Of course, they didn't have an argument against my final statement...

A little over a week ago, a friend of mine (I shall call her "K") shared a photo on facebook stating "10 Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage". Each reason listed actual statements that people have made for their reasoning against same-sex marriage and then adds a second satirical statement "arguing" the case. For example, claim #1 states, "Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air-conditioning." It tickled me a little when I read it, but as I continued I noticed one of her friends left her a pleasant little comment about it, "K, I am a bit disappointed that you can post such ignorance. This is provoking and unnecessary." Needless to say, I had say something. K and I were once very close friends; even though she is a Christian, she's understanding and tolerant. Of course, this lead to a long debate about same-sex marriage and Fundamentalist Christianity.


But at the end I summed everything up with this:

"The point I've been trying to get at is that no one has any basis to discriminate against LGBT persons, religious or not. You are trying to shield this inequity with your religion, but if you want to exempt same-sex couples from the right of marriage and ONLY same-sex couples, then how can you justify it by saying "because marriage is a holy union created by God"? Using that logic you would have to exclude the non-religious as well.

In all honesty, I'd rather Christians wish to exempt gay people as well as non-religious people from the right to marriage.Then your logic would be sound, even from a religious perspective. I care more about possibly ridding the world of irrational thought than my own personal rights, for with reasoning comes liberty.



I know I got a little melodramatic and cliche at the end. But this is how passionate I am about the subject. If the main argument against same-sex couples is "marriage is a godly union between one man and one woman", how can you exclude the non-religious as well? Have any of you ever used that argument?

Here is the whole debate for those of you who care to read the whole thing:
Facebook Debate

Views: 189

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Beth. The one arguement I've used time and again is as follows. Marriage is a civil contract only. If you try to get a priest/rabbi/minister or other religious person to marry you, they can't, unless you have a license issued by the appropriate government agency. You can't get married without it. Period. You might believe marriage was instituted by a god, but you can't get married without a piece of paper.

BTW, if you don't mind, I will also use your line of reasoning next time I get into a discussion, with your permission. Be well, my friend.

That is very true. Just because marriage is a religious institution to them doesn't mean it is for the government and the rest of us.

Also, I would be honored if you would. I posted this primarily because I want people to carry this idea with them in their debates and discussions relating to the topic. I was serious that I would rather end illogical thinking than maintain my right to marry. Because even if that ever were to happen, it would only be temporary. For it is only because of irrational beliefs that this is still an issue. X_X


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service