I made no mistake: morality is necessary for stability, for reasons you list, which was not needful as the wisdom of marriage was not the issue. And i am glad you support marriage (which i presume is monogamous?).
A society that fosters elimination of its weaker sections will also foster instability by increasing insecurity.
But some will argue fostering a constant high degree of insecurity is necessary for stability, that of a controlled society, as in the atheistic Soviet Union.
This is all a no-brainer. I’m surprised you’re asking, even:
Then you did not understand my point, which which was not that an atheist cannot have solid reasons we concur with for things, but that another atheist can argue against you on such things as marriage, or support gay marriage, etc., porn, consensual sex based upon their reasoning.
Some sanction casual fornication or with a "committed" (overused and often superficial term today), even btwn kids just out of puberty. The atheist Austin Cline over at About.com Agnosticism, when not misrepresenting Christianity with the usual atheistic scorn, thinks "the current Western notion of marriage as being only between a single male and a single female is culturally and historically conditioned - there is nothing very necessary or obvious about it. Other types of marriage can be just as stable, just as productive, and just as loving. There is no reason to eliminate them from the category "marriage" except, perhaps, as a means to promote religious or cultural bigotry.
None of this means, of course, that two people in a committed and loving relationship must get married. ...Not being married is no more a barrier to having a deep and meaningful relationship than is not having religion. - http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistsweddings/a/whymarry.htm
George A. Ricker of Godless in America is even more clear in his support of gay marriage. Which i assume you oppose.
More examples on basic moral issues can be given, and without a proven transcendent moral standard to at least argue from, what you consider a no-brainer can be contrary to what seems reasonable to another atheist's brain.
I don’t think you understood the underpinning reasoning in the points discussed in my previous post. Refute the logic, or give up. Weasel words referring to some “atheists” or some “christians” and their “arguments” is meaningless in this discussion when you haven’t highlighted or brought forth any contradictions in the points made, using the arguments from the sources you mention (the “some atheists”, etc.).