the "agnostic" household

On the Web, I've read the phrase "raised in an agnostic household". Some time later, I started pondering what it could possibly mean.

• The less-likely option is that it refers to a household in which the authority figures actively taught agnosticism. Instead of nightly prayers, there were recitations of standards of proof. The question "Why are we here?" was answered with "Nobody knows, since nobody can prove anything sufficiently conclusive". And the Christmastime inquiry, as to how and why the songs describe an infant as a King, elicited the reply "the infant may or may not have been a king, and in any case we can never know for certain". Perhaps some households do this, but I'm skeptical. To put it mildly, the young have a tendency to want their answers to be unequivocal.
  
• The more-likely option is that the authority figures of an "agnostic" household weren't so much agnostic as they were religiously apathetic. They didn't discuss religion. If anything, they were careful to ensure no ideas were "enforced" on impressionable minds. They were neither for nor against any ideas about God. Rather, they kept their Sundays busy by worshiping different gods altogether, like leisure and entertainment.

I implore everyone: call households atheistic or apathetic when those terms fit. Don't try to claim that a household was "agnostic" if it truly wasn't. Agnostics, have the decency to represent your upbringing accurately.

the role of tradition

Traditions in Christianity should neither be rejected nor embraced. Traditions should be held, examined, and either kept or dropped based on value. Some are more timeless than others. Discern in accordance with a couple guidelines:

• A historical and cultural context molded each Christian tradition just as surely as such contexts molded the behavior of people in the Bible (to convince you of this, study the biblical occurrences of polygamy or slavery). A tradition may no longer be helpful within one's own context.
• Prudently avoid the overly "progressive" assumption that, by definition, the past is outdated and its inhabitants are more primitive. Remember that they were people who lived, not merely names. Listen to them, although the result of this "conversation" could be flat disagreement. Consider the possibility that they might have been correct about ____ .
  

odd ethical confluence

One ethical trend is an upswing in the opinion that heterosexual marriage is a meaningless legal distinction. "If a man and a woman are in a long-term, caring relationship, why should they go through an archaic marriage ritual or otherwise try to 'forcefully ensnare' one another in a way that lessens his or her personal freedom, flexibility, independence?"

On the other hand, a second ethical trend is an upswing in the opinion that homosexual marriage must be equivalent to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the legal system and society at large. "If homosexuals are in a long-term, caring relationship, why shouldn't they go through the beautiful ritual of marriage and publicly acknowledge their strong personal bond rather than continue to be treated as independent individuals?"

Does marriage matter or not? The greater likelihood of a heterosexual couple having a family (surely that can't be denied?) points to their marriages being more important. But that would be too logical.

A peculiar joint expression of these two trends is a heterosexual couple who claims to forgo marriage until homosexual couples can also marry. Or the already-married will stop wearing their rings. What a protest! That'll show 'em! Show your support for marriage by not doing it!