The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:47 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:51 pm 
Kit the Odd wrote:
Two, I think everyone CAN follow my way of life. I think people choose not to for many reasons.


Kit the Odd wrote:
Just a few other clarifications:
I've never picketed an abortion clinic and don't plan to in the future, but I do think that abortions are the wrong choice except in cases of rape, incest, or serious danger to the mother's health.
I've got nothing against condom use, it is extra-marital sex I think is wrong.


If you could stop people from sinning in these ways, would you?
Or are you content to have your opinion and allow others to have theirs?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:36 pm 
If I could convince them that those things were wrong I would. And then I would try to help them live those convictions. But I would not force them to follow my beliefs, even if I could.

There are some things, like murder, that I consider sins that I would work to stop people from doing.

Some of the biggest arguments I have with myself is where to draw that line. If it is something purely religious (attending church on Sunday for instance) then there is no way I would work to force anyone to follow my beliefs. There are other things, however, that are damaging or bad whether they are sins or not. For instance, I think drunk driving should be illegal and harshly punished, not because I think people shouldn't drink, but because driving while drunk is dangerous to others as well as the drinker. But drinking alchohol is one of those that could, theoreticaly, go either way becasue there are dangers but most of the objection is religious. Therefore, I don't raise a fuss about others drinking as long as they do it responsibly.

As far as the origional issue, I think people would be better off if no one engaged in sex outside of marriage. But the odds of that happening are all but non-existant. So I don't see why people shouldn't have access to protection against the dangers. But at what point does that access become an endorsement of something I disagree with? I wouldn't take away a wino's bottle, but I don't want bottles of alcohol shoved in my face either.


I am completely okay with having my opinion and allowing others theirs.
I am completely okay with others sharing their opinions with me and even trying to convince me they are right. I would ask that others allow me the same privledge, both listening and having the right to walk away.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:40 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Kit the Odd wrote:
But at what point does that access become an endorsement of something I disagree with?


How about when people keep dying of STDs and botched abortions?

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:20 am 
Comparing drunk driving to extra-marital sex is suspect. Driving "while under the influence" is a direct and obvious danger to other people, all by itself. Thats a given, right?
Can you make a case for extra-marital sex being a danger to others? Or even to the doer? I'm willing to stipulate that certain practises within extra-marital sex may be dangerous, but extra-marital sex per se?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:57 am 
Pronto wrote:
Comparing drunk driving to extra-marital sex is suspect. Driving "while under the influence" is a direct and obvious danger to other people, all by itself. Thats a given, right?
Can you make a case for extra-marital sex being a danger to others? Or even to the doer? I'm willing to stipulate that certain practises within extra-marital sex may be dangerous, but extra-marital sex per se?


/me pokes Kit... No reply? Do you concede?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:47 am 
Sorry about the delay, I've been very limited on time the last couple days and I wanted time to think about my answer here.

First, you have a point about comparing drunk driving and extra-marital sex. But that isn't what I meant to do. I was just trying to come up with an example of something I consider a sin that I would also make illegal. Sorry about any confusion there.

I'm not sure what I would do (if it were totally up to me) about sex outside of marriage being made illegal. On one hand I think it is wrong(a sin) and has emotional, possibly physical, and social consequenses beyond that. But are those consequenses and potential consequenses serious enough for a non-theocracy to make it illegal? I'm not sure. For premarital sex between consenting parties? Probably not. For adultery? Probably yes. In that case I think society has a legitimate interest in supporting marriages. Plus, in most cases, marriage involves oaths/vows taken before someone with legal authority (often religious, but granted secular authority for marriages). So I would treat adultery like a breach of contract or perjury. You made a promise to this other person and you broke it.

So to answer your question directly, extra-marital sex is not a danger to people to people like drunk driving is, but there are consequeses that are harmful or potentially harmful to the individuals and to groups.

I'll probably have to explain myself more, but I don't have any more time now.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:24 am 
Kit the Odd wrote:
Plus, in most cases, marriage involves oaths/vows taken before someone with legal authority (often religious, but granted secular authority for marriages). So I would treat adultery like a breach of contract or perjury. You made a promise to this other person and you broke it.


Then again (as you concede), not all marriages include oaths of sexual fidelity. If adultery is criminalized, unless the law is fairly narrowly tailored, it can be used to bring criminal charges against those who did not have a breach of contract.... i.e. the contract never specified sexual fidelity, yet we are being charged with it, in any case.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:01 pm 
Actually all the marriages I'm familiar with DO involve vows of fidelity. That was not what I meant by most. I meant that most involve a third party as witness/authority. The others would be common law marriages, which might need to be addressed separately.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:32 pm 
Kit the Odd wrote:
Actually all the marriages I'm familiar with DO involve vows of fidelity. That was not what I meant by most. I meant that most involve a third party as witness/authority. The others would be common law marriages, which might need to be addressed separately.


However, I'm aware of several (I won't say many, but several) that do not include vows of sexual fidelty, and I doubt that my experiences are unique. The partners involved have the own rules with regards to who's ok, and so straying outside those would be adultery, but those are seldom formalized in the marriage oath, so they wouldn't fit in the standard of "breach of contract" that you're proposing that a criminalized adultery would be similar to.

Heck, even common law marriage requires third parties to be recognized... if you and your girl/boyfriend disappear into the woods for three years, live completely off the grid, and can offer no evidence that you were living together during that time, you would have a very difficult time claiming a common law marriage. If, OTOH, you were coming into town every months, shopping together, buying a bunch of groceries out of a joint checking account, before disappearing for another month, you could at least get people to say "Yeah, they've been together for years."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:15 pm 
Ok Kit, you're skittering around like hot metal on ice, maybe unintentionally, so I'll narrow this down.
Two adults, not married to each other or anyone else. Is sex between them wrong?
If so, why? Does it cause them any harm? Does it cause society any harm?
Again, if so, what harm?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:23 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Hot metal on ice? Perhaps you mean the other way round...


(couldn't resist...)

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:03 am 
Ogredude wrote:
Hot metal on ice? Perhaps you mean the other way round...


(couldn't resist...)


No, I said what I meant. Try harder next time.


(Visualize using a cutting torch to remove the frakked axle on a Zamboni... the sparks and drops of molten metal, a drop of molten metal on ice, it's really quite amusing to watch.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:12 pm 
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/10/cardinal.law/index.html

Back on topic. :)

Maybe the next pope won't be willing to tacitly condone sexual abuse.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:19 pm 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116443/

Quote:
Without, it seems, quite noticing what they are saying, the partisans of the late pope have been praising him for his many apologies. He apologized to the Jewish people for the Vatican's glacial coldness during the Final Solution, and for historic filiations between the church and anti-Semitism. He apologized to the Eastern Orthodox Christians, and to the Muslims, for the appalling damage done to civilization by papal advocacy of the Crusades, and by forced conversion and massacre in the Balkans during the church's open alliance with fascism during World War II. He apologized to the world of science and reason by admitting that Galileo should not have been condemned by the Inquisition. These are not small climb-downs, and they do not apply just to the past. They are and were admissions that the Roman Catholic Church has been responsible for the retarding of human development on a colossal scale.

However, "be not afraid." The God-given right of the papacy to make and enforce absolute judgments is not at all at stake. Popes may have been wrong on everything, but they were right in general. By the time the church apologizes for saying that condoms are worse than AIDS, or admits that it was complicit at best in the mass murder in Rwanda, another few generations will have died out.

(Emphasis mine)

Quote:
Finally, if the pope is to have so much credit for the liberation of Eastern Europe, he ought to accept his responsibility for the enslavement of the Middle East. He not only opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003, but the use of force to get him out of Kuwait in 1991. I have never read any deployment of Augustinian argument, in the latter case, that would not qualify it as a just war. Moreover, the pope made a visit to Damascus not long ago, and sat quietly outside the Grand Mosque while the Assad regime greeted him as one who understood that Muslims and Catholics had a common enemy—in the Jews who had killed Christ.


Quote:
Unbelievers are more merciful and understanding than believers, as well as more rational. We do not believe that the pope will face judgment or eternal punishment for the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS, or for his excusing and sheltering of those who committed the unpardonable sin of raping and torturing children, or for the countless people whose sex lives have been ruined by guilt and shame and who are taught to respect the body only when it is a lifeless cadaver like that of Terri Schiavo. For us, this day is only the interment of an elderly and querulous celibate, who came too late and who stayed too long, and whose primitive ideology did not permit him the true self-criticism that could have saved him, and others less innocent, from so many errors and crimes.



Was I too harsh? I think not.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:26 am 
How come no one is willing to defend the memory of the pope? How can a true-believing catholic let me make such accusations?

Ah, I gotta feel for ya... it is kinda tough to defend someone who sanctions child-rape.

I'm sorry that I'm beating this to death but:
Quote:
Cardinal Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston, presided at Mass in St. Mary Major Basilica, the church where John Paul appointed him archpriest in 2004, two years after he resigned from his post in the U.S. because of a sexual abuse scandal.


...everytime I see a news article about this I feel ... rage.
How the F**K do they get away with this?!!!!

This "great" man, this "holy" man, gods voice on earth, protecting this scum, giving him a job to protect him from the legal consequences of hiding priests that rape little children.
This is good, this is proper, this is moral behavior? F**k that!

Please god, if there is a god, have them elect a pope that knows what a sin is.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:25 am 
It is possible, Pronto, that he doesn't have full-time computer access, like some folks do. Thus, he doesn't respond, not because he has nothing to say, but because he's not here to say it.

However, I do believe it is excerable that Law was put in such a prominent position.... this seems like a deliberate stab at American ex-Catholics and those Catholics still upset about the handling of the abuse.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:48 am 
Pronto wrote:
No, I said what I meant. Try harder next time.


(Visualize using a cutting torch to remove the frakked axle on a Zamboni... the sparks and drops of molten metal, a drop of molten metal on ice, it's really quite amusing to watch.)


Yes, Pronto, but that's hardly the intuitive visual for most people, is it? I mean, how many people use cutting torches... on Zambonis... on the ice? The last time I was on ice was last year's Spring Break in Boston. As for Zamboni's or cutting torches? I know of these things... I could even identify them from pictures. But actually use either?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:18 pm 
Pronto wrote:
Unfortunately they'll just replace him with another power-hungry, bigotted, out-of-touch-with-the-real-world priest.

The pope is dead, long live the pope.


Congrats, you just summed up the entire existance of christianity! And don't forget the senility in there.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:01 pm 
Not that you're jaded or anything.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:57 pm 
Pi wrote:
Not that you're jaded or anything.

Pi, are you still responsible for the statements of overwhelming obviousness?
If not, you should be.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:50 pm 
That would be an awesome job...


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group