Article

A Feminist Atheist Perspective on Marriage

A Feminist Atheist Perspective on Marriage

Hint: It’s not a favorable one. Not much I could add to this longish article. Except that I couldn’t agree more. Don’t just read the excerpt–go read the whole thing. Why don’t more women think like this?

Gamophobia – fear of marriage – is a little-used term to mark a still less acknowledged concept. I hold my hands up to it, not waving but drowning under the rampant gamomania of society at large, where £20,000 is the average nuptial spend and nothing blinds like the glare of a white frock. I am wedding-phobic, but no less averse to the institution itself. According to my own peculiarly fundamentalist secular beliefs marriage is lazy, anachronistic, morally bankrupt. Moreover, in the same way that if there were a God, He is not one I’d wish to have any truck with, so if marriage were the only thing holding a union of mine together, then I’d rather let it pass. (Hence the bumper-sticker axiom that abstainers ‘get to choose their partner every day’.)

There are many things that my objection does not entail: fear of commitment (nope); a reflection on my parents’ relationship (they are still together); a judgment as to whether or not I want children (neither here nor there); and that great patronising lie that I am yet to meet ‘the right man’. Nor am I some joyless ideologue – I’m rather in favour of a good knees up, and have no objection whatsoever to being presented with jewellery.

Forced to unpack my antipathy, I would cite four po-faced motives: atheism; feminism; a loathing of state and/or public intervention in matters I deem private; and something more oddball regarding the close-down of narrative possibility. One reason would be enough to quash any Doris Day ambition; the four together topple into each other like spinsterish dominos.

My stance may be at the more neurotic, proposing-as-a-dumping-offence extreme, but I am by no means alone in my disinclination towards getting hitched. Rates of marriage in Britain – 283,730 in 2005 – are at their lowest since 1896. Given the ebb and flow of population, this is the most paltry scoring since records began almost 150 years ago. Divorce statistics may have fallen (there being fewer candidates), yet, still, 40 per cent of first marriages and 70 per cent of second shots end in divorce.


Comments (26 comments)

valhar2000 / March 7th, 2008, 9:46 am / #1

I don’t agree with everything she says, and she seems excessively enthusiastic in many places, but I do agree that there is far too much gamomania about the place.

I’m sure we’ve all heard that phrase: “The most importnat day of my life”… Rubbish! Who cares about the wedding? What about having to live together after that? No wonder so many marriages end in divorce. It seems people figure that the more over-the-top the wedding is, the happier the rest of their lives, without ever giving a second thought to the fact that real life is not a movie.

Alex / March 8th, 2008, 1:07 am / #2

Perhaps I’m biased by observation of other people (my mother married and divorced three separate times) but it seems like the most basic fact of the matter is that marriage is an institution that can only work if it’s most basic tenant, to love each other forever, remains the center of the relationship.

But if statistics of both divorce and spousal abuse are factored in, it becomes clear that marriage is just not working for a great many people. Whether by cultural inclination or pregnancy (the two are closely intertwined many places) marriage to a person that isn’t really fitting for the other individual is presented as the only option.

The ‘union’ of two people is flawed as long as those two believe in their own individuality, and I don’t think we can in good conscience sacrifice that individuality for the sake of an institution.

Annette C. / March 8th, 2008, 2:19 pm / #3

I married at nineteen, as was the tradition in the fundamentalist Christian Church I was in. Kids would marry early, and a large contributing factor to this was to avoid the likelihood of ‘fornicating’ (sex before marriage) and the subsequent shame and excommunication. Oh yeh, and burning in hell of course.
My parents never went to any church at all, ever, and my Mother was horrified by my marriage at 19 and the husband and the church! I left hubby and the church a year later, no offspring or property to complicate things. That was my final dalliance with marriage, though my Mother is now approaching her third. She’s had her fair share of glittery gifts and they are still coming.
Now I’m 39, single parent of a 4 year old boy. We are happy, busy with our friends and the activites we enjoy. Marriage and even co-habitation is out of the question for me.

Cristy / March 13th, 2008, 3:17 pm / #4

Traditional marriage, notably the western tradition, is all about a woman being considered the possession of a man. Some vows even call for the woman to swear to be obedient. In addition, by saying that only two people, heterosexual couples are legitimate ways for people to be romantically involved, marriage reinforces heteronormativity. I decided at a very young age that I would never get married and have yet to change my mind. That said, I’m interested in relationships, I just don’t feel the need to have some misogynist religious tradition to legitimize them.

As far as the jewelry thing goes, I don’t like most jewelry, so it wouldn’t be a very thoughtful gift for me. I don’t think that the objection that some women have to jewelry is because they think that jewelry is a bad gift for everyone, but because they think that it is wrong to assume that every woman wants and likes the same thing. As a side note, I do boycott diamonds because of the immoral practices of the DeBeers company, so giving me diamonds could be a break up worthy offense.

John / March 16th, 2008, 9:29 am / #5

I was trying to comment on a blog I saw in “Goosing the Antithisis” concerning Dr. Robert Morey and his comments on the feminization of Chrsitianity. I was doing some background on Dr. Morey when I came across that blog site. (The blog itself was posted back in 2006). I was struck by a comment contributed by “Black Sun”. I went to his web site and could not find a place to e-mail him. So I am placing my thoughts in this blog hoping they will eventually meander to the proper object of my comments.

In the blog, Black Sun commented… “Much of women’s social gains in the last 50 years have been achieved by becoming more masculine. (If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em). ”

I felt that comment was illogical and not well thought -out.

If you are to attribute womens’ gains to their lack of masculinity, then why, in heaven’s name, would you promote males embracing it? (You also wrote … “For men to become whole, it must become socially acceptable for them to express their feminine side”).

If femininity has a proven track record (in women) of not producing progressive gains, then why would you think femininity would produce success in men?

Females have not “gained” in society simply becaue they are females… as your quote demonstates.

It seems feminists, as do women, take emotional based premises and run wtih them into hypocrisy and ill-fated conclusion. Live on, Masculinity!

Kanaio / March 17th, 2008, 1:18 am / #6

Hey, I’m trying to get over my gamophobia. You guys are not helping. ; ) I can’t get past the clause that one of us has to die to get out of the deal. It’s a weird mixture of sacrament and business deal.

Two books that have helped me are Embracing the Beloved by Stephen and Ondrea Levine (I would recommend any book by Stephen Levine), and Real Love: The Truth About Finding Unconditional Love and Fulfilling Relationships by Greg Baer, M.D.

I think marriage has only as much integrity as the people in it. The institution itself has no magic.

Kanaio / March 17th, 2008, 1:48 am / #7

I love the last line of her article.

“Perhaps, as God has been imagined to prefer the engagement of the atheist to the believer’s unthinking compliance, so marriage will retain its power only among its abstainers.”

Cristy / March 18th, 2008, 2:48 am / #8

John,

Just the ideas of masculinity and feminity are unhelpful and contribute to the idea of gender binaries. Feminitiy is not the same thing as womanhood nor is masculinity the same thing as manhood. They suggest that there is a single right way to be a man or a woman. These terms group everything into two sides, males who are expected to conform to a set of social standards and females who are expected to conform to a different set of social standards. Those standards are called feminity and masculinity. Because the expectations for women to fit into what society defines as the appropriate roles (feminity) includes being stupid and passive, it is impossible for women to make gains while conforming completely to those roles. Men and women should be able to be who they are instead of having to fit into a specific social gender role, which may have been what Black Sun meant by allowing men to be more feminine. Oh and the idea that women are controlled by their emotions more than men is bullshit. Psycological studies have shown that men and women react the same psiologically to emotional triggers, it is just the expression of how they feel that differs due to social influence. Repressing men’s ability to express emotions (other than anger, men are allowed to show anger) leads to men commiting more violence. Gender roles hurt men as well as women, it is just that males are given the position of power in society.

As far as the “feminization of Christianity” goes, the reason that more women are christians is because it is more socially desirable for a woman. Women in American society are viewed in a virgin-whore dicotomy. In other words, women are seperated into “good” girls who dress modestly, go to church, have big weddings, or get married and have children and “bad” girls who dress in nontraditional ways, do not go to church, have lots of sex, are motivated in their careers, or do not get married or have children. Being a Christian is obviously considered a positive attribute in American society. In American society, the standards of power are white, male, heterosexual, affluent, able bodied, and Christian. Society will generally forgive (at least paritally) failing to meet one standard, so a non-Christian male only deviates from the Christian standard, whereas a non-Christian woman deviates both from the Christian standard and the female standard. Just as a note, American idealogy makes everything into binaries, and the American relgion binary is Christian-non Christian and the nonChristian group is still expected to be religious.

BlackSun / March 19th, 2008, 10:35 pm / #9

John,

My comment had two points:

First, I was taking issue with society, and its patriarchal orientation. So like Cristy said, women have been forced to compete on male terms if they wanted to get ahead in business. They have become more ruthless, more aggressive, and (outwardly) less emotionally vulnerable–to name just a few–traits that are traditionally male.

Second, I was saying that forcing men to avoid showing their feminine side hurts them too.

Both genders need to learn from the other, and normalizing the expression of gender-opposite traits would be a positive step. Seemingly that’s what’s happening as women take on more traditionally male roles. But actually, they are often repressing their feminine side just like many men do.

John / March 20th, 2008, 4:50 pm / #10

Cristy,

Your arguments are fallacious, at worst, and hypocritical, at best. (Sorry)

I was dealing with Black Sun’s comments on femininity, you, Cristy, chose to distinguish between femininity and womanhood — Which I think is an overused ploy brought on by the lesbian/feminist’s desire to advance materially, and to establish a feminine hegemony without the innate ability to achieve it naturally. ( I know I don’t have much space here, but I’d be happy to pursue that line with you, if you’d like)

You would have society believe that femininity and womanhood are different. That womanhood is the real barometer of the female gender rather than the developed (learned?) behaviors of femininity.

For instance, Cristy, you stated:

–Those standards are called femininity and masculinity. Because the expectations for women to fit into what society defines as the appropriate roles (femininity) includes being stupid and passive, it is impossible for women to make gains while conforming completely to those roles —

So, if I get your meaning, for women to advance they must “learn” masculinity. Which is what I thought I was trying to convey. As is the case with feminist thought, you turn the tables on your own arguments when power, materialism and social selfishness are to be gained.

Black Sun seems to agree as he (a bit stereotypically) added :

… women have been forced to compete on male terms if they wanted to get ahead in business. They have become more ruthless, more aggressive, and (outwardly) less emotionally vulnerable–to name just a few–traits that are traditionally male —

You erroneously assume that when women comply to traditional feminine “roles” that that somehow lessens their womanhood. I, on the other hand, (and your psychologist friends would agree) believe that heterosexual women who adopted those traditional roles… (mother, wife and homemaker) were (and are) much more stable in their emotions, their happiness and their femininity. It is the lesbian sector of womanhood who have decided that femininity is to be re-defined as “female masculinity“… and that has caused many a young heterosexual woman to abandon the very inborn female desires, that are naturally within her, for a materialistic, selfish, testosterone driven existence… which leads to frustration and despair for that woman.

Your virgin/whore dichotomy is also fallacious and straight out of the lesbian/male-hating/ feminist handbook. In your set of “role rules” the female who sleeps around, focuses on career and abandons family and children for success is not a “bad” girl. But males who for millennium have slept around, focused on careers, and abandoned family life for success are…. What?… Womanizer’s? … Unfeeling?… Selfish? You remind me of a lesbian I knew who, in the heat of our discussion, keep throwing out the label “Womanizer” for every man she knew who had slept around. I asked her to define the term “womanizer” She told me a womanizer was someone … “who used the female body for their own sexual pleasure!” I retorted, “Is a lesbian, then, a womanizer?” She had no answer. When a woman acts masculine… she is progressive… when a man acts masculine… he is an unfeeling sexist.

I have much more… but I am running out of space…

John / March 20th, 2008, 4:51 pm / #11

But quickly let me add, that society has progressed in a “Patriarchal” way, not because every man who ever lived throughout all of space was out to suppress all women, but that rather it progressed that way because males (masculinity) is better adapted to succeed in life.

The so-called success of women in our current environment is not through the female’s natural ability to succeed, but rather by a combination of misguided male chivalry and sophist, hypocritical female double-speak.

Cristy / March 21st, 2008, 3:07 am / #12

John, when did I ever say that men were not to be treated as equals? In fact, I even said that gender roles also hurt men. A woman pointing out that the current social system hurts women is not more anti-man than a civil rights activist (like MLK) pointing out that the system hurts black people is antiwhite. I happen to love men. I have had family members, friends, and romantic friends who were male. I have also had all of those relationships with women.

Also, I wasn’t saying that women should learn “masculinity” to succeed, but that certain parts of the women’s gender role in society hamper being sucessful. Parts of “masculinity” are just as unhelpful to society, like the encouragement of violence and the repression of emotion.

You assume that all women are the same and must fit into the traditional roles to be happy, healthy people, “(mother, wife and homemaker) were (and are) much more stable in their emotions, their happiness and their femininity” Not true, see higher rates of alcholism,”inborn female desires” says who? I have yet to see proof of any female specific inborn desires. If you observe cross cultural studies, you will find that gender expectations vary wildly through different cultures.

You also prove what I said about the virgin whore dicotomy, by saying that all women who fit tradtional gender roles are good, whereas other women are man hating lesbians (who are trying to tempt away those good straight girls). I am not the one saying that women are less of a woman because they are a certain type of woman, you are. You think that a butch lesbian is not as much of a woman as a stay at home mom, I disagree. I have no problem with a woman who chooses to be a stay at home parent, I have a problem with women being given a lack of choice. A woman who chooses to be a stay at home parent is lauded, one who does not is said to be abandoning her children, etc. I am also fine with men being stay at home parents. The problem isn’t that choosing an activity that is traditional is bad, it is that half of the human race is presumed to have exactly the same wants, needs and desires, and are therefore forced into certain roles and activities. Also, you say that women outside of traditional gender roles are materialistic, but is a lesbian journalist more materialistic than an orange county house wife with six cars? Materialism is a wide spread cultural problem that is not confined within women’s gender roles. Or do you think that everyone who has a job is materialistic?

As far as your litany of how men are allowed by society to sleep around but women are not, doesn’t that prove that their are different standards? There is nothing wrong with a man having sex with multiple partners if he is honest about it, the same also applies to women. You know very well, however, that if a woman had the same sexual habits as a man, she would be treated very differently. A man who has sex on the first date is said to be lucky, smooth, a stud, etc. A woman is a whore, a slut, etc.

John / March 22nd, 2008, 12:31 pm / #13

Cristi

Ah, the ramblings of the liberal, entitlement mindset.

If you don’t mind, I will intersperse my comments among some paste and clips from your writings. They will not be in the order you wrote them, but that does not spring from deceptive ploy, but rather to save space and time. Most of my comments can encompass a few of your comments, so I thought it might be a bit easier to combine them. I hope you don’t mind.

I don’t how much fruit my efforts will yield, but I will cast out the seed and see if any of it lands on fertile ground…

I think you have mistakenly combined success with materialism.

You wrote:

— Also, I wasn’t saying that women should learn “masculinity” to succeed, but that certain parts of the women’s gender role in society hamper being successful —

By successful, I assume you mean materially well-off.

And…

–You assume that all women are the same and must fit into the traditional roles to be happy, healthy people, “(mother, wife and homemaker) were (and are) much more stable in their emotions, their happiness and their femininity” Not true, see higher rates of alcholism,–

Alcoholism among women who have chosen your definition of success (materialism), rather than marry for love and motherhood? yes, I agree there is rampant alcoholism there… but so is it present in many women who have chosen materialism (success) in the lesbian/feminist success model. It stems from not knowing (or rather being misguided) as to where your true natural desires will be fulfilled.

And…

–Also, you say that women outside of traditional gender roles are materialistic, but is a lesbian journalist more materialistic than an orange county house wife with six cars? —

This where I can run with it a bit… you have hit on the crux of much of the insidiousness of your position. The woman who has chosen materialism in the form of marriage is labeled a gold-digger (and rightly so) and deserves whatever fate holds for her… but the liberal/feminist/entitlement mindset sets out to INSTITUTIONALIZE such materialism. There is the difference… and it is a world of a difference. The liberal/feminist/entitlement mindset attempts to place no ill to it. Yea, it even applauds and lauds it! Society is conditioned to accept the lesbian/feminist model as the accepted practice. Greed and materialism are discouraged in men, and by society as a whole, but the lesbian/feminist model is built on it! Women have cried “Foul” by their inept results to achieve (material) success in society. For years their mantra “even-playing field” resounded in our courts and in our media. But as women began to infiltrate the workplace, they found it unglamorous and tedious. They were met with behaviors they couldn’t cope with. Rather than accept defeat, these materialistic spoiled leeches began to devise ways to alter the playing field. So they came up with “Sexual Discrimination Laws“ …. “Sexual Harassment Laws”… “Tolerance Seminars”… “Article (?) (women‘s college sports?)” … and the like. All to give advantage to the female over the male. These edicts were discriminatory to males and to male behavioral patterns… but nothing was ever mounted by anyone to defend the male as he was being litigated into legal discrimination. Stick that in your MLK pipe and smoke it!!!

You wrote …

—A woman pointing out that the current social system hurts women is not more anti-man than a civil rights activist (like MLK) pointing out that the system hurts black people is anti-white —

Well, where is the tolerant outrageous attitude against morays that change basic tenants of juris prudence for the sake of advancing the materialism of lesbian/feminists? “Innocent until Proven Guilty” Ever hear of it? A sacred tenant of American Law. However, in order for women to “level the playing field”, “Innocent until proven Guilty” has now been replaced with…”If you are ACCUSED of sexual harassment or discrimination… YOU MUST PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.” The ramblings of the female mystique have selfishly removed justice in order to satisfy their whining materialism. A murderer has more rights than a guy who gooses a broad at a water cooler! (This is where the hypocritical double-speak of the feminine mystique, when left unchecked, leads to). And you phonies play the activist, humanity card when all the while your intent is to gain more and more of the very material you blamed men for “honestly” (as far as their efforts to attain it goes) gaining it?

I am not one for pointing out problems without a least offering some kind of solution to them. I have one for the body of females that feels discriminated and conspired against. I know something like this may be a little hard for the lesbian/entitlement mind to grasp… but how about Oprah… and Jane Fonda … and Barbra (schnazola) Striesand and countless other affluent women setting up an account of let’s say… 100 million dollars or so… and how about they loan out… no better yet… how about they give out this money to their poor downtrodden sisters so that they might be able to set up businesses and succeed (materially) in this country of ours? Ever dawn on you guys to develop ways to advance on merit and by your own efforts rather than pervert the very foundations that have pillared our society’s freedoms? Let’s see how enthusiastic the “sisters” are when they have to reach into their own pockets to advance the “cause”.

You wrote:

–I have yet to see proof of any female specific inborn desires. If you observe cross cultural studies, you will find that gender expectations vary wildly through different cultures. —

BS — You would find it hard-pressed to find a culture anywhere in the world where the female does not desire to nurture her child.

You wrote:

— You also prove what I said about the virgin whore dicotomy, by saying that all women who fit tradtional gender roles are good, whereas other women are man hating lesbians (who are trying to tempt away those good straight girls). — ( I think I detect these remarks stemming more from internal desires rather than a belief that they do not actually exist)

I am not the one saying that women are less of a woman because they are a certain type of woman, you are. You think that a butch lesbian is not as much of a woman as a stay at home mom, I disagree. I have no problem with a woman who chooses to be a stay at home parent, I have a problem with women being given a lack of choice. A woman who chooses to be a stay at home parent is lauded, one who does not is said to be abandoning her children, etc. —

Again BS – I defy you to show me one TV show, one movie, one song, one college course that promotes a stay at home Mom attitude. You show me one venue where the values of a traditional mother are paraded as something to be copied and attained.

You wrote:

— As far as your litany of how men are allowed by society to sleep around but women are not, doesn’t that prove that their are different standards? There is nothing wrong with a man having sex with multiple partners if he is honest about it, the same also applies to women. You know very well, however, that if a woman had the same sexual habits as a man, she would be treated very differently. A man who has sex on the first date is said to be lucky, smooth, a stud, etc. A woman is a whore, a slut, etc. —

Of course there is a different standard!! …. That’s my whole point! The whole idea of a woman choosing her partner in a different way than a man chooses his is exactly that…. DIFFERENT STANDARDS! But those differences do not stem from insidious male conspiracies, they are, rather, a product of natural instincts. If women viewed sexuality in the same way men do, do you think there would be prostitution?… NO! Women use sex for material advantage and men use material advantage for sex. That was the basis for my tirade earlier. Our legal system has defended the female mindset on sex ( a female is not held to a standard of how her sexuality may have played a role in her advancement) while it has criminalized the male view (gain riches and fame and women will follow) Do you think all those women would have slept with Gene Simmons (KISS) if he were driving a UPS truck? … which is really a strong indictment against women.
—————————————————————————–

Louis / March 22nd, 2008, 1:43 pm / #14

Jesus titty fucking Christ on crutches…

Can I haz a troll for 200 Alex?

Abogada de la Diabla / March 23rd, 2008, 12:31 pm / #15

“A strong indictment against women” says it all!

I wonder what happened to you in the dating world, man.

I hope you fall in love with the female scientist who achieves the breakthrough in curing cancer.

BlackSun / March 23rd, 2008, 12:49 pm / #16

John,

Your conclusions about female instincts are not supported by the evidence. And your opinions peg you as a stubborn patriarchal conservative.

You and people like you are exactly why I started this site. My point still stands: Our society will heal itself when people become more balanced in their expression of gender opposite traits–integrating the anima and animus rather than railing against them as if they were the enemy.

What you hate the most on the outside is what most scares you on the inside. The fact that you rant on and on disparagingly about the lesbian-feminist persona means that you are out of touch with that part of yourself.

I triple fucking dog dare you, John: Do you have the cojones to get in touch with your inner feminist-lesbian?

John / March 24th, 2008, 7:48 am / #17

Black Sun:

So much for:

BASIC RULES:

Ad Hominem attacks on authors or other commenters will not be accepted.

And thanks for the free Psychiatric appraisal…. and the FACTS in your rebuttal.

Hey Abogada, I did ok in the dating world. Girls happen to like us guys who won’t bow to them… we seem to be a breath of fresh air to their otherwise exasperating experiences with the so-called “enlightened male”. Are you one of those “millenium” males (I’m assuming you are “male”) who will sacrifice your “truth” for a date with a “real honey”?! :)

John / March 24th, 2008, 7:52 am / #18

Abogada,

What I meant about “assuming your are “male”, was that I could not tell your gender by your name … :)

Louis / March 24th, 2008, 9:37 am / #19

John wrote:

BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK
BARK DOUBLE STANDARD BARK
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK
BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

I like the part where you believe your signal made it through all that noise, in the response above my first.

So much for:

BASIC RULES:

The submission rules apply to us, the submitters; and are pretty specific about when and where they apply.

If it isn’t the lesbians, it is Sean. It is always someone else when it comes to you…

Poor persecuted John.

I’d pity you, but you are such a star with the ladies…

You should start a boy band.

Imperialists to the left
If you’re having a good time
Patriarchs to the right
If you know that you feel fine
Bros to the front
Uh Uh and around
La La La La La La La La La

GO BOY POWER!

BlackSun / March 24th, 2008, 10:26 am / #20

John, we are just about done here. I’ll decide what is and is not an ad hominem attack. You started down that road with Cristy.

I’m glad you agree that calling you a “patriarchal conservative” is an insult. I would be offended as well.

I’ll reiterate: time to get in touch with your feminine side and your shadow. You can’t do your own work as long as you are repressing and in denial.

Your overgeneralizations are far from facts. You haven’t provided anything to rebut. Just what amounts to a bunch of sexist slurs. I really wonder why you are even here? Go find somewhere else to carry that (confederate) flag–where they’ll happily praise you for all your unexamined assumptions.

John / March 24th, 2008, 3:17 pm / #21

I’m glad you agree that calling you a “patriarchal conservative” is an insult. I would be offended as well.

Well, thank you for the insult. And thank you for your time…
John

Laura / May 15th, 2009, 8:47 pm / #22

When will the AARP crowd retire from forums? They still think they all feminists are second wavers – get a new tune gramps, we have.

I absolutely agree that gamomania is in full swing. The patriarchal backlash against feminism has idealized weddings to point of nausea. Lots of money to be there as well. My vow exchange was presided over by our Wiccan friend (in Colorado, you can marry yourselves). No one made a dime off of us.

There is also a growing negative stigma against those who do not wish to have children. Same group involved in gamomania, but they have moved on to the next idealized phase of patriarchy. My husband and I are childless by choice…how often I hear "oh, you'll change your minds."

Single friends of mine who have no intention to marry are classed as odd or their sexuality is questioned.

Ben / January 21st, 2010, 4:43 pm / #23

I definitely agree with this article in that the gov't has no right to have any say in whether two people want to have a committed relationship. However, I take issue with the reasoning behind not believing in god towards the beginning: "in the same way that if there were a God, He is not one I’d wish to have any truck with." this argument has always been a pet peeve of mine, and only makes atheists look bad. There are plenty of good arguments against religion, why go with this one? Essentially, it seems to be saying that you don't believe in any god because most people have a really crappy idea of god that they use to bash people with. Are those really the only ideas of god that could possibly exist? Bad logic. Bad philosophy.

BlackSun / January 21st, 2010, 4:53 pm / #24

I think she's saying "in the same way that if there were a God [meeting the description most people accept]…"

When a word is in common usage, it matters how most people view it. Although I'd say "God" is probably the most abused word in the language and means many things to many people. Still, no matter what kind of God you think might exist, the best reason for withholding belief is lack of evidence.

kat / April 4th, 2011, 5:41 am / #25

this is the most brilliant thing I've ever read (excuse the hint of hyperbole, but it's definitely top 5)

I'm personally not an atheist, and yet every sentiment in this concise, well-articulately and pretty hilarious article makes perfect sense to me.

kat / April 4th, 2011, 5:42 am / #26

well articulated*

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.