Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2009, 03:58 PM   #26
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,987
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Because a dog isn't legally competent.

So, you saying that's the law???
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2009, 07:20 PM   #27
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post
I think you should be more tolerant of our animal cousins, Drysdale.
They piss me off, I get a recipe for Ka ga ki
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 04:25 AM   #28
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,987
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
They piss me off, I get a recipe for Ka ga ki
Ok, WTF is that? Google isn't pulling anything useful for that.

Back to dogs and guns...shouldn't hunting dogs at least be able to buy a gun?
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 05:02 AM   #29
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Korean Dog BBQ.

I probbaly spelled it completely wrong. My Korean isn't exactly stellar.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 06:15 AM   #30
GraemeFaelban
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: At the foot of the Rockies
Posts: 523
Send a message via AIM to GraemeFaelban
Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post
If the government should stay out of "any type of union", then why is informed consent necessary? I think what you are saying is that the government should stay out of any type of union where informed consent is given by two consenting adults. So, then you wouldn't mind at all the government sanctioning polygamous unions and incestuous unions? If so, then aren't you making the case for those "moralists" who have argued that allowing homosexuals to have civil unions puts us on a slippery slope to where "anything goes"?
No, I mean the government should stay out of any type of union among any number of consenting adults, and yes, infromed consent should be required. I honestly see no reason the government should be involved at all. I see no issues with polygamy or polyandry. As for incestuous unions, the one issue I see there is the significantly higher risk of children with major issues. At that point, someone is actually being harmed. In a group marriage of any type, so long as everyone knows what they are getting into, does so volluntarilly, and, can leave when they want, I see no issues at all. The government should have no say at all regarding marriage, other than making sure that everyone involved is a consenting adult competant to make the decision to marry. You could make the slippery slope argument regarding any type of union that is not currently allowed, I am sure it was made regarding allowing blacks and whites to marry at one time too.

Regarding bestiality (and being a little silly here), I agree that it would be hard to get informed consent from Fido or Trigger, but couldn't Fido bark twice for a "yes, I do" or couldn't Trigger drag his front hoof across the ground twice for a "yes"? I don't doubt that the woman in a "relationship" with her German Shepard would claim that the dog isn't being forced against its will to perform *cough* loving acts for her. So, hypothetically speaking, what if that is true? Of course, we might be tempted to argue that other animals lack cognition, or enough cognition to understand right from wrong (the basis for informed consent), but what if that is just a prejudice against other animal species? What if you are guilty of discriminating against other species capable of being in a loving, tender, long-term, relationship with a human? Don't they have rights, too?
We both know the answer here.
__________________
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Shaman of 85 Seasons <Resolution of Erollisi Marr>
GraemeFaelban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:32 AM   #31
Ice Weasel X
Banned User
 
Ice Weasel X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,799
Send a message via AIM to Ice Weasel X
I was gonna twist Lurikeen's comments about bestiality around, but I threw up a little in my butt just thinking about it.
__________________
SMS Text Responder - Convenience and Safety for any Android phone, ad-free.
If you have any questions that aren't answered by the app description, feel free to ask. I have no financial stake in it, but I am the primary tester.
Ice Weasel X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:16 AM   #32
GraemeFaelban
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: At the foot of the Rockies
Posts: 523
Send a message via AIM to GraemeFaelban
Originally Posted by Ice Weasel X View Post
I was gonna twist Lurikeen's comments about bestiality around, but I threw up a little in my butt just thinking about it.
So, you are saying you have your head in your ass?
__________________
Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Shaman of 85 Seasons <Resolution of Erollisi Marr>
GraemeFaelban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:31 AM   #33
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,987
Originally Posted by GraemeFaelban View Post
So, you are saying you have your head in your ass?
Oh, to be that flixible again.../sigh
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:56 AM   #34
Ice Weasel X
Banned User
 
Ice Weasel X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,799
Send a message via AIM to Ice Weasel X
Originally Posted by GraemeFaelban View Post
So, you are saying you have your head in your ass?
Nah, just posted that to see what Davek would say.
__________________
SMS Text Responder - Convenience and Safety for any Android phone, ad-free.
If you have any questions that aren't answered by the app description, feel free to ask. I have no financial stake in it, but I am the primary tester.
Ice Weasel X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 10:44 AM   #35
Pafuna
Brilliant Curmudgeon
 
Pafuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the Pocket of Big Oil
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Because a dog isn't legally competent.
Betcha he can sit in a car with a snootful of liquor, though, as long as he isn't driving...
__________________
Originally Posted by Ini View Post
Holy shit I think Pafuna just won the intraweb!
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Damn, is Pafuna allowed to win the intrawebs twice, or is it a lifetime achievement thing?
Pafuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:10 AM   #36
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Ever since the Democrats have taken over, this country has gone to the gay-marrying, gun-totting, driving-while-intoxicated, Korean-BBQ-eating incompetent dogs.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:24 AM   #37
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pafuna View Post
Betcha he can sit in a car with a snootful of liquor, though, as long as he isn't driving...
You'd prosecute... right after eating him.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:25 AM   #38
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
There's nothing worse than an intoxicated gun totting BBQ eating queer.
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:28 AM   #39
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by GraemeFaelban View Post
At that point, someone is actually being harmed. In a group marriage of any type, so long as everyone knows what they are getting into, does so volluntarilly, and, can leave when they want, I see no issues at all. The government should have no say at all regarding marriage, other than making sure that everyone involved is a consenting adult competant to make the decision to marry.
I understand your point and I agree with much of what you have stated, but the argument from "doing harm to our neighbor" is not a strong one unless it rests on, and is derived from, a set of objective moral imperatives. If talk about "doing harm" to our neighbor is essentially a moral utility founded upon what society generally agrees is harmful, then what counts as "doing harm" to our neighbor will be inconstant, depending upon what the culture means by "harmful". I think gay marriage is an excellent example of my point. When I was growing up in the 70s it was unthinkable that homosexuals should have state sanctioned unions, since homosexuality itself was considered harmful by the moral standards of the day. Today, at least in western cultures, homosexuality is greatly tolerated and not viewed as being harmful to society as it once was; hence today we have "gay unions" being legalized when at one time they would have been condemned.

So, the argument that the government shouldn't interfere in any unions where no harm to the individual is being done, doesn't pass muster. In a society where morals are relative, and given enough time and resources, many can be convinced that Fido not only has rights (Don't we see this with animal rights activists right now?), but should have the right to cohabitate with other animal species (Including humans, because the prevalent view is that humans are simply animals.) and from there civil unions between "man and sheep" (or animal of choice) could be just a matter of time. The point being, that there is no fixed moral standard in a culture that values utilitarianism.

What you mean by "harm" I may not agree with and in today's culture we must agree to tolerate each other's view. You might see an adult female living in an consenting incestuous relationship with her mother as not being harmful to anyone, since they can't procreate, but there will be someone next to you who sees harm being done to society for just allowing such practices. Of course, the question becomes "Who is right about harm being done?" The answer, I think, has been one of pragmatism: whoever can get enough people to tolerate and accept such practices not only redefines "harm" but sets the standard for the culture. If that is right, then the sky's the limit when it comes to the "tastes" of the culture where morals are concerned. What flavor do you want today?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:35 AM   #40
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Ice Weasel X View Post
I was gonna twist Lurikeen's comments about bestiality around, but I threw up a little in my butt just thinking about it.
You sure it wasn't in Davek's unwashed "coffee mug"?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"

Last edited by Lurikeen; 05-07-2009 at 11:41 AM.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 12:31 PM   #41
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Zolmaz Zo'Boto View Post
There's nothing worse than an intoxicated gun totting BBQ eating queer.
Sure there is... Haven't you met Chiteng?
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 02:18 PM   #42
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post

So, the argument that the government shouldn't interfere in any unions where no harm to the individual is being done, doesn't pass muster. In a society where morals are relative, and given enough time and resources, many can be convinced that Fido not only has rights (Don't we see this with animal rights activists right now?), but should have the right to cohabitate with other animal species (Including humans, because the prevalent view is that humans are simply animals.) and from there civil unions between "man and sheep" (or animal of choice) could be just a matter of time. The point being, that there is no fixed moral standard in a culture that values utilitarianism.
Fido does have certain rights. Go outside and set fire to a dog and see if nothing happens.


Fido cannot enter into a legally binding contract on his own though. Laws against being cruel to those without legal recourse of their own are fundamentaly different in every way than a law preventing the legally competent to form a contract. Do you think letting gays in the workplace will lead to you having to take orders from Fido?

Marriage is a contract. If the parties involved in a contract are legally competent, then it's wrong to null that contract because you don't like the idea.


Marriage is also a religious sacrement. Your church should be free to tell anyone it wants to piss off. If you don't want your priest marrying gays, the phone call should be to your priest, not to your congressman asking him to force your priest to agree with you.


But by all means, continue to miss the inherent absurdity of wanting the precedent of whichever bozo we elect this year having the authority to tell your church how they are required to define the sacrement. The precedent absolutely will be used in the lawsuits that are already inevitable once governments, having been given the rod to define morality and force the church to abide by it's definitions, uses the authority the church itself begged them to take on to legislate morality with the force of law, only to use it in the opposite direction.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 03:01 PM   #43
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
Fido does have certain rights. Go outside and set fire to a dog and see if nothing happens.


Fido cannot enter into a legally binding contract on his own though. Laws against being cruel to those without legal recourse of their own are fundamentaly different in every way than a law preventing the legally competent to form a contract. Do you think letting gays in the workplace will lead to you having to take orders from Fido?
The point I am raising is that how "harm" has been defined is largely relevant to how it is percieved by the culture and those perceptions can actively be changed. For instance, a person could shoot their dog 30 years ago without fear of being prosecuted. As you correctly point out, try doing something like that today. You will find yourself in before the judge or even in jail. I am not saying that we should be allowed to light our pets on fire, or to do as we please with them, but my point illustrates the changes in how our culture views the place of our pets. So, what is to stop giving Fido equal rights to "human animals" in the future? I personally know people who want that sort of thing to happen. Yes, the current law doesn't allow such, but years ago sodomy laws forbade homosexuals from entering into civil unions and some states today still forbid it, but does that mean such laws will not be changed? That is the point I am raising.

Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
Marriage is a contract. If the parties involved in a contract are legally competent, then it's wrong to null that contract because you don't like the idea.
Why is that the case? People "null that contract" every day because they don't "like it". Why are they wrong? (I am not saying I agree with divorce in every instance, btw.) And what does your point have to do with competence?


Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
Marriage is also a religious sacrement. Your church should be free to tell anyone it wants to piss off. If you don't want your priest marrying gays, the phone call should be to your priest, not to your congressman asking him to force your priest to agree with you.
I agree the church should have these powers, but right now there is movement, around "hate speech", to forbid churches from speaking out publicly against homosexuality. If those laws go through, then how much do you want to bet that a church which forbids two homosexuals from being married in that church will be taken to court in violation of "hate speech" laws or something similar? It is just a matter of time and we will see these challenges, I think.


Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
But by all means, continue to miss the inherent absurdity of wanting the precedent of whichever bozo we elect this year having the authority to tell your church how they are required to define the sacrement. The precedent absolutely will be used in the lawsuits that are already inevitable once governments, having been given the rod to define morality and force the church to abide by it's definitions, uses the authority the church itself begged them to take on to legislate morality with the force of law, only to use it in the opposite direction.
I would prefer the government not be involved in legitimizing marriages or even civil unions, but there are plenty of issues at work here (such as those involving property, medical rights, etc.) which involves the legal system. So of course the government must be involved. Also consider that the government has been involved in legislating morality since there have been governments. What do you think "You will not murder" is? It is a moral law and it is enforced by government along with not stealing, etc. We are now in the process of picking and choosing which morals government should be involved in legislating. Truthfully, I don't want the Church acting as government in legislating and enforcing laws. We had that via the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. No thanks. But, I am fully aware that government must be involved at some level in legislating moral law if they are to enforce it.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"

Last edited by Lurikeen; 05-07-2009 at 03:10 PM.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 04:21 PM   #44
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,987
Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
Marriage is a contract. If the parties involved in a contract are legally competent, then it's wrong to null that contract because you don't like the idea.
A Will is also a form of contract, yet people can will their crap to Fido if they want to.
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 05:58 PM   #45
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Originally Posted by Lurikeen View Post
I understand your point and I agree with much of what you have stated, but the argument from "doing harm to our neighbor" is not a strong one unless it rests on, and is derived from, a set of objective moral imperatives. If talk about "doing harm" to our neighbor is essentially a moral utility founded upon what society generally agrees is harmful, then what counts as "doing harm" to our neighbor will be inconstant, depending upon what the culture means by "harmful". I think gay marriage is an excellent example of my point. When I was growing up in the 70s it was unthinkable that homosexuals should have state sanctioned unions, since homosexuality itself was considered harmful by the moral standards of the day. Today, at least in western cultures, homosexuality is greatly tolerated and not viewed as being harmful to society as it once was; hence today we have "gay unions" being legalized when at one time they would have been condemned.

So, the argument that the government shouldn't interfere in any unions where no harm to the individual is being done, doesn't pass muster. In a society where morals are relative, and given enough time and resources, many can be convinced that Fido not only has rights (Don't we see this with animal rights activists right now?), but should have the right to cohabitate with other animal species (Including humans, because the prevalent view is that humans are simply animals.) and from there civil unions between "man and sheep" (or animal of choice) could be just a matter of time. The point being, that there is no fixed moral standard in a culture that values utilitarianism.
To a certain extent, there's some good points in this. The notion of "absolute" vs. "relative" morality has tilted very strongly towards "utilitarianism" - Mills has won out soundly over Kant. Now, we may take away different views on how desirable it is, but when it comes to gay marriage, I suspect that in 10 years, it will be allowed in most states in the US, and 30 years from now, folks will look back and wonder what the fuss was about.

I've been a bit amazed at how poorly those stongly opposed to gay marriage have picked their battles - as you mentioned, 40 years ago, it would have been impossible to imagine. In fact, 10 years ago it was pretty much a fringe issue - even civil unions would have been difficult to push through. What happened?

My theory is that, in the Western world, there is no longer any moral authority. Enough political and religious leaders have disgraced themselves on the subject of "sexual behavior" and "the sanctity of marriage" that no one over the age of 10 would take them seriously. Could anyone on this board listen to Bill Clinton talk about the important of the sacred vow of marriage without snickering? Ted Haggard? Jessie Jackson? Larry Craig? John Edwards? Hell, that's just a few - turn on CNN - oh, there's Palin talking about abstinence inbetween the pics of Miss CA topless (which do make me very happy to be a heterosexual man so I can appreciate them ).

Now, you can do your bit about how we're all sinners, etc - and that's fine - but that just means you don't get to throw stones at the other sinners either. And as you point out, you wouldn't want the Roman Catholic Church dictating their laws to you, but you don't get to dictate your laws to the rest of us. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church can quote the Bible versers to show they're right - but you'll disagree with their interpretation (and vice versa).
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 07:32 PM   #46
Kogbender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 212
havent read the entire thread.. just trolling thru

ill make a simple point... The statement "Gay Marrige = Religious freedom" is absolute crap...

for the above statment to hold any truth, homosexuality would have to be concidered/acepted as a religion ..... I dont care how you want to spin it, it just aint so. Calling out "Oh God!!" during sex does not constitue a religion people....

Hey to all you ancient trolls who may rember me...
__________________
Kogbender Steelrender
Ogre Dread Lord
Keeper of the Penguins

Morell Thule
(Retired)
Kogbender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 07:51 PM   #47
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by Davek View Post
A Will is also a form of contract, yet people can will their crap to Fido if they want to.
Wills do not require the beneficiary to be legally competent, nor do they require any actual participation in the contract for it to form.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 07:57 PM   #48
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by Kogbender View Post
havent read the entire thread.. just trolling thru

ill make a simple point... The statement "Gay Marrige = Religious freedom" is absolute crap...

for the above statment to hold any truth, homosexuality would have to be concidered/acepted as a religion ..... I dont care how you want to spin it, it just aint so. Calling out "Oh God!!" during sex does not constitue a religion people....

Another philosophical discussion trumped by a bumper sticker.

England never denied the colonists, at any point in history, the right to believe in God. Unfortunately there's more to it than that, but it got too wordy. These new compact cars just don't have big enough bumpers for the nuance of it.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:49 PM   #49
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
My theory is that, in the Western world, there is no longer any moral authority. Enough political and religious leaders have disgraced themselves on the subject of "sexual behavior" and "the sanctity of marriage" that no one over the age of 10 would take them seriously.
I think you have made a very good point, but I would say that there may not be generally accepted moral authority in the western world anymore. Our culture is either fastly approaching a post-Christian era or is already in it. I would argue that there is a moral authority whether He is recognized as one or not.

Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Now, you can do your bit about how we're all sinners, etc - and that's fine - but that just means you don't get to throw stones at the other sinners either.
Pointing out sin is not "throwing stones". You may not like hearing about your sin; indeed, you may not even believe you sin, but simply because someone tells you about your condition doesn't mean they are attacking you. A doctor telling you that you have a limited life span due to a cancer is not throwing stones (and his telling you doesn't mean he isn't also sick with the same disease): he is telling you of your illness. BUT, I certainly have seen some who do bash others with the Bible and I will not pretend it doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
And as you point out, you wouldn't want the Roman Catholic Church dictating their laws to you, but you don't get to dictate your laws to the rest of us. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church can quote the Bible versers to show they're right - but you'll disagree with their interpretation (and vice versa).
I probably worded my statement poorly. What I meant to say is that I wouldn't want ANY religious institution, including my own, to be the sole power legislating and enforcing laws. That doesn't mean I don't think religious law makers should not push for what they believe is the truth. Let the Roman Catholics, or any other religion follower, try to push their agendas in a democracy; I think that is healthy.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"

Last edited by Lurikeen; 05-07-2009 at 09:06 PM.
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 11:30 PM   #50
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Chiteng? Heh, we go back at least nine years. Same with Luri.
Arch enemies.
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:57 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.