@mashedtaters I wasn't trying to argue with you of course, I kinda already got that we agreed with each other Just wanted to add my two cents, and yes, extend the thought to agriculture or something else maybe. Because we or they always make the discussion revolve around religion, like it's the only thing that brought our social structures where they are now.
(I had to google the word "tater" is it used everywhere to say potato ? I never heard of it before)
(I had to google the word "tater" is it used everywhere to say potato ? I never heard of it before)
Lol, no, I'm sort of poking fun at English speakers in my country, America. It's a southern American thing; I have family down there who say taters and skeeters (mosquitos) and critters (little animals) and crik (creek or stream). I personally say potatoes.
But mashedtaters is so much more fun to read and say. Plus mashedtaters is just...well, to put it simply, the most godly creation that mankind has ever invented. I'm pretty sure mashedtaters should be a religion.
How about we change this topic to if you don't believe in mashedtaters then you can't get married? In other words, should Anti-Taterists be allowed to get married?
On a more serious note, yes, I do believe that atheists should be allowed to be married, if they want.
Regardless of what some agricultural collectives, often self-styled as 'governments', would want you to believe, an individual is allowed to do as they please. Really, none holds authority to demand concession of a person's freedom. Which is why these collectives would often threaten to use force, or even resort to actual violence, in order to get their way and prevent undesired behaviours within their perceived territory. Thankfully, a free individual, unlike the collectives, is beyond primitive territoriality and may avoid these hostilities quite simply by means of migration.
What of marriage? Personally, I advise against partaking in societal devices which aim to hinder one's freedom and ghettoise one's psyche. In my view, marriage is largely one such device. Uncoincidentally, it also rests at the foundation of most modern caste systems, in which the married, reproducing caste would exert its supremacy over the inferior non-reproducing caste, employing sneaky methods such as e.g. unjust taxation laws noted in some posts above.
Of course, none of this is to say that people should not get wed. Wedding is a simple celebration, a party, be it religious or secular, whatever. As such, it is obviously commendable. Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal institution that was born from strife and greed rather than festive joy. It was originally invented to regulate the (often very bloody) inheritance disputes, its purpose being to predetermine and limit the number of eligible heirs of a person's worldly possessions and honours. While it arguably may have had some relevance in days long bygone, this is not the case anymore, unless one wishes to uphold the mostly obsolete customs of hereditary nobility. No need to bother with it.
In a final thought, I will note that love in its nature, just like freedom, knows no bounds. It is very powerful and may boldly take on many an awful prison, but when so constricted it is much more likely to wither and die.
Yea I was merely trying to point out that even if you thought this was a good idea (and I don't) I just don't see how it would even be enforceable. Do people get cards they have to fill out before they are married where they check off their religious belief (and people who check off atheists can't get married). Putting aside the personal liberties that would be stomped on for something like this the idea itself just has a lot of holes.
Edit: That said anyone who writes in that they are a Jedi worshiper (on say a census) clearly cannot get married - for love is against the Jedi code.
I'm a married atheist. However, I'm not married due to love, but for the practical reason that at the time it seemed my partner of many years and I might have to go back to my home country, and having travelled to my present country, the paperwork and effort to prove a relationship when not married is gargantuan compared to what it is when you are married.
Of course, I do love my partner (of eight years and counting, only two of which since marriage), it's just that I don't have any regard for marriage as an institution (and neither does she). Sure, atheists should be able to marry, and so should LGBT people, and polyamoury should be legal if all parties are consenting - but that's under a general notion of equality, not because marriage is an intrinsic good in itself. Literally the only change in our lives due to marriage is that I now say "wife" rather than "significant other" or "partner", which I guess saves a few syllables (but sounds way less pompous than "significant other", so boo).
The government offers civil ceremonies, so we did one. It took about 15 minutes. Then we went out for Japanese with some family members. I wouldn't even have had family members there if they wouldn't have gotten upset about it, to be honest. SO and I had seriously considered just getting married first, and then telling people about it afterwards so as to avoid all the fuss. We didn't because, again, people would have gotten upset. What a crappy ceremony; it was my wedding and I didn't even get to decide "This isn't important, just ignore it."
My ideal society would have civil ties for the legalities, but no half-baked semi-religious ceremony that allows people that met a week ago to have a more solid relationship in the eyes of the law than a couple who had lived together for five years. But ideals aren't reality; too many people care about marriage, for religious and non-religious reasons, for it to become irrelevant anytime in the next century. Until then, equality of opportunity is the most achievable ideal.
I am an atheist. I have been in a committed relationship with an opposite-sex partner for around 15.5 years. I refuse to get married. Since I don't believe in religion, it would be hypocritical to go through the motions of a religious ceremony, and I refuse to go though a civil ceremony because I don't believe the state has any right to interfere with my personal life either.
This seems to have worked very well, since pretty much everyone I know who did get married is now divorced.
So I would abolish marriage (and civil partnerships) all together. Religious folk could still go through whatever ceremony they like, but it should have no legal significance.
In my opinion, the main reason we need marriage is so that we can have divorce. Everyone thinks of love, and wants to dream that they and their chosen partner will love each other forever, but what happens when things go so wrong in the relationship that both partners want out? The situation can create a nightmare of entangled finances, property, and child custody.
As bad as the divorce laws and divorce courts are, at least there is a system in place to separate marital assets with some order and legal oversight. Unmarried couples who split up wind up in civil courts and family courts, and the judges there often resent one or both litigants for being irresponsible. Justice and fairness are much less likely to be served without the protection of marriage and divorce laws.
So I think the civil union side of marriage is way more important than anything religious. As such, in answer to the question, yes, atheists and anyone else who wishes to enter into romantic legal partnership, should have the protection of the law. In the U.S., we call that "marriage".
I'm agnostic, and all I really want to say on the topic is that I personally have zero stake in the religious aspect of marriage. However, I still would really like to have the ceremony because family is important to me, and I've always loved the idea of a marriage bringing families together and celebrating.
I actually attended a wedding years ago for a couple of Wiccans. It was a very low-religious ceremony without any scripture, and focused more on the beauty of bringing two close friends and their families together.
So you can have a marriage ceremony without the religious-mumbo-jumbo. It's entirely possible. It's probably the kind of wedding I'd like.
Man, a lot of people really dump on marriage, I feel I need to add another perspective. My wife and I have been together for almost six years now (close to 3 of those years married), and it was the best thing I've ever committed to. Religious roots aside, the ceremony was a way for us to announce our love and commitment to each other. The ceremony was actually enjoyable and having support from friends and family was a great feeling. The reception sucked though, screw receptions.
Man, a lot of people really dump on marriage, I feel I need to add another perspective. My wife and I have been together for almost six years now (close to 3 of those years married), and it was the best thing I've ever committed to. Religious roots aside, the ceremony was a way for us to announce our love and commitment to each other. The ceremony was actually enjoyable and having support from friends and family was a great feeling. The reception sucked though, screw receptions.
Noooo! The reception was the best part about our wedding; it was pretty much a giant party with all our friends.
Our ceremony was very non-religious, but it was intimate and personal, which was perfect for us. To me, the institution has never been about religion; it's always been about making the commitment to each other.
I do feel like I need to draw a distinction here, though--because although I'm firmly atheistic, I'm a very contemplative, nearly spiritual person. You don't need God--or a god, or many gods--to lead a spiritually satisfying life, just as you don't need to be always thinking about your spiritual self if you're Christian.
Very much in the pro-wedding (and pro-awesome receptions!) camp. My wife and I met at a church activity, for a church we no longer belong to. Neither of us believe the truth claims our old church makes, nor do we attend any other church. Although we believe in God, hell there may even be many gods, I'd say we're more spiritual than religious. Just be a good person and you should be alright no matter who turns out to be "right" in the end
Weddings are a great, traditional way to show and publicly share your commitment to each other. And then the fun of the reception! It's a great excuse to get your friends and family together for a big ass party!
The irony of this topic is that marriage historically stemmed from neither institution nor religion. It was essentially an agreement between two people for a monogamous relationship (and even that depends on the culture). Moreover, it usually was about the formation of relationships between families. Therefore, all this talk about religion and institution actually has nothing to do with marriage, as it is merely focusing on specific definitions of marriage in specific cultural contexts. Considering the question is simply about whether or not atheists should be allowed to marry, the arguments in this thread have absolutely no bearing on the question due to their narrow scope of the term.
Question: Should atheists be allowed to marry?
Answer: Yes.
Reason: The Abrahamic traditions don't have a monopoly on marriage.
Man, a lot of people really dump on marriage, I feel I need to add another perspective. My wife and I have been together for almost six years now (close to 3 of those years married), and it was the best thing I've ever committed to. Religious roots aside, the ceremony was a way for us to announce our love and commitment to each other. The ceremony was actually enjoyable and having support from friends and family was a great feeling. The reception sucked though, screw receptions.
But: are you saying you wouldn't still be together without the marriage? In which case, what of love?
Man, a lot of people really dump on marriage, I feel I need to add another perspective. My wife and I have been together for almost six years now (close to 3 of those years married), and it was the best thing I've ever committed to. Religious roots aside, the ceremony was a way for us to announce our love and commitment to each other. The ceremony was actually enjoyable and having support from friends and family was a great feeling. The reception sucked though, screw receptions.
But: are you saying you wouldn't still be together without the marriage? In which case, what of love?
I'm saying that marriage is not without merit. Its an outward affirmation of what you feel inside.
Reason: The Abrahamic traditions don't have a monopoly on marriage.
Atheists also don't believe in non-Abrahmic gods. The Hindu pantheon for example.
Yes and no. Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism don't focus on the believe of gods like monotheistic religions do, but instead provide ways of life through traditions. It is not wrong to say that followers of those three religions are more akin to atheists, agnostics, and nontheists instead of the classical concept of western theism.
I've known a lot of people who don't believe in deities, yet celebrate their bonding with a buddhistic marriage. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.
I also would like to give my two cents on the positive aspects of marriage, even though I have mostly just joked around in this thread. (And no, we didn't have mashedtaters at my wedding.)
I am strongly religious and spiritual and believe that marriage is a holy institution ordained by God. I think that we as a society have turned what is supposed to be the spiritual union of two souls into a fanfare of capitalist propaganda blindly upheld in the name of repetitive tradition. My wedding reception was an example of this; both families wanted to outdo each other in money spent, despite my wife's and my desire to have a low-key, low-cost wedding. Although the reception was filled with the negative feelings of both families staring daggers at each other, I can never forget the feeling within as my wife and I pledged out hearts to each other, even 8 years later.
I believe that families and marriage can be forever, and that families can be together beyond death. The money-mongering warping and subsequent societal perception of marriage is a corruption of what should be the beginning of a sacred quest for the eternal unification of two spiritually immortal beings.
Reason: The Abrahamic traditions don't have a monopoly on marriage.
Atheists also don't believe in non-Abrahmic gods. The Hindu pantheon for example.
Yes and no. Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism don't focus on the believe of gods like monotheistic religions do, but instead provide ways of life through traditions. It is not wrong to say that followers of those three religions are more akin to atheists, agnostics, and nontheists instead of the classical concept of western theism.
I've known a lot of people who don't believe in deities, yet celebrate their bonding with a buddhistic marriage. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.
Worship of deities is a key part of Hinduism. That's one of the key differences with Buddhism. There are other theistic religions that are not part of the Abrahamic tradition (e.g. Zoroastrianism). Thus it is erroneous to associate atheism with the Abrahamic religions. Most atheists reject belief in spirits, luck, kama or any manifestation of the supernatural, so most Buddhists wouldn't call themselves atheists, even though they don't worship any specific god. Conversely, someone could be raised as a Buddhist and chose to reject its teachings and become an atheist.
I also would like to give my two cents on the positive aspects of marriage, even though I have mostly just joked around in this thread. (And no, we didn't have mashedtaters at my wedding.)
I am strongly religious and spiritual and believe that marriage is a holy institution ordained by God. I think that we as a society have turned what is supposed to be the spiritual union of two souls into a fanfare of capitalist propaganda blindly upheld in the name of repetitive tradition. My wedding reception was an example of this; both families wanted to outdo each other in money spent, despite my wife's and my desire to have a low-key, low-cost wedding. Although the reception was filled with the negative feelings of both families staring daggers at each other, I can never forget the feeling within as my wife and I pledged out hearts to each other, even 8 years later.
I believe that families and marriage can be forever, and that families can be together beyond death. The money-mongering warping and subsequent societal perception of marriage is a corruption of what should be the beginning of a sacred quest for the eternal unification of two spiritually immortal beings.
Religious as in Christian? Because Jesus specifically says that there is no marriage in heaven. I may be an athiest, but I have read the bible.
It's kinda funny how this thread lives on and on, but personally I'm just waiting for the OP to come back and explain the background for the vote and the thoughts of the outcome.
I also would like to give my two cents on the positive aspects of marriage, even though I have mostly just joked around in this thread. (And no, we didn't have mashedtaters at my wedding.)
I am strongly religious and spiritual and believe that marriage is a holy institution ordained by God. I think that we as a society have turned what is supposed to be the spiritual union of two souls into a fanfare of capitalist propaganda blindly upheld in the name of repetitive tradition. My wedding reception was an example of this; both families wanted to outdo each other in money spent, despite my wife's and my desire to have a low-key, low-cost wedding. Although the reception was filled with the negative feelings of both families staring daggers at each other, I can never forget the feeling within as my wife and I pledged out hearts to each other, even 8 years later.
I believe that families and marriage can be forever, and that families can be together beyond death. The money-mongering warping and subsequent societal perception of marriage is a corruption of what should be the beginning of a sacred quest for the eternal unification of two spiritually immortal beings.
Religious as in Christian? Because Jesus specifically says that there is no marriage in heaven. I may be an athiest, but I have read the bible.
The irony of this topic is that marriage historically stemmed from neither institution nor religion. It was essentially an agreement between two people for a monogamous relationship (and even that depends on the culture). Moreover, it usually was about the formation of relationships between families. Therefore, all this talk about religion and institution actually has nothing to do with marriage, as it is merely focusing on specific definitions of marriage in specific cultural contexts. Considering the question is simply about whether or not atheists should be allowed to marry, the arguments in this thread have absolutely no bearing on the question due to their narrow scope of the term.
Question: Should atheists be allowed to marry?
Answer: Yes.
Reason: The Abrahamic traditions don't have a monopoly on marriage.
That's not strictly true. In most cultures marriage originated as a buisiness transaction. Female children where viewed as the property of thier farthers, until they where married, at which point they became the property of thier husbands. Hence Elizabeth I couldn't marry and continue to rule England her own right.
The irony of this topic is that marriage historically stemmed from neither institution nor religion. It was essentially an agreement between two people for a monogamous relationship (and even that depends on the culture). Moreover, it usually was about the formation of relationships between families. Therefore, all this talk about religion and institution actually has nothing to do with marriage, as it is merely focusing on specific definitions of marriage in specific cultural contexts. Considering the question is simply about whether or not atheists should be allowed to marry, the arguments in this thread have absolutely no bearing on the question due to their narrow scope of the term.
Question: Should atheists be allowed to marry?
Answer: Yes.
Reason: The Abrahamic traditions don't have a monopoly on marriage.
That's not strictly true. In most cultures marriage originated as a buisiness transaction. Female children where viewed as the property of thier farthers, until they where married, at which point they became the property of thier husbands. Hence Elizabeth I couldn't marry and continue to rule England her own right.
Yes, a business transaction between two families. In other words, it was about cementing the relationship between two families. An alliance, if you will. As for the idea that women were the property of men, while this is true of many earlier cultures, the reality is that the concept of marriage likely predates recorded history. So, although we may assume that is how marriage likely started, we actually don't know for certain.
However, my original point is that marriage predates Judaism, Christianity and Islam by quite a few years. The original discussions in this thread were primarily examining marriage through the perspective of a western Christian society. I was merely pointing out that marriage, despite the association, is not a purely religious matter.
The question was if atheists should be allowed to marry.
Simply from the fact the question is about atheists, we know that the OP was examining this from a religious perspective. What the OP failed to realize is that marriage is, as I have repeated... repeatedly, only associated with institutions and religions later on in human history. Therefore, the mere question of whether someone is allowed to marry is rendered irrelevant, as marriage is technically an agreement that can be initiated by any individuals who wish to do so. The marriage may not be recognized as valid by the state or religion in which these people live, but, as a wise individual in this thread has already pointed out, there is realistically no way to actually enforce this.
Ultimately, so long as the marriage is agreed to by two individuals, it is valid for them. It may not be valid for the state, but it is up to those two individuals to decide if they need their marriage confirmed by anyone other than themselves.
Eh no, "alliance between families" only applied to royalty. Even in the past, most people weren't royal (history has a lot to answer for). For most of the middle class marriage was simply the sale of an asset (or disposal of a liability). As it still is in some parts of the world, including some communities in the UK. For the poor "marriage" was simply a matter of being witnessed having sex with someone.
The origin is complex. Most of what is commonly thought about marriage by westerners (romance, church, reception) was invented in the late 18th century. The property exchange principle goes back to ancient Rome. What the Celtic peoples did has been completly lost.
Comments
I wasn't trying to argue with you of course, I kinda already got that we agreed with each other
Just wanted to add my two cents, and yes, extend the thought to agriculture or something else maybe. Because we or they always make the discussion revolve around religion, like it's the only thing that brought our social structures where they are now.
(I had to google the word "tater"
But mashedtaters is so much more fun to read and say. Plus mashedtaters is just...well, to put it simply, the most godly creation that mankind has ever invented. I'm pretty sure mashedtaters should be a religion.
How about we change this topic to if you don't believe in mashedtaters then you can't get married? In other words, should Anti-Taterists be allowed to get married?
On a more serious note, yes, I do believe that atheists should be allowed to be married, if they want.
What of marriage?
Personally, I advise against partaking in societal devices which aim to hinder one's freedom and ghettoise one's psyche. In my view, marriage is largely one such device. Uncoincidentally, it also rests at the foundation of most modern caste systems, in which the married, reproducing caste would exert its supremacy over the inferior non-reproducing caste, employing sneaky methods such as e.g. unjust taxation laws noted in some posts above.
Of course, none of this is to say that people should not get wed. Wedding is a simple celebration, a party, be it religious or secular, whatever. As such, it is obviously commendable. Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal institution that was born from strife and greed rather than festive joy. It was originally invented to regulate the (often very bloody) inheritance disputes, its purpose being to predetermine and limit the number of eligible heirs of a person's worldly possessions and honours. While it arguably may have had some relevance in days long bygone, this is not the case anymore, unless one wishes to uphold the mostly obsolete customs of hereditary nobility. No need to bother with it.
In a final thought, I will note that love in its nature, just like freedom, knows no bounds. It is very powerful and may boldly take on many an awful prison, but when so constricted it is much more likely to wither and die.
Whoa-oh~
Edit: That said anyone who writes in that they are a Jedi worshiper (on say a census) clearly cannot get married - for love is against the Jedi code.
Of course, I do love my partner (of eight years and counting, only two of which since marriage), it's just that I don't have any regard for marriage as an institution (and neither does she). Sure, atheists should be able to marry, and so should LGBT people, and polyamoury should be legal if all parties are consenting - but that's under a general notion of equality, not because marriage is an intrinsic good in itself. Literally the only change in our lives due to marriage is that I now say "wife" rather than "significant other" or "partner", which I guess saves a few syllables (but sounds way less pompous than "significant other", so boo).
The government offers civil ceremonies, so we did one. It took about 15 minutes. Then we went out for Japanese with some family members. I wouldn't even have had family members there if they wouldn't have gotten upset about it, to be honest. SO and I had seriously considered just getting married first, and then telling people about it afterwards so as to avoid all the fuss. We didn't because, again, people would have gotten upset. What a crappy ceremony; it was my wedding and I didn't even get to decide "This isn't important, just ignore it."
My ideal society would have civil ties for the legalities, but no half-baked semi-religious ceremony that allows people that met a week ago to have a more solid relationship in the eyes of the law than a couple who had lived together for five years. But ideals aren't reality; too many people care about marriage, for religious and non-religious reasons, for it to become irrelevant anytime in the next century. Until then, equality of opportunity is the most achievable ideal.
I am an atheist. I have been in a committed relationship with an opposite-sex partner for around 15.5 years. I refuse to get married. Since I don't believe in religion, it would be hypocritical to go through the motions of a religious ceremony, and I refuse to go though a civil ceremony because I don't believe the state has any right to interfere with my personal life either.
This seems to have worked very well, since pretty much everyone I know who did get married is now divorced.
So I would abolish marriage (and civil partnerships) all together. Religious folk could still go through whatever ceremony they like, but it should have no legal significance.
As bad as the divorce laws and divorce courts are, at least there is a system in place to separate marital assets with some order and legal oversight. Unmarried couples who split up wind up in civil courts and family courts, and the judges there often resent one or both litigants for being irresponsible. Justice and fairness are much less likely to be served without the protection of marriage and divorce laws.
So I think the civil union side of marriage is way more important than anything religious. As such, in answer to the question, yes, atheists and anyone else who wishes to enter into romantic legal partnership, should have the protection of the law. In the U.S., we call that "marriage".
I'm agnostic, and all I really want to say on the topic is that I personally have zero stake in the religious aspect of marriage. However, I still would really like to have the ceremony because family is important to me, and I've always loved the idea of a marriage bringing families together and celebrating.
I actually attended a wedding years ago for a couple of Wiccans. It was a very low-religious ceremony without any scripture, and focused more on the beauty of bringing two close friends and their families together.
So you can have a marriage ceremony without the religious-mumbo-jumbo. It's entirely possible. It's probably the kind of wedding I'd like.
The reception sucked though, screw receptions.
Our ceremony was very non-religious, but it was intimate and personal, which was perfect for us. To me, the institution has never been about religion; it's always been about making the commitment to each other.
I do feel like I need to draw a distinction here, though--because although I'm firmly atheistic, I'm a very contemplative, nearly spiritual person. You don't need God--or a god, or many gods--to lead a spiritually satisfying life, just as you don't need to be always thinking about your spiritual self if you're Christian.
Weddings are a great, traditional way to show and publicly share your commitment to each other. And then the fun of the reception! It's a great excuse to get your friends and family together for a big ass party!
Question: Should atheists be allowed to marry?
Answer: Yes.
Reason: The Abrahamic traditions don't have a monopoly on marriage.
I've known a lot of people who don't believe in deities, yet celebrate their bonding with a buddhistic marriage. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.
I am strongly religious and spiritual and believe that marriage is a holy institution ordained by God. I think that we as a society have turned what is supposed to be the spiritual union of two souls into a fanfare of capitalist propaganda blindly upheld in the name of repetitive tradition. My wedding reception was an example of this; both families wanted to outdo each other in money spent, despite my wife's and my desire to have a low-key, low-cost wedding. Although the reception was filled with the negative feelings of both families staring daggers at each other, I can never forget the feeling within as my wife and I pledged out hearts to each other, even 8 years later.
I believe that families and marriage can be forever, and that families can be together beyond death. The money-mongering warping and subsequent societal perception of marriage is a corruption of what should be the beginning of a sacred quest for the eternal unification of two spiritually immortal beings.
However, my original point is that marriage predates Judaism, Christianity and Islam by quite a few years. The original discussions in this thread were primarily examining marriage through the perspective of a western Christian society. I was merely pointing out that marriage, despite the association, is not a purely religious matter.
The question was if atheists should be allowed to marry.
Simply from the fact the question is about atheists, we know that the OP was examining this from a religious perspective. What the OP failed to realize is that marriage is, as I have repeated... repeatedly, only associated with institutions and religions later on in human history. Therefore, the mere question of whether someone is allowed to marry is rendered irrelevant, as marriage is technically an agreement that can be initiated by any individuals who wish to do so. The marriage may not be recognized as valid by the state or religion in which these people live, but, as a wise individual in this thread has already pointed out, there is realistically no way to actually enforce this.
Ultimately, so long as the marriage is agreed to by two individuals, it is valid for them. It may not be valid for the state, but it is up to those two individuals to decide if they need their marriage confirmed by anyone other than themselves.
The origin is complex. Most of what is commonly thought about marriage by westerners (romance, church, reception) was invented in the late 18th century. The property exchange principle goes back to ancient Rome. What the Celtic peoples did has been completly lost.