to me in the slightest.

Just the same, I'm also a humanitarian, and I believe in human rights and freedom to be who you are. I'm not about to tell someone else that's it's wrong for them to be sexually attracted to others of their same gender and if they can find a compatible same-gender mate more power to them.

Having said all of that, I would be extremely offended by someone who was Gay (or Bisexual) who was attempting to convince me to become Gay or claim that I'm 'homophobic'. To me that's just reverse discrimination. To call me 'homophobic' would be the same as me calling them 'heterophobic'. Of course if they are Bi-sexual that would hardly work.

But the main point being that I have very little repsect for anyone who is gay or bi-sexual and would make any attempt to belittle a heterosexual person for not being willing to consider that orientation. That's truly no different from a heterosexual telling a Gay to consider becoming heterosexual ONLY.

So I would have no respect for anyone who tried to convice me that being gay is right for me, or that I'm simply not considering it because I'm "homophobic", that's absurd and ends up being nothing more than "reverse-prejudice".

Just as with anything you'll always end up with obnoxious individuals. Heck, I've met obnoxious heterosexual couples.

But yes, I'm all for human rights, and that means no pressure or discrimination in either direction. I don't want gay men trying to convince me to become gay anymore than they want me to convince them that they need to be heterosexual.

It's a TWO-WAY street. There shouldn't be any pressure or predjudice in either direction.

I think a lot of heterosexuals are afraid that they would be pressured into considering homosexuality of it were accepted as 'mainstream'. And that's probably why there is such resistance against it. I think also teens have a well-known habit of trying anything once. So there's another thing that bring fear into the heterosexual sect. They are afriad that their kids might try it and like it (sexually) when in fact, it's not really their orientation.

I mean, let's face it. Natural homosexuality is indeed a very small percentage of the population. But if it became condoned as 'socially acceptable norm' that percentage would quickly rise dramatically. Mostly because people who would have never thought about it before would start considering it.

There's no doubt in my mind that whatever society accepts, society becomes. So once homosexuality is given a green light socially the precent of homosexuality will quickly rise in number.

Is that good, bad, or irrelevant?

That I can't say. I just believe that it would rise dramatically if given a social green light. It might be a good thing. I have no clue. Heterosexual relationships sure as hell don't seem to be doing so hot in our society. Maybe homosexual relationships would actually work out better. Who knows?

But I agree completely that it's solely a religious (or predjudice) issue. There's really no rational reason to outlaw it or for the government to tell its citizens who they must live with. That's truly not a FREE society.

It has to be legal and the people's CHOICE.

That's truly is the bottom line whether anyone personally likes it or not. Individual freedom must come before predjudice. Especially in matters of choosing a lifemate.

There's just no sane reason to forbid it by law really (other than religion or predjudice).

And what would we do if after years of allowing same-sex marriage we discover that more couples are staying together?

How soon would we confess that the situation actually improved?

Assuming of course that it did improve. I'm not trying to suggest that it would. But who knows, maybe it would. Women and men don't seem to live together very well.

Maybe same-gender relationships would work out better in the long haul. Who knows?

I'm all for heterosexual relationships, but I have no clue why! I've been single my entire life so for all intents and purposes I've chosen to be in a "NO-sexual relationship", unless we want to get into talking about masturbation.

That's probably illegal anyway and I just haven't gotten caught yet.

But even divorce can't compare to the massive damage to families the Religious Right's patron party allowed to happen with their ideological-based monetary policy and by turning a blind eye to predatory lending.

While they were so busy making sure that gay couples couldn't get abortions, they allowed Wall St. to get in bed with Washington. They sure blessed THAT 'civil union', didn't they?


-Kerry O.

Gay relationships are immoral: Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom "from religion" as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules on anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible.
Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed upon. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

Additionally, many people continue to believe the propaganda from right-wing religious organizations that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex, in a committed gay relationship, is merely a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for *heterosexuals.(this day and age; that is questionable) Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians. Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are part of a minority themselves.

"I thank you for your thoughts." It was a good read, it didn't leave me feeling mad.

Kat

A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation, and are "equal opportunity destroyers".

These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Polling results now show that most people there, now recognize that the benefits far outweigh the trivial costs, and that far from threatening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage has actually strenghtened it.

So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it?

Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to.

Kat

…a shining example of acceptance of ALL as equal, generating greater freedom...

Freedom from the grips of self-centered misery that insists that we judge everything around us as "less"... Lonely place.

If mankind suffers any crippling disease (like AIDS)… fearing it to no end, and then shifts its experience to acceptance of what once was called the culprit, it seems to loosen the grip of that fear...

The physical manifestation of that fear dissipates... literally.

Acceptance of all as equal frees anything. The more I let it spew out of my mouth, the more I can see it and the more free I feel... the closer connection I get to feel between myself and humanity (I hope). I trust it and stand by, waiting for it to show up in anything I have the eyes to see.

Call it God, if you wish... I'm okay with that.

As a friend to many gays, lesbians and transgendered.....I have a sort of better outlook and understanding of their plight...their loves and needs. I see the lives they lead and "try to live" in a society of bigots and fear, religious persecution, and predjudices. I also see how they love and want only what is right, not only for themselves but for us all.

You know it wasn't that long ago that birth control was illegal, women voting was illegal...slavery was illegal...interacial marriage wa illeal...illicit sex among anyone was illegal..sodomy between heterosexuals was illegal....("so do my"....so do my..neighbors...so do my...friends...)What's new?

Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Simple discomfort with a proposal is no reasonable basis for not allowing it - These days, most don't even notice most of thse "used to be" issues.

Women are still a minority....the fight still rages on for equal pay. Women can now buy a home...without a mans consent..wasn't always that way. Not to mention "oh my gawd....in politics"? Holy shi$!!! Whats next??

Kat

Oh...back to the "atheism" thing among gays....whatever. Yup, there are most certainly atheist gays as is there heteros....but I also know personally a few gay preachers and some gay churches which are full. I have attended one in particular. I have yet to attend a gay funeral that wasn't held in a church, and what is different about it? They come together and make sure it is always festive, they donate flowers and food and have pics and stories of their lives. The respect to not only the gay community for the loss as well as the love given to the families is overwhelming. They tend to hold memorials to raise monies to do whatever is necessary to assure that they are laid to rest appropiately and with honor. But of course...it is always "fabulous".

Kat

Isn't the whole institution of marriage based in religion anyway? Are we moving toward a culture without marriage? Given the high and growing rate of divorce the next logical step would be the social dissolution of lifelong pair bonding.

Its based on forcing "love", based on law, rather than allowing each other to pass through what-ever each heart must experience. Force anything to follow something defined and watch love wither away.

I'm not so sure about the idea of marriage being a religous idea.

I've always felt a natural desire to have a very monogmous relationship with just one partner. I also find the idea of a family unit to be naturally appealing. So I would much prefer that situation to exist even without any regard to religion.

I think where it fails is in the idea of 'Until Death do we Part'.

I think the Wiccan creed of "For as long as love lasts" is much more reasonsble.

In other words, I think that monogamous relationships of loyalty to one partner is indeed a good idea. Where it fails is in the idea of making divorce such a horrible thing. If either of the partners decide that they are no longer interested in continuing the relationship then it whould be easy to disolve it without making out like it's a bad thing. There's no 'sin' in the fact that things aren't working out. On the contrary it would be a 'sin' to live with someone you aren't getting along with just to please some God.

Just the same I think that monogamous devoted relationships have value even in a purely atheistic society. I wouldn't want to live in a society that condone other men constantly hitting on my partner and acting like I have no right to be upset about that.

I mean, who wants to start raising a family when the whole rest of the tribe is going to view the mother of your children as fair game for a date?

Especially when SO MANY MEN clearly just want to have sex and be on their merry way.

That's disgusting.

I've never felt that way in my life. To me sex is a very intimate relationship that goes far beyond the mere physical pleasure and not its something that I would even want to have with another man's wife.

What about the children in all of this? Don't you think Children would like to have some consistency in who's raising them.

Wiccans say, "For as long as love lasts", but why doesn't anyone think of the childern. Should we have marriage last "Untill the children are of legal age?".

At least people might start CONSIDERING the children in relationships if that's where we place the FOCUS.

I think relationships should be based on PARENTING for those who have children. And for those who don't have children then they could set up whatever arrangements they choose.

None the less, I think a socially recognized 'marriage' or union should be at least available to those who want to take themselves off the "meat market" as a united couple.

To do away with the idea of committed relationships altogether seems ludicous to me. It has value even in a purely atheistic society.

But it shouldn't automatically be "Till Death do they Part". It should be based on other things, like "For as long as love lasts" or "Until they've raised their children to adulthood".

Perhaps we need to just move away from this idea that marriage has to be for life, and that divorce means that something went drastically WRONG and IMPROPER.

That's where the problems really come into play. In fact, this is probably what makes a lot of divorces so UGLY. Since divorce automatically implies that something went WRONG, it causes people to want to pin the blame on the other person and accuse them of having done the WRONG DEED.

If divorce were more acceptable, then people could get out of relationships with a lot more grace without all the finger-pointing and name-calling.

Of course a really BIG problem in our society is that we truly don't prepare our children for marriage, parenting, or SEX!

On the contrary we tell them that sex is sinful and it shouldn't be talked about until after your married! That's just setting our children up for DISASTER!

Our society actually sets people up to fail in so many ways when it comes to relationships and marriage. They basically force them to go into it BLIND.

I think the Wiccans also have "Handfastings" which are unions that last for a year-and-a-day. I think all people who want to marry should be made to live together for a year-and-a-day BEFORE they make it a permanent thing. Then if they change their mind they can get out before it's too late.

After all, how can anyone really know what it's like to live with someone full-time until they've actually done it?

Marriage truly is a gamble.

What would a culture without the social, religious or legal pressure for lifelong pair bonding look like? Would marriage exist outside of religious ceremonies?

I don't think it needs to be legal "pressure" nor does it need to be 'religous' in nature.

People can still have marriage ceremonies. What's wrong with the just saying, "In the name of Humanity I pronounced you married based on the stipulations of your covenant".

I mean there you go.

The 'covenant' can be whatever arrangement the couple agreed to. The state doesn't even need to know what that entails unless the contract is actually disputed.

Any 'divorce' would actually be a plea to get out of the convenant (or contract) early.

There's no reason why the convenant needs to be a lifetime commitment. As I said before it could be based on any time frame, or any number of other conditions.

And a public ceremony would be valuable because it makes it publically known to other people so people KNOW who's in a committed relationship and who isn't. Not to mention the fact that eveyone enjoys the reception parties.

It doesn't need to have any religious context to it at all. Nor should the couple be "pressured" by the state to make it a lifetime commitment. They should be able to make up whatever covenant they want. Although it would lose it's value if people were making up convents that only last for a month.

That would kind of be ridiculous and it would lose any repsect at all.

Even a year-and-a-day contract should be entered into with the idea of potentially renewing it or making a longer commitment (if things work out). It's could almost be seen as VERY SERIOUS DATING. And people should refrain from procreating when in such a short-term trial relationship.

I mean it makes no sense to have children and then break up at the end of the year. That could be seen as "Child Abuse". That's a whole different issue.

Is a "justice of the peace" a religious teacher or follower? I do not know that answer. People write down their own vows all the time. Marriage isn't always in a church. I mean heck...some groups jump over a broom stick. Ta da...it is a done deal.

To me 'marriage" is a contract of sorts to be or do as each collectively agree it is or is to be. If two people get married with two differing ideas what it is...then to me it is doomed to fail. I believe it is an issue of same thoughts or beliefs and feelings between two people that make a marriage. Long term that is. Common real goals and values.

I have seen marriage between two people that clearly had no real idea that each would stay the same, instead hopeful they could "change them" in time. Or they would come around. Well, that doesn't work.

Marriage is in my opinion...is what you make it, or want it to be. Not what some church or friends and family say it is.

If having a God based faith makes me feel better about it....then okay then. But, I believe unions..marriage was around way before Jesus....Were Adam and Eve married? I guess we should ask God. Tee hee (whole nuther can of worms).


Kat

Just to comment on my own words:

I think a responsible government really needs to move away from viewing marriage as a 'catch-all' institution anyway.

A couple's committment to each other, and their responsiblity to any children they might be responsible for bringing into this world are truly TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES!

And people who want to have children really should be looking as making some kind of covenant with the chilren they create!

Modern marriage vows and laws really don't deal with the issues of parenting very well anyway.

So the whole institution of marriage is way overdue for being looked into with an open mind. We should be focused more on PARENTING committments rather than spousal committments.

So the instituition marriage as it is isn't very well-thought-out to begin with. It's very spousal-centric when it really should be parental-centric anyway. They should be taking vows to honor their CHILDERN TO BE, rather than taking vows aimed toward honoring each other.

Marriage is Bull$hit.

But the only reason gays would like to get married is so they can enjoy certin legal benefits marriage has to offer, like tax breaks and wills and such.

Plus, if two people love each other then why not?

As I said, it is realy only the religious that care.
Religion has always hated what it does not understand.
It despretly tried to keep the blacks down, and when that faild it now sets it's sights on the gay community.
And when that fails (and it will).
They will move on to the next group to hate and oppress.

Well, that's clearly a subjective view.



I disagree, I think there are a lot of atheists who see value in a socially recognized 'marriage' between two people as a family.

I know that I would see value in marriage even as a pure atheist.

We don't need to believe in a God in order to make a public committment to create a family unit.

And if we didn't have the official institution of marriage, there would be a LOT of men hitting on the women who are living other another man.

Without the institution of marriage it would be far too easy for one guy to come up to another man's mate, and say to the woman, "Tell this guy to take a hike and pick up with me".

This is ESPECIALLY TRUE when these predators see a couple going through a diffficult time! And they would prey on those moments!

It would be a constant competition just to try to keep your mate. Also if you see someone you like better it would be way to easy to just walk away from your current relationship.

There's something to be said for making committments and taking responsiblity for them.

But at the same time, demanding that eveyone make a lifetime committment from scratch right off the bat isn't good. There should at least be a provision for year-and-a-day trial runs.

And some cultures actually already do that.

No-one has a right to judge anyone.

What someone does between the sheets is their business....not the business of some stuffed shirted exclusionists.....pretending to be pious.