Exactly! See how I used the flickering to make them look like they're humping?Looks like two bunnies making more bunnies. That's what you were going for, right? I mean... I'm not the only one seeing this, right?::makes shadow puppets on the cave walls from the bonfire in this room::
Does that look like a bunny to you?
It's those special little techniques like flicker humping that make you the Da Vinci of shadow play.
Of course his arguments should be challenged, and frankly I am not trying to prove that same-sex marriage is bad, just pointing out that some believe there may be non-religious for its lack of inclusion.
Thanks for the link; that's interesting reading. As far as challenging it, I can do so from personal experience only with the following:
"In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years."
My wife and I have no kids. We're friends with two other couples, both in their 40's and married since their 20's, who have no kids. My uncle and his wife are in their 50's, no kids. A former work supervisor and his wife were married 50 years, are still married, and chose not to have kids. Those are the married childless couples in my close personal experience. Of family and friends with children, some are still married; some are not. Of the childless couples, no divorces nor even mid-life crises are in sight. Granted, five or ten cases is hardly an adequate sample size for serious study, but it's enough to demonstrate that it's easily possible for two people to maintain a strong sense of responsibility to themselves, to each other, and to society, without children being a precipitating factor. It also shows that a marriage with biological children manifestly does not imply a refusal to abandon one's responsibilities, unfortunately. If the latter were the case, maybe we'd all be better off, as the author claims... but it isn't.
As far as challenging it,
To make a meaningful comparison though, I think you'd have to compare to marriages from a time that marriage was viewed differently. A time when, "Western societies have [not] downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage".
EDIT: (Ok since I'm bored and I think it might be funny, I am going to try to show how your experiences actually support his claim)
Ok, lets assume that society is no longer emphasizing the relationship between marriage and procreation, in fact society has instead emphasized that marriage is about being with someone whose company you enjoy.
My wife and I have no kids. We're friends with two other couples, both in their 40's and married since their 20's, who have no kids. My uncle and his wife are in their 50's, no kids. A former work supervisor and his wife were married 50 years, are still married, and chose not to have kids. Those are the married childless couples in my close personal experience. Of the childless couples, no divorces nor even mid-life crises are in sight.
Ok, so lets look at these situations. You and your wife, your friends, your uncle and aunt, and former supervisor all are reinforcing the idea that marriage has nothing to do with having children but instead with being with someone whose company you enjoy. What effect has this had on those couples with chilren?
Of family and friends with children, some are still married; some are not.
Children can greatly interfer with enjoying the company of one's spouse, due to having to worry about responsibilities to them or just having additional people present. What "image" do these couples with children get from society and you? That marriage is about having a good time, but they are not having as good a time as you, thus they believe their marriage must be bad. Your carefree, childless marriage only leads to frustration for them because they can't match their marriage experiences with what you are presenting.
Likewise, equally "idealistic" marriages with children can lead to percieved dissatisfaction for other more "realistic" marriages with children (the Leave it to Beaver vs Roseanne situation).
Granted, five or ten cases is hardly an adequate sample size for serious study, but it's enough to demonstrate that it's easily possible for two people to maintain a strong sense of responsibility to themselves, to each other, and to society, without children being a precipitating factor.
Ah, but you are missing the point. You are responsible because you choose to be, not because you feel you HAVE to be. The person was arguing not that you couldn't be responsible without children, but that the focus on marriage for "love" versus for "procreation", means that marriages involving procreation will be dissatisfying, and your five or ten cases shows that.
It also shows that a marriage with biological children manifestly does not imply a refusal to abandon one's responsibilities, unfortunately. If the latter were the case, maybe we'd all be better off, as the author claims... but it isn't.
But that is not what the author claimed. He claimed that the focus of marriage being removed from procreation and to love, made marriage less strong when procreation was involved, because naturally interfer with the enjoyment spouses have with one another (you can't go to the movies whenever you feel like it, go to dinner at the drop of a hat, get some "afternoon delight" ;), children complicate the issue) and thus increase the dissatisfaction of marriage (something is wrong with my marriage because I am not having as much fun as other [childless] couples).
P.S. this is mostly in jest, I am also in a childless marriage so I am poking fun at myself just as much.
Thanks, encouragement always helps, i appreciate it :)Late 30's guys in Houston who dig bebop and post on Paizo gotta stick up for each other -- how many of us can there be?
Cowboy Bebop, YEEEEE-
Zap dat golem!
What effect has this had on those couples with children?
(To continue a conversation I'm starting to rather enjoy) I could answer "arguably none." Correspondence and causality, and all that. There are few enough childless couples, and when other people ask how many kids we have, and we say "none," the typical answer is either "You'll have some soon, I bet!" or "Oh, my God, I'm so sorry!" The fact that my marriage is happy in no way makes people want to not have kids, and there are plenty of happily married couples with children, and everyone wants a happy marriage, so the end result of this stew is, in my opinion, that my dislike of children makes people pity me personally (or question my sanity), but has no impact at all on society as a whole, or on couples with children in particular.
Shoot, my best friend growing up was best man at my wedding, and I at his. He has three kids, and is happily married. Whether I have some or none at all in no way affects that.
Cowboy Bebop, YEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Um... jazz bebop. You know, like Max Roach. Clifford Brown. About as far from cowboy music as you can get.
Cowboy Bebop, YEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Um... jazz bebop. You know, like Max Roach. Clifford Brown. About as far from cowboy music as you can get.
I believe Master Jenkins was attempting to draw a pun by juxtaposing the word 'bebop' with Houstonians and capitalizing on the stereotype of Texas cowboys, all against the anime series Cowboy Bebop.
He probably also thought his particular avatar looked appropriately humorous against the exclamation 'yee-ha.'
I'm fairly certain Mr. Jenkins is not altogether...right. In the head, that is.
Director of Game Development
|
It's those special little techniques like flicker humping that make you the Da Vinci of shadow play.Exactly! See how I used the flickering to make them look like they're humping?Looks like two bunnies making more bunnies. That's what you were going for, right? I mean... I'm not the only one seeing this, right?::makes shadow puppets on the cave walls from the bonfire in this room::
Does that look like a bunny to you?
Thanks for noticing, man.
I believe Master Jenkins was attempting to draw a pun by juxtaposing the word 'bebop' with Houstonians and capitalizing on the stereotype of Texas cowboys, all against the anime series Cowboy Bebop.
Sorry, prof! Contrary to popular opinion, there are no real cowboys in Houston, just oil millionaires and their peons -- although the local residents would dispute this -- I love it when my co-workers refer to their suburban backyard as "the ranch."
The reference sailed right over my head. I'm not an anime afficionado; before this thread, I don't think I could have named a single series. (Wait, wasn't there something called "Sailor Moon" that people used to watch? Dunno.) If I'm gonna watch a cartoon, it'll have a roadrunner in it. Or Bart Simpson.
I just thought of this, Pres Man. If I understand it, Kolasinski's secular argument against gay marriage is "they'll be happy together and stable, which will make people who got married and had kids envious, and realize how unhappy they are! So we should prevent gays from marrying and everyone can go back to being miserable"?
|
I believe Master Jenkins was attempting to draw a pun by juxtaposing the word 'bebop' with Houstonians and capitalizing on the stereotype of Texas cowboys, all against the anime series Cowboy Bebop.Sorry, prof! Contrary to popular opinion, there are no real cowboys in Houston, just oil millionaires and their peons -- although the local residents would dispute this -- I love it when my co-workers refer to their suburban backyard as "the ranch."
The reference sailed right over my head. I'm not an anime afficionado; before this thread, I don't think I could have named a single series. (Wait, wasn't there something called "Sailor Moon" that people used to watch? Dunno.) If I'm gonna watch a cartoon, it'll have a roadrunner in it. Or Bart Simpson.
well, there are some, but they're of the "country come to town" variety. heck, most people in houston aren't even natural born texans, for that matter...
|
|
No, the only logical purpose of incarceration is to punish. It inflicts an unpleasant circumstance on a person, diminishing their quality of life, as a penalty for violating the laws.There is another logical purpose. To remove them from society preventing them from doing more harm.
I'd bring back public executions. And the pillory.
And once in a while, I'd just take some poor sack off the street and dip him in tar and feathers just to keep people on their toes.
"Oh, my GOD! They got Jimmy!"
|
|
Why do you all swear with the same symbol configuration? Did I miss an obscenity memo or something?
Oh, wait... you guys actually typed in the swears and that's what Paizo did to them.
I wonder who's job it is to decide the symbol config for curse words. I wonder how much thought goes into it. When I spell poo with an s, I spell it s#!^, because, in my mind, those symbols almost spell hit. Am I crazy? Am I the only one?
You're not the only one, man.
When I spell poo with an s, I spell it s#!^, because, in my mind, those symbols almost spell hit. Am I crazy? Am I the only one?You're not the only one, man.
Figures. Of all the things to be unique about.
|
|
Figures. Of all the things to be unique about.When I spell poo with an s, I spell it s#!^, because, in my mind, those symbols almost spell hit. Am I crazy? Am I the only one?You're not the only one, man.
Well, you're possibly the only person to recognize the true genius of Adam Daigle's shadow puppetry, so that's something, I guess.
Well, you're possibly the only person to recognize the true genius of Adam Daigle's shadow puppetry, so that's something, I guess.Figures. Of all the things to be unique about.When I spell poo with an s, I spell it s#!^, because, in my mind, those symbols almost spell hit. Am I crazy? Am I the only one?You're not the only one, man.
Good point. I'll take whatever I can get, man.
|
|
I would just point out that you didn't have a right to get married to whomever you wished either. Most states have some basic restrictions on who can get married to whom.
1)Neither you nor your potential spouse can be currently married to anyone else (sorry Mormons).
2)You and your potential spouse both must be of the legitimate age (sorry child-molesters, ... maybe some states have different ages with "parent approval").
3)You and your potential spouse can't be close "enough" in family relation to one another (sorry Arkansas).
4)You and your potential spouse must be of opposite genders (this is where the gay community gets their assless chaps in a ... wait, that wouldn't work).
Of course these are not universally true.
1) Is not true in Islamic states, in one direction.
Also do be aware that all legitimate Latter Days Saints groups long ago passed on multiple marriages. Only a few groups that acts as cults and use a name similar to that of the full formal name of the Mormons practice such, and they also tend to violate 2) and 3).
2) Is also not true in Islamic states. It was also not all that universal in the US until very recently, both with and without parental consent.
3) You means siblings or parents and children. Even then it is not that universal, and it is focused more on preventing 2) above rather than consanguinity. Further be aware that in other places such is considered highly superior, or very nearly mandatory because of certain requirements. Islamic cultures prefer 1st cousin marriages, as do certain others. European royalty and nobility often require marriages of a particular social status to retain rank, making marrying a cousin in one degree or other mandatory, and some family trees are so interconnected that you are looking at someone who is a close cousin several times over. Many cultures with particular inheritance laws make aunt-nephew or uncle-niece marriages high priorities.
All this leaving,
4) As just another cultural quirk, subject to regional variation and change as much as the others. And on that account, it very easily approaches the status of being just as much a basic "right" to marry someone of your sex as it does to marry someone of the opposite sex, your first cousin, an 8 year old, your third "spouse", or all the above, all depending on just where you live, and what the neighbors think.
|
|
So, who's voting for Obama?If I were American, I would.
Please, guys. Vote for Obama. Don't just say you will, but actually go to the poll in November and cast your vote to elect him.
Honestly, I wouldn't be to worried about too many people sitting this one out. I think this is going to be voter turnout like never before.
The primaries were insane, in Texas anyway.
The votes aren't really counted. Don't waste your time participating.
|
|
So, who's voting for Obama?If I were American, I would.
Please, guys. Vote for Obama. Don't just say you will, but actually go to the poll in November and cast your vote to elect him.
One of my friends says that she's going to vote for Obama because he's the Antichrist. Personally, I don't vote, but I can totally dig that.
Honestly, I wouldn't be to worried about too many people sitting this one out. I think this is going to be voter turnout like never before.
The primaries were insane, in Texas anyway.
It's good to see people at least fired up about the choices, even if personally I could care less for either of the mainstream candidates. Democracy (or representational republicanism which is truer to the American concept of government) doesn't work well unless there is participation. Vox populi vox dei can't function if the populi are too busy watching American Idol or posting about how much the other guy's D&D suxxors to vote.
|
|
The votes aren't really counted. Don't waste your time participating."Imagine that your vote is a deer tick (fig. 1), and the voting pool is the entire continent of Asia (fig. 2). That, my friends, is exactly how much your vote counts."
- Jon Stewart, "America (The Book)"I, for one, agree.
Jon Stewart is a comedian. He'll tell you so himself.
|
|
Jon Stewart is a comedian. He'll tell you so himself.The votes aren't really counted. Don't waste your time participating."Imagine that your vote is a deer tick (fig. 1), and the voting pool is the entire continent of Asia (fig. 2). That, my friends, is exactly how much your vote counts."
- Jon Stewart, "America (The Book)"I, for one, agree.
I know, but I'm f@*%ed up enough to say "hey, he's right" even though I'm totally like, you know, not.
|
So, I guess if anyone could give me a non-Biblical reason why gay marriage should be banned,
If they are allowed to marry each other, all the straight people who are currently married to repressed gay people (like Lynn Cheney) might find themselves in marriages where their partner actually was sexually attracted to them, and wasn't living a lie and using them as protective camoflauge. (Or, yanno, they might still marry a gold-digger or some skeevy old perv who wants a really young bit of arm-candy to show off to his equally impotent peers...)
Also, encouraging gay couples to pair up with each other in an atmosphere of openness and comfort, instead of trying to 'pass' by marrying members of a gender they aren't really interested in, would mean that those genes wouldn't be passed on to their children, as women generally can't impregnate their girlfriends. As a population, they would decline to a tiny fraction of their current numbers, leaving the nuts who hate them no recourse but to turn on left-handed people or people with red hair for their next crusade.
It's kinda hilarious how the anti-gay agenda both makes them scarier (your *wife* could be secretly gay and just using you to hide!) and more common (by encouraging them to marry cross-gender and have children, who will carry their genes, which are otherwise a reproductive non-starter, into another generation). As seems to so often happen, the Chicken Littles have created their own worst enemy.
Still, they aren't hanging Jews as a celebration for state weddings or lynching blacks as much anymore, so perhaps they'll lose interest in the gays as well and move on to something else. People whose bellybuttons stick out instead of in, for instance. Those people creep me out...
People whose bellybuttons stick out instead of in, for instance. Those people creep me out...
"Get a rope! Hand out the torches! Where are those white sheets with the eye-holes cut in 'em? There's outies 'round here somewhere!"
At least they're be easy to screen for in airports, unlike would-be terrorists.
|
|
I know, but I'm f*!&ed up enough to say "hey, he's right" even though I'm totally like, you know, not.Jon Stewart is a comedian. He'll tell you so himself.The votes aren't really counted. Don't waste your time participating."Imagine that your vote is a deer tick (fig. 1), and the voting pool is the entire continent of Asia (fig. 2). That, my friends, is exactly how much your vote counts."
- Jon Stewart, "America (The Book)"I, for one, agree.
I....think if you took that away from him, that voting doesn't matter, I think he would say you're missing the point of his spiel. I'm not sure, I didn't read the whole thing.
I was in Florida. I didn't vote for Gore, or anybody. I meant to, but work was real real busy. If I and maybe 100 other people or something went and voted for Gore, the whole tenor of the last 8 years might have been different. So, don't tell me that your one vote doesn't matter.
There's rare instances in the history of humankind where the decisions and actions of one or two individuals can have major consequences on the history of the world.
These individuals do not necessarily have to be General Rommel, or Senator Muckety Muck. There's a corporal on a U-boat that didn't do his job, and so the allies got the code for the enigma device. He changed the outcome of World War II a little bit with his lack of discipline and dedication. I thank God that that guy was a douche.
Sometimes, that one little deertick can be the one that bites the bull right on his nads, and sends it into a world-changing berserk.
|
So, who's voting for Obama?If I were American, I would.
Please, guys. Vote for Obama. Don't just say you will, but actually go to the poll in November and cast your vote to elect him.
I dont know...Obama spent is years in Indonesia and has developed a multicultural outlook to some extent. Multiculturalism isnt that popular with voters these days.
|
|
I know, but I'm f*!&ed up enough to say "hey, he's right" even though I'm totally like, you know, not.Jon Stewart is a comedian. He'll tell you so himself.The votes aren't really counted. Don't waste your time participating."Imagine that your vote is a deer tick (fig. 1), and the voting pool is the entire continent of Asia (fig. 2). That, my friends, is exactly how much your vote counts."
- Jon Stewart, "America (The Book)"I, for one, agree.
I....think if you took that away from him, that voting doesn't matter, I think he would say you're missing the point of his spiel. I'm not sure, I didn't read the whole thing.
I was in Florida. I didn't vote for Gore, or anybody. I meant to, but work was real real busy. If I and maybe 100 other people or something went and voted for Gore, the whole tenor of the last 8 years might have been different. So, don't tell me that your one vote doesn't matter.
There's rare instances in the history of humankind where the decisions and actions of one or two individuals can have major consequences on the history of the world.
These individuals do not necessarily have to be General Rommel, or Senator Muckety Muck. There's a corporal on a U-boat that didn't do his job, and so the allies got the code for the enigma device. He changed the outcome of World War II a little bit with his lack of discipline and dedication. I thank God that that guy was a douche.Sometimes, that one little deertick can be the one that bites the bull right on his nads, and sends it into a world-changing berserk.
Actually, I'm just messing with my own mind. The real reason I don't vote is because I feel scummy choosing between the lesser of two evils. And if that doesn't jive, then just think of it this way: your vote counts more!
I dunno...
I dont know...Obama spent is years in Indonesia and has developed a multicultural outlook to some extent. Multiculturalism isnt that popular with voters these days.
That's exactly what one of my co-workers told me. "He lived somewhere else. He might have gotten some foreign ideas, so I don't trust him!* America needs a president who's all-American." The scary thing is, the guy was serious.
* (Less than you can normally trust any politician, is what I assume he meant)
Them foreign ideas is dangerous.
Of course his arguments should be challenged, and frankly I am not trying to prove that same-sex marriage is bad, just pointing out that some believe there may be non-religious for its lack of inclusion.Thanks for the link; that's interesting reading. As far as challenging it, I can do so from personal experience only with the following:
"In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years."
Meh. Any argument about marriage that doesn't focus on its real secular justification--control of property--is smoking dope. After all, marriage in most societies leads to exclusive control of family property, including spouses and children, under a single authority. Societies had plenty of mechanisms for promoting procreation long before marriage reared its head.
By the way, married 12 years ago today.
"Gay Divorce Court" would be hilarious TV. that, alone, is a reason to allow gay marriage...
Word, man. Priceless.
|
|
I know, but I'm f*!&ed up enough to say "hey, he's right" even though I'm totally like, you know, not.Jon Stewart is a comedian. He'll tell you so himself.The votes aren't really counted. Don't waste your time participating."Imagine that your vote is a deer tick (fig. 1), and the voting pool is the entire continent of Asia (fig. 2). That, my friends, is exactly how much your vote counts."
- Jon Stewart, "America (The Book)"I, for one, agree.
I....think if you took that away from him, that voting doesn't matter, I think he would say you're missing the point of his spiel. I'm not sure, I didn't read the whole thing.
I was in Florida. I didn't vote for Gore, or anybody. I meant to, but work was real real busy. If I and maybe 100 other people or something went and voted for Gore, the whole tenor of the last 8 years might have been different. So, don't tell me that your one vote doesn't matter.
There's rare instances in the history of humankind where the decisions and actions of one or two individuals can have major consequences on the history of the world.
These individuals do not necessarily have to be General Rommel, or Senator Muckety Muck. There's a corporal on a U-boat that didn't do his job, and so the allies got the code for the enigma device. He changed the outcome of World War II a little bit with his lack of discipline and dedication. I thank God that that guy was a douche.Sometimes, that one little deertick can be the one that bites the bull right on his nads, and sends it into a world-changing berserk.
Actually, I'm just messing with my own mind. The real reason I don't vote is because I feel scummy choosing between the lesser of two evils. And if that doesn't jive, then just think of it this way: your vote counts more!
I dunno...
I can dig it.
|
|
Of course his arguments should be challenged, and frankly I am not trying to prove that same-sex marriage is bad, just pointing out that some believe there may be non-religious for its lack of inclusion.Thanks for the link; that's interesting reading. As far as challenging it, I can do so from personal experience only with the following:
"In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years."
My wife and I have no kids. We're friends with two other couples, both in their 40's and married since their 20's, who have no kids. My uncle and his wife are in their 50's, no kids. A former work supervisor and his wife were married 50 years, are still married, and chose not to have kids. Those are the married childless couples in my close personal experience. Of family and friends with children, some are still married; some are not. Of the childless couples, no divorces nor even mid-life crises are in sight. Granted, five or ten cases is hardly an adequate sample size for serious study, but it's enough to demonstrate that it's easily possible for two people to maintain a strong sense of responsibility to themselves, to each other, and to society, without children being a precipitating factor. It also shows that a marriage with biological children manifestly does not imply a refusal to abandon one's responsibilities, unfortunately. If the latter were the case, maybe we'd all be better off, as the author claims... but it isn't.
My wife & I are on the "zero kid plan" as well. It has some nice benefits, like money and free time.
For those people who are choosing to not vote, and I respect that opinion I didn't start voting until about 4 years ago (me and my wife go together), something you should consider is all the other races besides the presidential. The representatives and senators from your state, not to mention your state congress and governor or the city mayor and board. Local bond issues, ordinates, etc. There are lots of other issues/individuals to vote for or against where your vote is more significant, where the electoral college won't come into play.
As for individuals in other countries wanting us to vote for one candiate or another. Great, but your opinion means jack and squat to me (and jack just left). I will vote for who I consider is the best choice for the U.S., just as I would hope you would vote for who you consider is the best for your country (assuming you are from a country that allows you to vote). My opinion may be different than yours because I have other concerns than you do, me being a resident of the US and you not being. I find it interesting though, how many other countries' residence are interested in US politics, since from what I can tell US residence hardly ever give a rat's ass about other countries (except for countries we consider "worrisome" like venezuela, and even in that case we don't usually know who the alternative choice is in an "election"). So please feel free to speak about US politics, but I give your opinion 0 weight, especially when it appears to be based on very superficial reasons (age, appearance, race).
|
|
There's a corporal on a U-boat that didn't do his job, and so the allies got the code for the enigma device. He changed the outcome of World War II a little bit with his lack of discipline and dedication. I thank God that that guy was a douche.
Speaking as a fully verified douche-tw@t, let's all give quick round of applause to all the other douches out there that have made the world what it is.
I find it interesting though, how many other countries' residence are interested in US politics, since from what I can tell US residence hardly ever give a rat's ass about other countries (except for countries we consider "worrisome" like venezuela, and even in that case we don't usually know who the alternative choice is in an "election").
That very much depends on who you hang out with. Americans, particularly a lot of Irish-Americans, have been interested and even active in UK electoral politics. There's a reason Sinn Fein is a very well-funded party in Northern Ireland.
Enormous numbers of Americans are interested in the political campaigns of other countries, particularly ones their ancestors are from and particularly when they are active in groups that promote their ethnic backgrounds.
That very much depends on who you hang out with. Americans, particularly a lot of Irish-Americans, have been interested and even active in UK electoral politics. There's a reason Sinn Fein is a very well-funded party in Northern Ireland.
Enormous numbers of Americans are interested in the political campaigns of other countries, particularly ones their ancestors are from and particularly when they are active in groups that promote their ethnic backgrounds.
True, but I don't think it is anywhere near the same percentage of the total population as it is for other countries being interested in US politics.
There's a reason Sinn Fein is a very well-funded party in Northern Ireland.
Ah... a free and independent unified Ireland. There's some politics worth discussing as well!
|
|
True, but I don't think it is anywhere near the same percentage of the total population as it is for other countries being interested in US politics.
And yet, just about every voting American who doesn't speak Cherokee ultimately comes from somewhere else. Many of my friends are at least part Irish (as am I, come to think of it) and I remember one memorable family gathering where two relatives-by-marriage realized that they came from opposite sides. Since they were both many generations removed, they laughed about it, saying stuff like 'die heretic!' and then went on with life. To many of us, loyalty to some nation we've never seen means very little.
Others, such as the very vocal Cuban-American lobby, or the extremely influential AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), are *very* concerned with who is in charge of nations they have left behind (and, in the case of AIPAC, who is in charge of the various nations surrounding Israel).
Whether or not they *should be* that interested in countries other than the one they have chosen to live in, in some cases to the point of putting other nations interests above their new homes, I'm not so sure. I'm not fond of the idea, and yet it's the quickest way to get called a protectionist or racist or anti-semite to suggest that maybe they should spend a little more time focusing on the general welfare of the country they live in *now.*
So why should Mormon churches that teach polygamy not be considered "legitimate"? Yes, the biggest Mormon church doesn't teach polygamy anymore but that hardly means someone who goes with the original teaching isn't...
Sure it does. If the Mormon hierarchy canonizes something different from original Mormon teaching - then anyone teaching old school is no longer legit. That's the beauty of religious hierarchies in control of church doctrine. They get to say who is and who isn't in compliance and it means something as far as the religion goes. Sure, the group cut out of legitimacy bristles at it (just ask Mel Gibson and his old man), but who cares? They're not with the program! It ain't their D&D... sorry, church anymore.
|
|
Hopefully I won't sidetrack the current conversation, but I am interested in the statement "all legitimate Latter Day Saints groups" don't support polygamy.
I noticed when the media was discussing the FLDS case that the main(or mainstream) Mormon church complained that the media was referring to those people as Mormons. As if they weren't Mormons.
Well, I checked and according to standard definitions, Mormons are followers of the ancient prophet Mormon as revealed by Joseph Smith.
Now regardless of whether or not you believe this prophet Mormon was real or not, it is pretty clear that Joseph Smith was the authority and founder of the modern Mormon religion(regardless of whether or not an ancient form ever existed).
And Joseph Smith taught and practiced polygamy.
So why should Mormon churches that teach polygamy not be considered "legitimate"? Yes, the biggest Mormon church doesn't teach polygamy anymore but that hardly means someone who goes with the original teaching isn't...
Linked. And by the way, wasn't Joseph Smith a convicted con man? To me, it seems as if Mormonism is sort of the original Scientology.