Evangelical Atheism

[zombyshakespear]

As many of you know, I left Christianity in 2002/3 over a period of a few months. I went from born-again, die for Christ, Bible literally true style protestant to agnostic. After a few more months I gathered the courage to acknowledge that I was truly an atheist

Comments

Re: Gay

[just_human]

I've often thought it silly you need a license to marry, but any old idiot can have a baby.

Ok, we're not talking about government or society with your gay Christian friend. What I'm saying is to be a member of a church, you should hold similar beliefs as the church you want to associate with. I doubt your friend would start with the assumption that there's no God and nothing is inherently sinful. Persecution is wrong. But persecution can mean almost anything. When I hear that word, I think burning crosses, lynches, unprovoked violence. Telling a person they're sinning isn't persecution.

Now to talk about society. In the Netherlands, many people today don't bother getting married anymore. "Marriage" as a word or binding contract became so watered down that it didn't mean anything anymore. That's why society has a stake.

Brad Pitt will not marry until everyone who wants to has the right to be married. I want to know what is his definition of 'has the right'. If you, you wife, my wife and I all wanted to get married as a group, should we be able to? What if there's an entire village of 400 people, and they all want to join into a single marriage, along with their (of age) dogs and horses? What if I want to be able to marry your 2 year old cousin? At some point, marriage HAS to be defined. Even if it's as vague as 'between two consenting adults.' Society (and I agree) has considered it between a consenting man of legal age and a consenting woman of legal age.

Re: Gay

[zombyshakespear]

I'm not (nor is anyone outside Utah or Vegas) implying that we should throw open the floodgates to allow marrying minors or multiple partners. The question is limited to 2 gay or lesbian people and gaining full legal status for their relationship. This is not a slippery slope. This simply lets people of the same sex marry, and retains all the existing rights and responsibilities of marriage.

So, my question: What would society have to gain by denying marriage to homosexuals? Why not define it as two consenting adults regardless of their gender?

Re: Gay

[just_human]

You could. But why? People have been marrying for literally hundreds of years without needing to define what marriage was. It was simply what you called it when a man and a woman started a new family. That it needs defining in today's society somewhat scares me. It's like redefining "job" as staying at home and watching TV, and then complaining about how crappy my job's pay is.

Re: Gay

[zombyshakespear]

Why? Because it would help increase acceptance and fairness of homosexuals in our country. It would make their lives easier and help them to adopt children.

I thought you agreed it needed defining to prevent frivilous use of marriage between roomates or people who are just close friends.

I don't see homosexuals complaining about their marriages any more that heterosexuals do.