Atheists should be allowed to marry.

Con seems to have understood my argument, as he did not argue my definitions, considering I said nothing about it. Definitions, as we all know is an acronym that stands for: Deadly Effective Forfeit Inducing Non Intuitive Troll Institution Of Non Sequiturs Because he did not argue my definitions, he has followed this rule. Good job, Con, now on with this debate. Con says something about some hedgehogs, but he misunderstands the commonly known terms: Atheists - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Con seems to have misunderstood me when he thought I was talking about athiest. I would like to point out that the resolution stated "atheists" not "athiest" should be allowed to marry. I would next like to turn to Con's argument about the word "marry. " He claims this is an anagram for "Main All Republican Right-Leaning Youths. " I will refute this with a simple definition. (Note, this is different than "definitions. "). Anagram - a word, phrase, or sentence formed from another by rearranging its letters: "Angel" is an anagram of "glean. " [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] The word marry is not an anagram for "main all republican right-leaning youths. " Now to present the case being debated here, as it should have been obvious to Con. Contention 1: Race in the Past, Sexuality in the Present, Religion in the Future In the past, race was a huge factor in whether or not people could marry. Obviously, most of America has overcome this prejudice. However, this prejudice was just replace with a new one. President Obama has recently released a statement that he is pro-gay marriage. It has recently been blown out of proportion to the point that picketers line the streets in some areas claiming that gay-marriage is wrong. If it's progressed from race to sexual orientation, what's next? "How long will it be before they start fighting for other kinds of limits on civil marriages based upon their beliefs about what their god wants? For example, should atheists be allowed to marry? Godless people cannot be united in "Holy Matrimony" and their marriages cannot in any way be based on the will of any gods. From a faith-based perspective, this makes godless couples just as much out-laws as gay couples today, or interracial couples in the past. " [. http://atheism.about.com...] The fact that this is even becoming an issue is a shock to most atheists. However, it is a possible controversy that could be brought about in years to come. According to the poll in the same source, 3322 people that voted were against future bans of atheist weddings. 298 said that these bans should be put in place, and 253 said that they didn't care. Though the numbers of those for the bans are not great, it is still significant that there are. If there are two or more sides to an issue at hand, it could easily evolve into a controversy in contemporary society. Contention 2: What is Holy Matrimony? Matrimony can easily be defined as: the act or state of being married; marriage. [. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] and Holy: specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] However, with these two definitions in place, we also must define religion itself. Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Because religion is just a set of beliefs, we can all agree that atheists are religious, because they have a set of beliefs, no? Just because they do not express it in a church does not mean it does not exist. Because of this fact, atheists do not violate the term holy matrimony, and can be married under such a title. Even if Con refutes this point, there is the easy solution of taking this term out of the marriage procedure. By specifying that a marriage involves an atheist in this manner, people will be less likely to attack the reasoning here, as they do not violate any religious institutions by marrying within it. It's similar to removing the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, it does no harm to the meaning of the pledge, as taking certain phrases out of a marriage procedure would not hurt the service. I will leave it at these two contentions, making the purpose of this debate clear.