| Welcome to BS Zelda. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Inevitable annoying politcs topic; about Bush, marriage and whatnot | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 10 2005, 05:36 PM (424 Views) | |
| Duke Serkol | Aug 11 2005, 03:37 AM Post #16 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
![]() I'll keep that in mind
|
| |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Aug 11 2005, 03:48 AM Post #17 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
Well, I don't know about them being commanded by the 'Prophet of God' to be Polygamous... I think they just were because it was socially and culturally acceptable at the time. Moses, Jacob and Abraham are all 'prophets of God' themselves, so I guess it was a bit of a done deal that they could 'command' themselves to do it I don't remember any passages where God is commanding people to take up multiple wives, nor really any that specifically say that you can't have more than one... the only one I can think of that mentions it beyond the realm of 'Lamech took two wives' or 'Abraham had concubines' is Deutronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated which is commanded stuff about how to deal with problems arising from two wives... And Exodus 21:10 also mentioned two wife stuff, but nothing about God commanding it through anyone. Just that 'if you take a second wife, you get her stuff' or something like that.And you're just trying to drum up Nexus Chat traffic, aren't you
|
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Aug 11 2005, 03:50 AM Post #18 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Nah, actually I've started visiting ZFGC and reporting every "rule breaking post" that I see. In fact, metallica even emailed me about it... |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Aug 11 2005, 03:52 AM Post #19 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
No, he knows that this kind of debate makes me fear flamewars. But you guys are going very socially and amiably at it, so feel free. |
| |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Aug 11 2005, 03:57 AM Post #20 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
That Sinfest strip rather wittily uses the dichotomy of 'Gay as a term for a homosexual man' and 'Gay as a derogatory term for something that is stupid, lame, looked down upon, not manly.' It's like how people now call things that they don't like 'gay' - and really, it can be for a number of reasons. By the standards of that comic, I do think taht it ment 'gay' in a 'marriage is lame' kind of way, but it might have ment in a non-manly way as well. It's like in the Simpsons - 'You kissed a girl? That's so gay!' Given Slick's (from Sinfest) personality, both are appropriate, although I think he would lean more towards 'Marriage is gay because it is stupid' rather than un-manly (although being over-hyped about his manhood is a consistent character trait for him). EDIT: I'm just trying to over-analyse things now
|
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Aug 11 2005, 04:00 AM Post #21 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
Yes, that's just why I thought it would mean un-manly (as in whipped!) |
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Aug 11 2005, 04:03 AM Post #22 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Okay! ![]() Well, in my religion's early days, our second Prophet of the "restored church" (take out that statement what you may, not to impose or anything) told our people that because the Church had more women than men, God said that they were to practice polygamy. Unfortunately that didn't last long as Hell was loose against the early days of my church (figure of speech... unless, you don't mind me telling you that in a literal sense), they passed a law in the U.S. banning polygamy so that they could have an excuse to persecute "the Mormons". Unfortunately, the law saying that those who had already broken a law, before it was a law would be protected (in the Constitution) didn't hold true although the persecution because of it was VERY illegal. That's why I mixed up some stuff. So my views are a bit too religious to be argumentative, because I believe (since "there will be more righteous women than men"... it's from either the Bible, Book of Mormon or one of my religion's books) that if God commands it, then okay, if not... well, I don't think that I could share that kind of a relationship with more than one woman... I really don't. |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Aug 11 2005, 04:27 AM Post #23 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
So you're a Mormon? Cool And that gives me more perspective on what you were saying about the Prophet of God before, since I was just going by Judeo-Christian biblical prophets and not Church of Latter Day Saints, which clears up the confusion of my other post about bible references.Also, I don't think I could share that kind of relationship with more than one person, either, actually
|
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| Garrett | Aug 11 2005, 05:32 AM Post #24 |
|
Oracle
|
LOL! Off-topic fun! ![]() No I still like Bush, but I can poke fun at him while doing it. I don't really care about the party policies as long as the leader seems like a truthful, honest, and (relatively) God-fearing man. Which is why I like Bush but loathe Helen Clark--and, after some recent policies she's put through and things she's paid for (all-expenses study of overseas hip-hop culture, anyone?), I would have to hold back an urge to verbally abuse her if she walked past. Gah. But Bush is cool. Heck, if he wants to come over here when his term is up I'll vote for him. As long as he keeps up those well-worded speeches, meheheheh...As for polygamy, I'm sure it's every man's dream to have multiple sex partners (^_^) but the upkeep... it's hard enough keeping one wife happy with you and doing romantic things and all... I can't imagine more than one... then again I've never had a girlfriend so how CAN I imagine?! <_< As for my custom title, the wish power of big must be overcoming me... oh no... :lol: Besides I was needing a new avvy, Smoking Yoda had to go to hospital again... which explains why he dies in the last move huh? ![]() Actually, why is it when they translate into bad English they use lots of swearing? I mean, there's not as much here as in Pokemon Diamond/Jade--THOSE translations would make the entire San Andreas cast blush--but where do they get it from? Is the only descriptive term a four-letter one? Then again it talks about the Presbyterian Church. I always liked Star Wars, but now I know why--it's a sign, man! ![]() Whew! I think I covered everything.
|
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Aug 11 2005, 04:38 PM Post #25 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
sometimes I have a hard time with keeping all of my teachings seperate (Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.), but usually I do a pretty good job, so sorry about that. :lol: something tells me you've been talking to Duke about me... Am I really that bad? Anyway, congrats! You're the second person to have gotten our name *partially* correct on your first try (Garrett got it on his too... :P). But the key part your missing is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But seriously, I don't see why if marraige is down to multiple conscenting adults, why they won't just toss, "oh and kids can conscent too!" in there. |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Aug 11 2005, 04:57 PM Post #26 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
Maybe for the same reason parents pay for damage caused by their children? Because they have no idea what the heck they're doing? Of course when I speak of children, I mean up to 13/14. Past that point, they are pretty much aware of what they are doing, and in fact Catholic religious marriage is allowed starting from about that age (though here it won't have any civil effects until the 18) |
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Aug 11 2005, 05:15 PM Post #27 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
that can be argued as well, but it's going to be harder. But who determines what an adult is? Okay, so the gov't does for now, but "they can't impose thar morals on us!!!!111!!11" That's discrimination against kids! Just like everything else! And as for the gay marraige being discriminatory... I've never understood that. I mean, okay, we won't make new laws to give them special laws to allow them to do something that they previously couldn't have for thousands of years... I mean, and they STILL can get married, just not to each other. I know someone who did it. But later got divorced because he got addicted to... I'll just shut up now |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Aug 11 2005, 05:43 PM Post #28 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
Common sense should do the trick, but humanity has a dramatic lack of that... It is the government place to enforce such things to protect its citizens. There is no arguing that a twelve year old does not have the clarity of mind to get married (heck even ignoring that a twelve year old is hardly physically mature) Of course the exact age becomes a highly debated topic, varying greatly between countries. Personally I'm quite happy with the way things are where I live (14 being the age of consent and 18 that necessary for marriage) and I think nations that increase those numbers are being too strict, but that's just my opinion, I'm not going to throw it onto anybody and would hope that others respect it for what it is (an opinion). ...on a second thought the age for marriage may be a little too low. All too many people screw themselves for life with that darn contract while they could just happily cohabit until they can tell for sure if it's gonna work or not. Maybe 22/23 would be better. Of course then most people would realize that it won't work, but so many people end up divorcing anyway, so... you know what? I don't care. I already said what I think about marriage :lol: |
| |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Aug 12 2005, 02:16 AM Post #29 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
Actually, no, I haven't been talking with anyone about you... and I'm not quite sure how that post of mine made you think that Maybe I'm missing something? *scratches head*
And like Duke said with this one, there is still a giant gulf between what consenting adults and children. It's not even really that blurry a line, especially not in England, the US and Australia, which are all fairly similar in the way they approach certain issues. And what about countries where gay marriage IS legal, and no such thing has happened? As for Gay Marriage - although there are those who tyry and push it on the churches to accept as well, that's not really what it should be about. The churches shouldn't be forced to recognise Gay Marriage... it's more just a state based thing. It becomes discriminatory because you can have a person who is living in what is essentially a married or defacto relationship with another person, but at the end of the day, they are not entitled to any of the rights/benifits etc that come from being in a married or defacto relationship. It's a civil JUSTICE issue, with life effecting consequences for the people involved. Here is some information about the civil rights side of homosexual marriage.. it's a bit long, but it demonstrates why, from a civil rights perspective, it can be seen as discriminatory.
This information was from what I'm guessing is a gay-oriented, liberal based website (there's something about cowboys on the front page, and a rant against something that I wasn't bothered to read) but at the same time, it doesn't render the information about civil rights issues in the above section wrong. http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm |
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Aug 12 2005, 02:23 AM Post #30 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
Don't worry, this is not the first time Possum accuses me of spilling personal information about him :lol: What was that guy's name again? Mauronanime? |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Generic Discussions · Next Topic » |








I don't remember any passages where God is commanding people to take up multiple wives, nor really any that specifically say that you can't have more than one... the only one I can think of that mentions it beyond the realm of 'Lamech took two wives' or 'Abraham had concubines' is Deutronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated which is commanded stuff about how to deal with problems arising from two wives... And Exodus 21:10 also mentioned two wife stuff, but nothing about God commanding it through anyone. Just that 'if you take a second wife, you get her stuff' or something like that.
And that gives me more perspective on what you were saying about the Prophet of God before, since I was just going by Judeo-Christian biblical prophets and not Church of Latter Day Saints, which clears up the confusion of my other post about bible references.
Maybe I'm missing something? *scratches head*
8:05 PM Jul 11