Oklahoma is banning atheists from getting married

Who else think this is some atheophobic bs?

They’re trying to outlaw atheists from getting married because the Christians believe marriage is exclusive only to them.

Those cunts are 20 years too late, she ran off and took my entire life savings with her, where the fuck were they when I needed them? :roll_eyes:


That article is 8 years old.

1 Like

I don’t even know how this makes any sense. Why would the government give up all that money and control. All marriage licenses are issued by the Government. It’s not a Church thing at all. You go down to city hall. You apply for a marriage license. Then you have your church wedding… or not. No one needs the church for anything? How does one state pass a bill that strips the government of its power?

I don’t think the bill is going anyplace. " he U.S. Senate approved bipartisan legislation on Tuesday to protect same-sex marriage in federal law amid concerns that the Supreme Court could overturn its 2015 decision that recognized such unions.

(Supreme Court makes same-sex marriage a national right) as a constitutional right.

Nov. 29, 2022

My guess is this. Should the Church, any Church, manage to take over marriage licensing, they would also be forced by federal laws to marry LGBT couples and they would not be able to stop atheists from getting married.

I looked for the actual bill but could not find it.


This would be the most easily circumvented law in existence. Even if a couple didn’t have the option of getting married in another state, or even over the Internet while in OK, they could always submit to the prescribed “Christian marriage”, then immediately denounce any religious beliefs. WTF they gonna do?

Or…don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Ah well, it’s one of those things babe, we can still be together anyway…(quietly to yourself) I will just keep all my shit if you decide to fuck off, so win win… :wink:

I guess this is beating a dead horse since this legislation story is actually pretty old, but it is amazing how uninformed these people are. The very founders of this country already dealt with these issues over 200 years ago and concluded that mixing religion into governmental policies was a very bad idea (see ye old English kingdom for reference). They brought that over from the old country and when the colonies broke free they said no, no to that nonsense. So why go backward?

Ironically the UK has a state religion, and the number of theists or religious people has been rapidly declining for decades.

One hypothesis is that religious memes are more aggressively defended when they are threatened by competition, ironic don’t you think? So just create a state religion, and overtime it becomes increasingly innocuous, and boring and people just drift away.

If you want to preserve religious superstition link it to ethnicity or political and national sectarianism, and it gets a shot in the arm. Controlling science and education is also helpful, but can backfire long term of course, see the Catholic church’s ill advised attempts to quash Galileo’s endorsement of the theories of Copernicus.

1 Like

I certainly don’t want to go backwards but a fuckload of voting Xtians sure want to! And, unfortunately, they are making some headway.

1 Like

Actually, what’s forward or backwards is a matter of perspective. For many religious zealots “forward” is to implement a society with laws based on their interpretation of whatever religious book they tend to prefer, and to prefer dogma to rational thinking. For others, going “forward” is to implement a society with laws based on reason and objective data, and to prefer science and reason to dogma. I would claim that the problem is that dogma clouds the mind and stymies critical and rational thought. Others would claim that critical and rational thought stifles the submission to dogma.

I know which one of the alternatives I would prefer, but how can we argue best for our favourite choices here?

1 Like

Well, backwards can be considered going back to older ways, where religion was the rule, women were subjugated, etc. Forward can be considered moving away from and out of the rules and standards of the past.


They always talk about “freedom” but only apply it to themselves.


The freedom to take away freedoms, I’m familiar with the mindset. Your head might explode if you debate some extreme libertarian, you end up pointing out all the freedoms they are currently using and enjoying, while they conversely use some of those freedoms to endlessly paint themselves a victim of a grand conspiracy, designed to enslave them at every turn. It’s still a worthwhile discourse sometimes though, as it stretches and tests one’s own ideas about what freedom really means, and how practical many freedoms are among vast human populations.


Quite so, and arguably somewhat necessary to establish functional definitions and parameters with which to provide maximum freedom with minimum unintended intrusions.
I think that many in my sphere of experience have not clearly examined the nuances involved. I lean toward the view of encouraging maximum freedom and rights, with a commensurate acknowledgement of an individual’s responsibility to others.

Edit: what have you done for me lately?

1 Like