facepalm You don't know what the dead sea scrolls are do you? Or you have been severely misinformed...

I think you're using a very selective definition of atheism. Atheism can refer anyone in any cultural context that doesn't believe in a god(monotheism) or gods(polytheism), of any kind. I understand we are seeped in this "western" context of christianity, but does that really mean a "self proclaimed atheist" in some other religious region is standing in direct opposition to Christianity? I don't think so. Atheist aren't making a counter claim regardless of the dichotomy of the labels. Atheism/theism concerns belief, as opposed to gnosticism/agnosticism which is an epistemological term concerning knowledge. To me, everyone is agnostic because I think no one living knows for certain if there is a god. Christians believe they are gnostic because they see the bible as evidence. Atheists have no belief in god/s due to their perceived lack of evidence. This is the default position since no claim is being made. Theism, no matter the form, makes the claim for god/s or the supernatural. Without evidence there is no reason to believe this claim, but note I did not say that it was warranted to believe that god/s cannot exist. Atheism is not a belief structure.

If the thoughts of God and religion were none existent then so to shall be the viewpoint of an Atheist.

This is the basis for atheist blowback. There isn't a word for the lack of belief in Santa Claus. Atheists are a much derided minority, especially in the south where I live. There are still states that do not allow us to serve in government openly. Minorities when threatened band together. Modern atheism is a reaction, nothing more. If theism disappears, the illusion of an atheist collective will disappear.

Then we finally realize we were all Pantheists anyway as our ideas of god merges with our ideas of the universe. I think some of the upcoming breakthroughs in quantum mechanics will pretty much assure this.

Prior to their invalidation in 2003 thanks to the ACLU, these states STILL all had Sodomy laws, some specifically targeting same sex couples:

Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia

No one goes to jail ANYMORE.

"In 1967, the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia found that the right to marry is a "basic civil [right] of man.” Loving v Virginia ended legal discrimination in marriage."

Yes, real rights, Joe. Why do you think I keep referencing the civil rights movement?? We've been through this before. Only last time people were saying colored people couldn't marry whites for ALL the reasons people are saying now and worse.

YES! That's my point! Negative reinforcement is used for hate crimes and more extreme things in society. Positive reinforcement is things like women's suffrage, or civil rights. Your are positively reinforcing the assertion that they are equal by changing the old norm in the law. Equalizing marriage laws would be positive reinforcement. Whew! That took some work.

Jesus Christ on a stick, Joe. All those words and you said nearly nothing.

I just don't get why we can't just get rid of the word "marriage" from all legal documents and replace it with the words "civil unions" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals

This is the only thing you have said in this entire debate that I completely agree with. That would create equality.

Understand, a lot of people are just against gay rights because they think the great jibitywhatwhat brought marriage down from the clouds so if you have a real argument for why another minority should settle for "the same but different" I am all ears, because I've never heard a good one.

You see? You go on about all this bullshit when you really just don't want it to be called marriage. You even tried to turn it around like its an attack on straight couples. You said they could have the same rights, right? Then what is the point of not letting it be the same in name as well? I seriously want to know what is at the heart of where you're coming from. Are you religious Joe? Is that why you're so against this?

No, I said it can legislate morality but that doesn't mean that's what people believe as the legislation only punishes immoral actions. That in and of itself does not encourage positive moral thinking. It's just negative reinforcement on behaviors considered outside the norm of societies current moral standard.

You can't legislate morality.

Bullshit. Hate crimes bills ARE legislating morality. Most laws are legislated morality. That doesn't mean everyone believes in them, but by putting a consequence to the action you give them a huge incentive to not do the perceived immoral action that was legislated against. You have a long road ahead of you if you don't understand the correlation of peoples perceptions and the law. Again African Americans are a perfect analogy: slaves were freed in 1865, it takes until the 1960's to get civil rights, then 2008 we have a black president. Even you can see that progression. The equal protection under the law precedes the normalization of the minority into the culture resulting in something that could not have happened 20 years ago. That IS how you "educate the next generation". Nothing is sudden. There are still racists out there, but it's not like it was and that is due to that progression. This same progression is what will bring us more representation from the gay community in gay congressmen/women and other aspects of what we consider "public life" as this normalization occurs.

The only power the government has over anyone is the power those people give to the government. Don't you get that? No one needs the government to sanction their marriage. If I decide to commit myself to someone and that someone decides to commit to me, that is all that is needed. Everyone has the God given right to pursue happiness. Forcing the government to give you a piece of paper sanctioning your "marriage" does not constitute the pursuit of happiness because your happiness is not dependent on government sanction.

The government recognizes marriage in many aspects like taxes etc..., don't you get that? The government should not discriminate who it gives said benefits to, do you not get that? Complaining about government involvement in marriage is a bit stupid because the states recognition of your marriage is all that matters in the real world. If I get married in a church but never get a marriage license I am not married in the eyes of the law, it's that simple. Bitch all you want, that's the reality we are working with. Making the government treat you equally DOES constitute pursuit of happiness because if they are not they are in violation of equal protection under the law by favoring one group over another.

Gays can say they are "married." No one will put them in jail for it. Gays can have a wedding ceremony. No one will put them in jail for it. The government saying that gays are allowed to get married will not change the mind of homophobes. Gay marriage is about benefits. They should fight for those benefits.

What do you think they are doing?? Yes, for gay people this battle is about benefits they receive from the recognition that their bonds are no different from heterosexual couples, but the overall struggle for them, as it was/is for black people, is about perception. The perception that they are equal. Why can you not wrap your brain around this?

I freaking love Chuck Palahnuik. I've never read survivor. I'll have to pick that one up.