I don't get it--people *not* getting married

[Haiku]

I would say of the people I know, there is an INVERSE correlation between religion and divorce.

 

A lot of bad marriages never end in divorce.

 

Tara

[SKL]

Well, you see, they just don't think gay people should reproduce. Ever.

 

I think the decision to reproduce should be a very serious one, though unfortunately it usually isn't.

 

I probably should have used different language, though. I think a civil union is a commitment as much as marriage is. If a couple in a civil union wants to reproduce, I would see it the same as a married couple reproducing.

[butterflymommy]

I just find it interesting that probably several people on this thread who believe marriage is the only option for families would deny the right to marry, in a voting booth, to a loving, committed gay couple.

 

I've found it interesting how people who ardently support the right of gays to marry won't in turn support marriage in general as an institution that benefits society. I've also noticed that people who want non-abstinence-only sex ed in schools won't then, in turn, admit that single motherhood is something that should be avoided. Isn't that what they're trying to prevent, young unwed mothers getting knocked up?

 

Anyway, re the original topic, I have no real comment except that I find it so terribly sad when women will refer to their boyfriends-- for years-- as their finance, when there is no wedding in sight.

[Catwoman]

Sorry, it just sticks out to be like a sore thumb. I swear I'm not trying to muck anything up, it's just something that boggles my mind.

 

But, I'm not conservative, I don't belong to a conservative religion, and "lived in sin" with my husband, so there are just some things I do not understand from certain view points. And I know many posters would say the same about my view points and choices. Variety makes the world go around and all that jazz.

 

I just meant that we've gone down this road before, and it never ends well, and no one ever changes their mind about it.

 

Believe me, there are as many people here who agree with you as there are those who disagree with you. It's just that when we start discussing this topic, things can turn ugly pretty quickly and feelings are hurt.

 

Obviously, I'm not the Forum Police, and everyone can discuss anything they wish, but certain topics just seem to grow straight to trainwreck proportions, and this is one of them.

[nmoira]

I would say of the people I know, there is an INVERSE correlation between religion and divorce.

I've seen some statistics that show this may be the case within Christian denominations; i. e. those who attended more services (as a proxy for devoutness?) have a lower divorce rate, particularly evangelicals. However, this doesn't hold for people who identify as atheist or agnostic. Their divorce rates are on the low end when compared with those who identify as theists.

Edited August 13, 2012 by nmoira

[Scrub Jay]

I've found it interesting how people who ardently support the right of gays to marry won't in turn support marriage in general as an institution that benefits society. I've also noticed that people who want non-abstinence-only sex ed in schools won't then, in turn, admit that single motherhood is something that should be avoided. Isn't that what they're trying to prevent, young unwed mothers getting knocked up?

 

Marriage is great. But it's not for every one and not every family has to have one to be a good, solid family. So people can support it without being dogmatic about it.

 

Abstinence-only sex ed isn't as successful as contraceptive included sex ed. So I personally do not support it.

[regentrude]

I'd rather children be born into or live in good homes/situations with people who have a good relationship (or with a single person who is good to them) than get hung up on the details of their marital status.

 

I guess I don't see marriage as something that makes a person more moral.

 

:iagree:

I do not get the whole debate. I am all for stable relationships, especially if children are involved, but I see no indication that a marriage is any more stable than a non-married committed relationship. Not in a country where 50% of first marriages (and 67% of 2nd marriages) end in divorce.

 

The people who consider cohabitation a sin are certainly free to have their religious views and live accordingly. They are, however, not free to impose their religious views on others.

[LucyStoner]

What I always find interesting about fellow Christians who equate marriage with the only form of moral family living is that the church refused to perform marriages until into the middle ages. Initially, priests who relented to blessing a marriage would only do it at the couple's home or one the steps OUTSIDE the church because marriage (and choosing sex and family life over a religious life) was seen as too worldly to be incorporated into the church. Strange, but true!

[Saille]

I've found it interesting how people who ardently support the right of gays to marry won't in turn support marriage in general as an institution that benefits society. I've also noticed that people who want non-abstinence-only sex ed in schools won't then, in turn, admit that single motherhood is something that should be avoided. Isn't that what they're trying to prevent, young unwed mothers getting knocked up?

 

Anyway, re the original topic, I have no real comment except that I find it so terribly sad when women will refer to their boyfriends-- for years-- as their finance, when there is no wedding in sight.

 

Well, at least from my point of view, you're missing the mark. I do support marriage in general as an institution that benefits society. But my definition of marriage does not include sanction from a specific church or entity, and there are many couples who have those sanctions who don't understand marriage/don't have what I'd consider a true marriage.

 

WRT being a young single mama, I'd certainly discourage my daughter from doing something so difficult. My general talk on reproduction (with sons and daughter) is mostly about picturing every possible s*xual partner as a potential parent to their children. Marriage or no, a bad parent is a lifelong albatross around the neck of the whole family. That said, once the horse is out of the barn, I'll never, never understand why people are denigrating and obnoxious about young moms.

 

I held a garage sale once to sell off some baby gear. A pregnant teenager and her mother were looking, and when I made casual conversation about when the baby was due, her mother was very shaming of the daughter right in front of me. I managed to slip her the web address for girlmom, which was piled with tattooed rebels many women on this board would disapprove of, but which was wholeheartedly committed to making sure that young moms were darn good ones.

 

No real point slinging mud. Plenty of people wonder why pro-lifers are so anti-welfare mom. YMMV.

[Saille]

What I always find interesting about fellow Christians who equate marriage with the only form of moral family living is that the church refused to perform marriages until into the middle ages. Initially, priests who relented to blessing a marriage would only do it at the couple's home or one the steps OUTSIDE the church because marriage (and choosing sex and family life over a religious life) was seen as too worldly to be incorporated into the church. Strange, but true!

 

Whereas the diocese in Cincinnati told my dh and I, when we were getting married, that dh's parents weren't married b/c they'd been wed by a priest at a golf course. :lol:

[regentrude]

I've also noticed that people who want non-abstinence-only sex ed in schools won't then, in turn, admit that single motherhood is something that should be avoided. Isn't that what they're trying to prevent, young unwed mothers getting knocked up?

 

 

There is a large difference between single motherhood per se and teenage pregnancies.

It is certainly very hard and difficult for single moms, but a statement like the above is insulting to every single mother on these boards. You feel it is OK to tell them that their children are undesirable and "should have been avoided"?

 

Sex education aims at a reduction in teenage pregnancy. Teen pregnancy and dropping out of school is the surest way to life long poverty. THAT is to be avoided. It has nothing to do with being unwed, but with not being in a position to provide for a family.

[SKL]

:iagree:

I do not get the whole debate. I am all for stable relationships, especially if children are involved, but I see no indication that a marriage is any more stable than a non-married committed relationship. Not in a country where 50% of first marriages (and 67% of 2nd marriages) end in divorce.

 

The people who consider cohabitation a sin are certainly free to have their religious views and live accordingly. They are, however, not free to impose their religious views on others.

 

Well, what percentage of boyfriend/girlfriend couples break up? I'm guessing more than 50%, but I could be wrong.

[Scrub Jay]

Well, what percentage of boyfriend/girlfriend couples break up? I'm guessing more than 50%, but I could be wrong.

 

But having a boyfriend or girlfriend and living a part i a much different relationship than deciding to live together. There are many variables here.

 

I had several boyfriends before DH. Breaking up with them didn't change what type of person I am or how I view commitment. None of them were worth the commitment so I didn't live with them.

[SKL]

There is a large difference between single motherhood per se and teenage pregnancies.

It is certainly very hard and difficult for single moms, but a statement like the above is insulting to every single mother on these boards. You feel it is OK to tell them that their children are undesirable and "should have been avoided"?

 

Sex education aims at a reduction in teenage pregnancy. Teen pregnancy and dropping out of school is the surest way to life long poverty. THAT is to be avoided. It has nothing to do with being unwed, but with not being in a position to provide for a family.

 

Of course some people may disagree, but a single woman who is financially and mentally stable can be a great mom. The statistics may not be in our favor, but if you look at the reasons behind the statistics, you'll probably agree that parenting without a partner doesn't make as much difference as some people think.

[regentrude]

Well, what percentage of boyfriend/girlfriend couples break up? I'm guessing more than 50%, but I could be wrong.

 

I am not talking dating high schoolers or casual dates. I am talking about adult couples who have made the choice to spend their lives together but not get married.

I have no numbers and would suspect these are impossible to obtain, but the anecdotal evidence I see is that my friends who choose to live together unmarried are together for many years and do not split up any easier than the married ones. Certainly not if they share a child. I find the assumption that it is easy for them to dissolve the relationship because there are no legal ties incorrect; the legal ties are severed quite easily these days and are no deterrent, and the emotional ties are the same.

[regentrude]

Of course some people may disagree, but a single woman who is financially and mentally stable can be a great mom. The statistics may not be in our favor, but if you look at the reasons behind the statistics, you'll probably agree that parenting without a partner doesn't make as much difference as some people think.

 

I did not say anything to the contrary.

My sister is a single mother and raised her daughter in a loving extended family with help from our parents. We all agree that it was a good she decided not to sustain a relationship with the child's father, because that would have been quite disastrous. It was difficult, and the timing was not ideal, and it would have been easier with a committed partner who is a good fit. But the child grew up with stability and love.

[LucyStoner]

Whereas the diocese in Cincinnati told my dh and I, when we were getting married, that dh's parents weren't married b/c they'd been wed by a priest at a golf course. :lol:

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

And in Texas the diocese made my mom, who had just converted to Catholicism get an anullment for her precious, secular marriage, so my parents could marry. But my father, who was a cradle Catholic, did not need an anullment because his first marriage had taken place outside the church. The irony may be that my father's first marriage was 9 years long and freely entered into but the church said it never happened while my mom's marriage was forced by her abusive mother and lasted less than a month (she fled when he was abusive.) The logic makes me scratch my head.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I'm saying the same thing about gay and straight people. I don't think it's ideal for either to produce children out of wedlock/civil union. If it's true that kids are affected by it, this would be true whether their parents are same sex or opposite sex.

 

(I edited to clarify my intent.)

 

I'm terribly confused as to how you could hold this view given your life situation (which I admire very much, BTW). Is it the sex outside out of wedlock that is the problem, or is it the children? I mean, aren't you proof positive that having children outside of wedlock/civil union is a perfectly valid lifestyle? I feel like I must be missing something in the discussion.

[JoLuRu]

Insurance, taxes (although I did claim him as a dependent before marriage), and also "a friendship recognized by the police". ;) It also made my old mum happier.

 

I'm slightly amused by the divorced-for-a-second time now people who clucked their teeth -- I mean "expressed their concern", when hubby and I became parents without the marriage first. One said, "I'm so sorry you are having a child without a commitment." Well, bub, we're still together and you are not!

 

I also remember the really unpleasant remark from the hospital staff who came in to get us set up for a birth certificate. AND the clerk at the county agency when we finally did apply for a M.L. (something about finally doing the right thing). Here we were in our 40s and 50s, financially stable, and papa was busy signing paperwork acknowledging paternity, etc. etc. Why work in such a field if you can't keep your scowls and mean comments to yourself? Sheesh. One nurse had the gall to ask me if I was "sure this man was the father of my child"! I replied that I was a fat, middle-aged woman who was lucky to get ONE, not a 19 year old cutie with several men hanging about. That shut her up.:lol:

 

So, perhaps some people get married to avoid this. If people would say this to their ELDERS, what would they say to a pair of 22 year olds?

 

To be fair, I'm also a fat woman of "advanced maternal age" and was married 8 years when DD was born this year, and she was born looking like my husband's clone, and I was asked if I was sure of the paternity. ;)

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I did not say anything to the contrary.

 

I thought she was just agreeing with your argument.

[Bluegoat]

I am not talking dating high schoolers or casual dates. I am talking about adult couples who have made the choice to spend their lives together but not get married.

I have no numbers and would suspect these are impossible to obtain, but the anecdotal evidence I see is that my friends who choose to live together unmarried are together for many years and do not split up any easier than the married ones. Certainly not if they share a child. I find the assumption that it is easy for them to dissolve the relationship because there are no legal ties incorrect; the legal ties are severed quite easily these days and are no deterrent, and the emotional ties are the same.

 

I don't think that is likely what most people are thinking. I don't think the relationship is quite that direct. And I suspect some people are not talking about those kinds of relationships at all.

 

In the latter case, there seems to be a sub-set of people who are living together in fairly short term, serial relationships, and having kids. The reasons these people are not marrying in more stable relationships is possibly one part of the OPs question.

 

As for the commited couples, I think the question of why they are not marrying may in part be connected to the reason divorce has become so common. Essentially a marriage is a legal and sometimes spiritual recognition, often in a public forum, of a committed sexual relationship. So some who don't choose to marry officially aren't interested in an institutional spiritual recognition, some aren't interested in the legal recognition, and a lot seem kind of squishy about the public recognition. In some cases when they choose to avoid all of those, it seems to be because they regard marriage as essentially private. I wonder if that view ends up having an effect on how likely the marriage is to be successful?

 

And then there are people who try living together with the idea that if it works out they will marry. This seems a fairly common view but I think it tends to be self-defeating.

[Crimson Wife]

I've seen some statistics that show this may be the case within Christian denominations; i. e. those who attended more services (as a proxy for devoutness?) have a lower divorce rate, particularly evangelicals. However, this doesn't hold for people who identify as atheist or agnostic. Their divorce rates are on the low end when compared with those who identify as theists.

 

FWIW, the most ardent atheist I know (an ex-friend of my parents') a couple years ago dumped his wife of around 4 decades in favor of one of his 20something grad students whom he was screwing. I don't know any devout Christians (as opposed to nominal Christians) who have done anything remotely as egregious. There's that pesky 6th Commandment (or 7th depending on the version) for Christians to worry about...

[SKL]

I'm terribly confused as to how you could hold this view given your life situation (which I admire very much, BTW). Is it the sex outside out of wedlock that is the problem, or is it the children? I mean, aren't you proof positive that having children outside of wedlock/civil union is a perfectly valid lifestyle? I feel like I must be missing something in the discussion.

 

I tried to articulate my feelings in post #172.

[JoLuRu]

FWIW, the most ardent atheist I know (an ex-friend of my parents') a couple years ago dumped his wife of around 4 decades in favor of one of his 20something grad students whom he was screwing. I don't know any devout Christians (as opposed to nominal Christians) who have done anything remotely as egregious. There's that pesky 6th Commandment (or 7th depending on the version) for Christians to worry about...

 

The pastor from my evangelical childhood church left his family for a fellow parishioner. It happens in every group.

[regentrude]

FWIW, the most ardent atheist I know (an ex-friend of my parents') a couple years ago dumped his wife of around 4 decades in favor of one of his 20something grad students whom he was screwing. I don't know any devout Christians (as opposed to nominal Christians) who have done anything remotely as egregious. There's that pesky 6th Commandment (or 7th depending on the version) for Christians to worry about...

 

Let us not go there. You do not want people to start a list of unspeakably bad behaviors committed by Christians, even priests.

Claiming Christians are morally superior... not going to end well.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I tried to articulate my feelings in post #172.

 

Oh thank you, I did miss that. I was really very :confused:! I do agree with you, for the most part.

[Crimson Wife]

Well, what percentage of boyfriend/girlfriend couples break up? I'm guessing more than 50%, but I could be wrong.

 

80% of couples who were married prior to the birth of their first child are still together on that child's 10th birthday compared to only 40% who were cohabiting at the time of the child's birth.

 

Yes, some married couples do divorce while some cohabiting couples stay together. But the odds are way more in favor of the married parents while they are against the cohabiting ones.

[JoLuRu]

I've found it interesting how people who ardently support the right of gays to marry won't in turn support marriage in general as an institution that benefits society. I've also noticed that people who want non-abstinence-only sex ed in schools won't then, in turn, admit that single motherhood is something that should be avoided. Isn't that what they're trying to prevent, young unwed mothers getting knocked up?

 

Anyway, re the original topic, I have no real comment except that I find it so terribly sad when women will refer to their boyfriends-- for years-- as their finance, when there is no wedding in sight.

 

I think marriage benefits society. I also *strongly* support gay marriage. I don't see how gay marriage will harm society, and in fact think it would be beneficial.

 

I don't know of a single person who thinks it's a bad idea to reduce UNWANTED pregnancies, whether those are from young or older women, married or single. Non-abstinence-only sex ed gives young women the information they need to avoid UNWANTED pregnancies. I have no issue with single motherhood if that's what the woman has chosen and wants. I think every child should be wanted and cared for.

[nmoira]

FWIW, the most ardent atheist I know (an ex-friend of my parents') a couple years ago dumped his wife of around 4 decades in favor of one of his 20something grad students whom he was screwing. I don't know any devout Christians (as opposed to nominal Christians) who have done anything remotely as egregious. There's that pesky 6th Commandment (or 7th depending on the version) for Christians to worry about...

 

I'm not going to argue about group behaviour anecdote by anecdote. It won't end well, and will prove nothing.

[kalanamak]

To be fair, I'm also a fat woman of "advanced maternal age" and was married 8 years when DD was born this year, and she was born looking like my husband's clone, and I was asked if I was sure of the paternity. ;)

 

I busted up laughing before putting her in her place. I hope you found it as amusing as I.

[JoLuRu]

I busted up laughing before putting her in her place. I hope you found it as amusing as I.

 

I did laugh but she said she was required to ask. :001_huh: This was the first time I'd been asked to be extra sure of paternity (third baby!), but yeah, we're not exactly swingers! :lol:

[Mergath]

FWIW, the most ardent atheist I know (an ex-friend of my parents') a couple years ago dumped his wife of around 4 decades in favor of one of his 20something grad students whom he was screwing. I don't know any devout Christians (as opposed to nominal Christians) who have done anything remotely as egregious. There's that pesky 6th Commandment (or 7th depending on the version) for Christians to worry about...

 

But that's because, you see, Christians get to automatically disavow any member of their faith who does something bad as "not a True Christianâ„¢," while atheists, for some reason, can't get away with that. If you do count the "nominal Christians," there are just as many bad apples as there are in any cultural group.

[Bluegoat]

But that's because, you see, Christians get to automatically disavow any member of their faith who does something bad as "not a True Christian™," while atheists, for some reason, can't get away with that. If you do count the "nominal Christians," there are just as many bad apples as there are in any cultural group.

 

You know, I don't really think that is true. I think both atheists and Christians try to do this, and usually both get shot down. Look at someone like Richard Dawkins who basically says religion is bad because religious worldviews have been given as excuses for evil acts in the past. On the other hand he is in no hurry for atheism as a worldview to accept responsibility for Stalin's evil actions - even self-proclaimed communists don't seem to feel they need to.

 

Lots of people try to use anecdotal examples inappropriately or try to disavow bad people who espouse their own views. And typically other people call them out on it. It isn't confined to Christians or anybody else.

[nmoira]

 

But that's because, you see, Christians get to automatically disavow any member of their faith who does something bad as "not a True Christianâ„¢," while atheists, for some reason, can't get away with that. If you do count the "nominal Christians," there are just as many bad apples as there are in any cultural group.

Even then, it's a stretch to call these "nominal" Christians atheist.

[Mergath]

I don't even see atheists as a group. They have only one thing in common. They don't believe in a deity. There is nothing more to it than that. They don't follow some sort of common code. They don't have a book of rules regarding their non belief. Most of them don't even get together to talk about it.

 

Not true! I was just reading about how an atheist group down in the Twin Cities made the news because they sponsored some local sports team that was named the Saints, and got to rename them for a night- the Ain'ts. :D

[JoLuRu]

I don't even see atheists as a group. They have only one thing in common. They don't believe in a deity. There is nothing more to it than that. They don't follow some sort of common code. They don't have a book of rules regarding their non belief. Most of them don't even get together to talk about it.

 

What would they say at their meetings?

"Still no God?"

"Nope."

"How bought those Giants?"

[Saille]

80% of couples who were married prior to the birth of their first child are still together on that child's 10th birthday compared to only 40% who were cohabiting at the time of the child's birth.

 

Yes, some married couples do divorce while some cohabiting couples stay together. But the odds are way more in favor of the married parents while they are against the cohabiting ones.

 

I'd be curious to know the incidence of planned vs. unplanned pregnancies among both those populations. I'd also love to see a quiz gauging how the average marrieds vs. unmarrieds feel about the possibility of having a child.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

What would they say at their meetings?

"Still no God?"

"Nope."

"How bought those Giants?"

 

:smilielol5:

[Mergath]

Even then, it's a stretch to call these "nominal" Christians atheist.

 

I happened to glance at your location thing, and I am now going to have the song from the first episode of Portlandia stuck in my head for the next week. Just though I'd let you know. :tongue_smilie:

[LucyStoner]

80% of couples who were married prior to the birth of their first child are still together on that child's 10th birthday compared to only 40% who were cohabiting at the time of the child's birth.[/Quote]

 

Without some source info, I really doubt your very neat and tidy stats there. Seems sorta convenient. The divorce rate for parents is not as low as 20%. Plenty of couples with kids get divorced.

[Mergath]

That's what I'm wondering.

 

From the atheists I know and have talked to, when they do get together it's not so much to talk about what isn't as to talk about the things that are, like ethics and such. They have the same kind of discussions that any religious person would about how the world should deal with problems, how people should act in moral dilemmas, etc., the only real difference being that the ideas don't stem from a religious text. Instead of trying to figure out what God wants them to do, they try to figure out the right thing to do.

 

Hopefully that made sense. :tongue_smilie:

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

That's what I'm wondering.

 

I've seen pamphlets for the local secular humanism org at the library. I considered going briefly, but then I wondered what the heck the point would be! Do they get together and snark on about how there is no God and religious people are deluded? Do they get together to do service projects? There are plenty of other opportunities for that. I'm totally mystified by what would go on in one of their meetings.

[JoLuRu]

I'd be curious to know the incidence of planned vs. unplanned pregnancies among both those populations. I'd also love to see a quiz gauging how the average marrieds vs. unmarrieds feel about the possibility of having a child.

 

This is a good point. I would guess that it's probably more likely that a pregnancy is unplanned in a cohabiting situation rather than a marriage, and unplanned pregnancies are quite a bit more stressful than those wanted by a couple.

[nmoira]

You know, I don't really think that is true. I think both atheists and Christians try to do this, and usually both get shot down. Look at someone like Richard Dawkins who basically says religion is bad because religious worldviews have been given as excuses for evil acts in the past. On the other hand he is in no hurry for atheism as a worldview to accept responsibility for Stalin's evil actions - even self-proclaimed communists don't seem to feel they need to.

But atheism isn't a worldview in a religious sense. It has no fundamental tenets, rites, or conditions of membership beyond not believing in a deity. There is no dogma, only definition. I'm atheist, but I feel no need to make excuses for Stalin because there seems to be only one point on which we agree: There are no gods. Should people with funny mustaches apologize or embrace or disavow Stalin?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

From the atheists I know and have talked to, when they do get together it's not so much to talk about what isn't as to talk about the things that are, like ethics and such. They have the same kind of discussions that any religious person would about how the world should deal with problems, how people should act in moral dilemmas, etc., the only real difference being that the ideas don't stem from a religious text. Instead of trying to figure out what God wants them to do, they try to figure out the right thing to do.

 

Hopefully that made sense. :tongue_smilie:

 

Huh. I do that with friends already (and here). I don't care to join a special group for it, I guess.

[JoLuRu]

From the atheists I know and have talked to, when they do get together it's not so much to talk about what isn't as to talk about the things that are, like ethics and such. They have the same kind of discussions that any religious person would about how the world should deal with problems, how people should act in moral dilemmas, etc., the only real difference being that the ideas don't stem from a religious text. Instead of trying to figure out what God wants them to do, they try to figure out the right thing to do.

 

Hopefully that made sense. :tongue_smilie:

 

Sounds VERY much like Unitarian Universalism. Lots of ethics, philosophy, and social justice, without the religious text. But I wouldn't consider myself or most of my fellow UU's athiests.

[cindergretta]

Going all the way back to the OP, :D , when our 4th was born, the nurse asked us if he was our first. Dh replied that he was our 4th. Her jaw dropped and she squeaked out, "Are they all YOURS?!" at my gobsmacked dh. He rather cooly informed her that they were... :lol:

 

In terms of marriage, I strongly believe in marriage and strongly believe in my marriage. At the end of the day, that is the one that matters to me. If others choose to not marry, that is their business, not mine. Personally, I believe marriage provides benefits and stability, particularly to children, but that is my belief, nothing written in blood. If others feel differently, it isn't my place to try to convince them otherwise, just as no one can convince me that my marriage is unnecessary or superfluous. :D

[ThreeBlessings]

I was a kid in the 80's and I have to say almost everyone I knew had divorced parents. Marriage means very little to me. I am not religious. I've been with the same man since I was 17, I'm 32 now. We have 3 kids together. We are definitely committed. We may get married at some point if it matters for a specific reason, ie. taxes, insurance, etc. Up to now it just means very little to us personally. :) To each their own.

[elegantlion]

From the atheists I know and have talked to, when they do get together it's not so much to talk about what isn't as to talk about the things that are, like ethics and such. They have the same kind of discussions that any religious person would about how the world should deal with problems, how people should act in moral dilemmas, etc., the only real difference being that the ideas don't stem from a religious text. Instead of trying to figure out what God wants them to do, they try to figure out the right thing to do.

 

Hopefully that made sense. :tongue_smilie:

 

atheists and morality, gee, christians didn't invent morality and ethics? :tongue_smilie: This might be news to some. :001_huh:

[Bluegoat]

That's true, but the only ones I see trying to make the argument that anyone who does something really bad wasn't a member of their faith group in the first place are Christians.

 

In some cases it is more or less true - they are nominal in the sense that they relate culturally but have no actual belief in what Christianity teaches. I think this used to be a more common state of affairs a few years ago, but in my mind it's a fair statement if it is factually true. It is most common in the West with Christians but I suspect that it is something that happens in any place that had a dominant religious group that is now fairly secular.

 

Of course people also say it in the sense that if someone does something so obviously against Christian teaching, they don't "count" as a Christian. That is rather more questionable, but I've heard it said by Buddhists as well as Christians. I really wouldn't be surprised to find it elsewhere either but we happen to have a lot of Buddhists here.

 

As far as denying someone is really an atheist, I suppose to be comparable that person would have to do something that is against the beliefs of atheism, which is pretty broad. It would be hard to imagine such a situation. Maybe a claimed atheist who gave a lot of money to Christian missionaries? Reslly, atheist isn't equivalent to "christian", it is equivalent to "religious". A more realistic comparison would be with a specific atheist worldview, like secular humanists. Getting back to communists, I can imagine a communist claiming that so and so "wasn't really a communist" because they don't do the right things. In fact I'd say that has been common in some times and places. And communism is certainly an example of an atheist worldview.