Why are atheists allowed to marry anyway?

Post Reply New Topic

No, they don't. Mississippi and Montana test for syphilis though.

A misguided public health requirement in this day & age.

My wife and I before we got married in Mass.. had to have a blood test. That was in 1957. Perhaps the law has been changed since then.

ruveyn

Vexcalibur, you are a mooncalf.

You actually think I missed that your snotpost was a nyanya gotcha attempt?

Simply because I went straight to the stupidity?

A. I trust it is adequately obvious what I think about all the same sex marriage toktok from all sides rabbit chicken spinning into the ground.

B. I am pretty sure it is NOT obvious what my opinion of same sex marriage is because I am not about to PBS it. I might open it privately some day to one of the respectable set, but most of my opinions are strictly need to know

C. I strongly resent the assumption of the laevorabblerousers that dextrorabblerousers can be equated with theists. A belief in one divine entity or more does not define - may well not impact - one's political stance. By so doing you insult and alienate theists who agree with whatever your stance may be - if you even have one you did not clone from the media. And you insult and alienate atheists who disagree with that stance.

D. But so far as I have been able to see your prime - id not your sole - motivation here is to insult and alienate, so I suppose you can feel good about that.

E. Fighting rabblerousing with rabblerousing - no - I do not want to start listing the comparables.

Ridiculous. Here society = legal establishment. The legal rules already allow atheists and people who plan not to get children to marry. Legal marriage has stopped being a concept that depended on Christians' opinions a long time ago. The Christians wouldn't be able to be the police in your metaphore, because they don't have any legal power. And society in fact would be the whole government not people who think pirating is fine.

Nobody cares if Christianity conforms to society or not. But they shouldn't continue to pretend they should have any control whatsoever on the legal law. That dark time called the middle ages in which Christianity had power over the law has (thank god) ended a long time ago.

No, I believe you have serious issues at understanding the written word because you have not understood the article at all. You calling it 'stupidity' is proof of it.

I don't see how is that relevant at all.

a) I am no proselytizing, so I don't care who, regarding your often unreliable opinion will I "alienate".

If you don't want Christianity to look like a nest of bigoted people and would people to believe that it isn't. Don't complain against us, complain to your leaders who are still being bigoted idiots. Thanks.

Yeah. There are only two holdouts left.

Hmmm.. Perhaps not, but it seems like they spend a lot of time trying to conform society by strong arming their way through government, trying to pass laws to dictate who can be married, what kind of "science" should be taught to our children, and what medical procedures a woman can choose to have.

I believe you have serious issues at understanding the written word because you have not understood the article at all. You calling it 'stupidity' is proof of it..[/quote]

I understand the written word just fine. Living in academia I have had plenty of opportunity to observe all sorts of propaganda in action. How dare we be different? Well, we are different. If we both read and understand the same thing, we may value it differently. I think the nyanya gotcha ploy is juvenile, and I think the pretended premises are stupid. Live with it.



Well maybe I DO have problems with the written word: [I don't care who, regarding your often unreliable opinion will I "alienate"] makes no sense to me. What is my "often unreliable opinion", exactly? In any case, what I was asserting was my opinion that you do NOT care who you alienate, so long as you can alienate somebody.

And I am very sure you are not trying to proselytize, since much of what you and pandabear do is playing Lyndon with a bushel of apples of Discord.



First off, Christianity does not look like a "nest of bigoted people" - there are just certain ones who for reasons ranging from mooncalfery to Dog in the Manger syndrome caricature it so.

Secondly, it is not up to me - I am certainly no propagandist - to tweak what people bdelieve. I confine myself to suggesting that people listen less to the rabblerousers and put in time examining facts - on Christianity, the sound of French, the Albanian diaspora, or transistors.

Thirdly - "complain against us"? You and who else is this "us"?

Fourthly - Wat bedoelt "your leaders who are still being bigoted idiots". Yes, there are bigoted idiots in the world - I know because I am addressing one. But why do you think I have leaders? I have never been a leader - but I have also never been a follower - save of Christ. I am or have been a child, a father, a husband, a teacher, a pupil, an employee, a boss, a friend, an acquaintance, a victim, a Green Monkey. Never a leader - never a follower - save of Christ. Who are your leaders? And why can they not speak for themselves?

That argument cuts both ways. Society is not about conforming to Christianity.

Christianity has nothing relevant to say to people who are neither Christians nor willing to become Christians. Christianity may continue to preach doctrine to its followers, and they may choose to adhere to until until the Second Coming (TM) for all I care. But no Christian has any place is seeking to impose Christian belief on fellow citizens who are not believers.

I would disagree on the one point - Christianity has a lot to say that is of relvance to the wold at large. So does Buddhism. So does the Common Law. So does the science of Economics.

The wise man listens to what goes around and sorts out what is of relevance.

But as for your final sentence, I am totally in agreement. No one who IS a follower of Christ - whether or not he calls himself Christian - and no one who IS a Bible Believer - whether or not he would use the term - is seeking to impose either Christian belief or [which is what I think you actually mean to say] "Christian" behavioral norms on anybody. In fact, they have really no business imposing such on other Christians.

You are quite right, Philologos. I should have chosen a better word than, "relevant."

I celebrate Christmas even though I'm not a follower. It's more about the tradition that the religion.

Grahhhh... That's a whole other bag of WTF?... I get so sick of being questioned on that issue.."You're not a Christian.. why do you celebrate Christmas?"

The connection is slosw today - I had typed this but it did not get posted.

Christmas [except for the name, and even then many do not pronounce the t as my mother did - and nobody says "Christ Mass} is not a Christian celebration, though the holiday sits on a Christian holy day.

Note that certain more dour Christian organizations denounce Christrmas as papist and pagan [though Hogmanay is okay?!]

Note that certain Christian traditions put things we connect with Christmas on other days - St Nicholas, St Basil.

Most people celebrating St Patrick's day are not Irish Catholics.

Tell them you celebrate Christmas because you are not a Conservative Presbyterian. Must be okay to celebrate that fact, surely?

When was the last time Christians or a Christian Organization used force or threat of force to achieve office in the United States?

ruveyn

W's re-election campaign?

Back up that assertion with verifiable fact please. When and where were non-Christians roughed up, injured or physically threatened? And why didn't I notice. I am not a Christian.

ruveyn