homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The next person I hear... (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The next person I hear...
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear God, if SSM makes the French friendlier, it's a pity it wasn't legalized centuries ago.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
You really believe it's an absolute fact that there are more dangerous, nasty bigots in American than in the UK? You've never heard an anti-gay remark or seen a fight started about this issue in the UK?

The first of these sentences can be true without implying the second. A being more than B in no way implies that B is zero.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am puzzled by the shock felt by some anti-gay people. Why do they think that secular law would mimic a religiously couched view of marriage?

The reason is that we still live in a world where Western countries like the UK and the USA posit themselves as 'Christian', despite - or perhaps even because of - secularisation.

In the USA, it's difficult to talk about "secularisation" when the founding fathers went out of their way to make it a secular nation in the first place.

This is one of the more bizarre aspects of what's happened in the USA. As I mentioned, the first 3 Presidents all made a point that the USA was not a Christian nation. I understand that both "one nation under God" and "In God We Trust" date from around the 1940s or 50s.

It's religiosity that was the change for the USA. To the extent that what that country is experiencing now is "secularisation", it involves a correction back to the original course.

The UK is of course quite different, with an established State church and all that, but that's exactly what the founders of the USA were reacting against.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re the founders:

Jefferson even created the Jefferson Bible--he did a cut and paste job on the New Testament.

He would've loved a word processor!

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
YOU FOOLS!

Clearly IngoB is playing the long game, and has been a secularist plant all along. Years spent slowly and consistently fashioning an irrefutable reputation as a religionist. All so he could believably present this utterly convincing attempt to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that conservative religious views are worthless. I mean, it's mostly just marriage in this case. But doesn't the sweeping grandeur of the fuck-upped-ness of the thinking just make you want to shudder and wipe all of that dog-shit philosophy off the sole of your mind?

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
IngoB, can you quote to me the words either MrP or myself said during our wedding ceremony which were knowingly untrue? If not, please apologise for calling us liars.

[Mad]

Joanna

Ditto - but according to Ingo this only matters if we subsequently join the RCC and want to be divorced. Given that both of these would have to happen sequentially for this to be an issue, the relevance is vanishingly small.

Meanwhile Ingo lacks the awareness to see that he has just admitted to religious rules which do not apply generally to the populous. Presumably his mind is too feeble to see how the same can be said for SSM.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry.

Err....what?

If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
YOU FOOLS!

Clearly IngoB is playing the long game, and has been a secularist plant all along. Years spent slowly and consistently fashioning an irrefutable reputation as a religionist. All so he could believably present this utterly convincing attempt to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that conservative religious views are worthless. I mean, it's mostly just marriage in this case. But doesn't the sweeping grandeur of the fuck-upped-ness of the thinking just make you want to shudder and wipe all of that dog-shit philosophy off the sole of your mind?

I never did see The Crying Game.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry.

Err....what?

If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

I bet you £50 it has only ever been formulated in terms of erectile dysfunction.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is either complete shite or many RC marriage sites on the internet know less than IngoB.

I'm betting the former.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is either complete shite or many RC marriage sites on the internet know less than IngoB.

I'm betting the former.

Oh, come on, it MUST be the latter.

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It startles me how vindictive the anti-gay lobby can be. Fair enough, to see homosexuality as immoral, and the expansion of marriage, and so on, but there is sometimes a really angry and vengeful tone. How so? Well, it sounds like jealousy to me, or if you want to be technical, envy. There are all these people breaking the rules and having carte blanche with their dangly bits, and I'm stuck here inside the fucking rules. See Estella in 'Bleak House', who torments Pip, in order to get rid of her own misery and frustration, and her adopted mother's, Gillian Anderson, I mean Miss Havisham.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect you mean Great Expectations.

Bloody hate Dickens.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry.

Err....what?

If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

But would it then follow that in such a case the Church could have no necessary objection to unmarried cohabitation, seeing that sex (of this kind) is out of the question?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry.

Err....what?

If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

But would it then follow that in such a case the Church could have no necessary objection to unmarried cohabitation, seeing that sex (of this kind) is out of the question?
And for that matter, what's the objection to impotent gay men marrying?

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, following the RC logic, the objection would be twofold, wouldn't it, with them being men (if marrying men) the more obvious of the two.
If- serious question- you have a straight couple who cannot in the eyes of the RCC marry because of permanent impotence- or come to that a celibate gay couple- would the RCC object to their contracting a civil marriage in order to secure property rights?

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, following the RC logic, the objection would be twofold, wouldn't it, with them being men (if marrying men) the more obvious of the two.
If- serious question- you have a straight couple who cannot in the eyes of the RCC marry because of permanent impotence- or come to that a celibate gay couple- would the RCC object to their contracting a civil marriage in order to secure property rights?

Ah, but the RCC objection to them marrying is that they would be having All The Evil Gay Sex. If one or both parties is impotent, then All The Evil Gay Sex wouldn’t happen, therefore they could get married.

And thus, the RCC church disappears in a puff of logic.

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894

 - Posted      Profile for Ariston   Author's homepage   Email Ariston   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry.

Err....what?

If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

I bet you £50 it has only ever been formulated in terms of erectile dysfunction.
Pay up. Canon 1084 states "Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature." So yes, the RCC (Republican Catholic Church?) explicitly says that the impotent cannot validly marry (well, you can say the words, sign on the dotted line, but...).

--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.

Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
<shit, crosspost with Ariston loses me £100>

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Whether or not either the chess player, the footballer, or both, or anyone else, agree that chess is a sport, or not, it doesn't change whether football is a sport, does it?

Yes, football does not change as football when we include chess into the definition of sport. What changes is the meaning of "football is a sport" ("my relationship is a marriage"). Now, soon after the decision to include chess into sport, bridge players insist that they are also sportsmen, and why not? Followed by the backgammon association etc. And soon after we hear parents say to their children: "let's do some sport together" as they bring out the Monopoly board. At this point a lot of people who are physically exerting themselves in their sport will start to become uncomfortable with the word. Because the main point of language is to usefully distinguish realities, and it is useful to have an indicator for the involved physical skill and exertion.

So to me the question is quite simply whether people still think that there is a significant difference between a heterosexual marriage and a "gay marriage". If so, then sooner or later language will adjust to make possible an easy distinction. If not, then not. Importantly though, the ideological chest beating will have next to no impact on that. It might delay it, but in the end language will serve the realities that are found in people's minds.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(btw - 'computational neuroscience' = not a proper science. You'll have to call it something else from now on because all us proper scientists feel diminished by you using our science-word)

If you could reason that there is a significant difference between "computational neuroscience" and say "physics" in terms of their science-ness, then you might have a point. Since you can't, you don't. Whereas we can of course easily extend this discussion into that domain. For example, if homeopathy was called a science, systematically, then scientists would indeed start to get nervous. Of course, just like with chess, a single instance of confusion isn't so bad. But if then dowsing also started to be called a science, and tarot divination, and ... Then the word "science" would start to be corrupted to the point where something will happen in the language to rectify that.

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
IngoB, can you quote to me the words either MrP or myself said during our wedding ceremony which were knowingly untrue? If not, please apologise for calling us liars. [Mad]

First, to clarify, were you actually married in the RCC? Because I was talking about the meaning of RC marriage vows (or if you like of "traditional" Christian marriage vows, referring to an unbroken tradition up to some point in modern times). Second, did you have the firm intention to never have kids when taking your marriage vows? I don't mean whether you can have kids or expect to have kids, but whether you made a conscious decision to not have kids in your marriage. Third, it's not necessarily exactly what you said, but also what was implied by it. RC vows also do not explicitly spell out everything that RC marriage entails. However, the RC doctrine concerning marriage is implicit, and these days in the West you typically get to sign your name against a list of doctrinal statements in marriage preparation (which is basically an admission that RC catechesis in the West is unreliable...).

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Clearly IngoB is playing the long game, and has been a secularist plant all along.

Well, no, but it leads to an interesting idea. Maybe I should become a liberal Christian for a decade or two, a very vocal one...

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

Indeed, at least not in the RCC. May I delay proper referencing until I have dealt with the next two comments below?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I bet you £50 it has only ever been formulated in terms of erectile dysfunction.

Would you like to bet me instead? Please?

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is either complete shite or many RC marriage sites on the internet know less than IngoB. I'm betting the former.

Another £50, perhaps?

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile Ingo lacks the awareness to see that he has just admitted to religious rules which do not apply generally to the populous. Presumably his mind is too feeble to see how the same can be said for SSM.

A marriage is instantiated by your word, and that of your spouse. The RCC attitude is to accept all marriages on face value, i.e., she cultivates a general bias towards the validity of all marriages. That said, a challenge against the validity of your marriage that you bring yourself is much more likely to succeed if your marriage happened outside of the RCC, because then it is much more likely that your word was not good enough to establish what the RCC considers as a marriage.

So, it's not really that there are "different rules" for different people (except that there are different rules for the baptised). It's rather that what your marriage vow is worth concerning marriage depends on what you intended your marriage vow to entail. And from a RC perspective, it may not have been enough to actually get you married.

However, a "gay marriage" does not fall under such considerations. A gay couple can no more marry, in the eyes of the RCC, than you can fly by flapping your arms. It's a physical / physiological impossibility, the people in question do not have the necessary sex to do it. The question of what they intend to do, and whether it is good enough, etc. just does not come into play. Just like it really doesn't matter what you intend in flapping your arms, you simply will not fly. To tell you "Sorry, man, you will not take off no matter how hard you flap your arms." is not being bigoted. As such, there is no value judgement in this. It is simply noticing that you are not a bird.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But would it then follow that in such a case the Church could have no necessary objection to unmarried cohabitation, seeing that sex (of this kind) is out of the question?

From requiring X as necessary for Y it does not follow at all that non-X is allowable for non-Y.

As far as the RCC goes, it is potentially licit for a man and a woman in love with each other to co-habitate without marriage, but then living "like brother and sister". There is lots of wisdom packed into that simple criterium. In particular, it avoids having to detail just what physical expressions of non-erotic love are allowable in the current cultural context by a simple reference to the incest taboo... For example, we would presumably agree that a brother may kiss his sister on the cheek as a gesture of genuine affection, but he should not French kiss her. Well, likewise for such co-habitees.

[ 30. June 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you are perpetually impotent, then you cannot marry.

Err....what?

If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

I bet you £50 it has only ever been formulated in terms of erectile dysfunction.
Pay up. Canon 1084 states "Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature." So yes, the RCC (Republican Catholic Church?) explicitly says that the impotent cannot validly marry (well, you can say the words, sign on the dotted line, but...).
Name the charity of your choice, (though what they mean by the impotence of a woman is an interesting question.)

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, following the RC logic, the objection would be twofold, wouldn't it, with them being men (if marrying men) the more obvious of the two.
If- serious question- you have a straight couple who cannot in the eyes of the RCC marry because of permanent impotence- or come to that a celibate gay couple- would the RCC object to their contracting a civil marriage in order to secure property rights?

Ah, but the RCC objection to them marrying is that they would be having All The Evil Gay Sex. If one or both parties is impotent, then All The Evil Gay Sex wouldn’t happen, therefore they could get married.

And thus, the RCC church disappears in a puff of logic.

Afraid not. AIUI it's that ontologically two people of the same sex cannot marry each other. On the whole, I think you may be able to accuse the RCC off starting from the wrong premises, but you can very rarely catch them out in sloppy thinking once those premises are identfied.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If- serious question- you have a straight couple who cannot in the eyes of the RCC marry because of permanent impotence- or come to that a celibate gay couple- would the RCC object to their contracting a civil marriage in order to secure property rights?

In theory, that could be fine. Just like a RC separation of spouses - say over abuse - can be dealt with in the civil space by a divorce of the partners in order to sort out property and childcare rights and duties. Allowing the civil divorce does not mean that the sacramental RC marriage can be actually dissolved, just that the separating RC couple can have access to the regular civil arbitration process of a civil divorce.

In practice, the RCC is trying to defend the very meaning of the word marriage and to maintain the visibility and reach of her teachings on marriage in the public space. So basically, this would run into a massive political / PR problem.

If the RCC simply gives in on this one, then for all intents and purposes she has been run out of the public space. The dream of many, that religion is a private affair and should remain contained in one's home, would have come true. It's pretty much a religious Alamo: if you have to lose this one, you at least must be seen to go down fighting heroically to the bitter end - hopefully as inspiration for future victories.

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Ah, but the RCC objection to them marrying is that they would be having All The Evil Gay Sex. If one or both parties is impotent, then All The Evil Gay Sex wouldn’t happen, therefore they could get married. And thus, the RCC church disappears in a puff of logic.

No, the RC objection is that they are incapable of having Specifically The Good Hetero Sex, which is why the RCC also does not allow heterosexual couples to marry who cannot have Specifically The Good Hetero Sex. The RCC believes that the only morally licit sex is Specifically The Good Hetero Sex, and that marriage is the only social institution within which one can morally licitly have Specifically The Good Hetero Sex. So an impotent gay couple cannot marry due to being incapable of having Specifically The Good Hetero Sex, if so for two different reasons (one, they are not man and woman, two, they are impotent).

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
it must confuse people like the elderly clergyman in the OP when our leaders have evangelical prayer breakfasts or talk about our 'Christian nation' - and then proudly introduce SSM.

I support same sex marriage BECAUSE I follow Christ. The two things are hardly contradictory.
Well, it's true that modern Western Christians have tended to become more tolerant of different sexualities and sexual behaviours. But I don't think it's been made clear in any public forum by leading politicians, clergy or theologians that Christianity and SSM are intimately connected. Maybe the Episcopalians or some similar group ought to embark on a public campaign to promote this position.

Orfeo

I'm well aware that the UK and the USA have different histories, but it's not incorrect to talk about secularisation in the USA.

The USA separated church and state, but not because of indifference to or antagonism towards Christianity! The 'secular' in American politics is not the 'secularisation' that speaks of American Christianity becoming less visible and less popular in its expression. My point is simply that American religious exceptionalism is becoming a little less exceptional.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
If, through no fault of your own, you are unable to have proper, normal, "God's law" PIV sex, you can't marry?

Indeed, at least not in the RCC.


And you don't see a problem with that?

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(btw - 'computational neuroscience' = not a proper science. You'll have to call it something else from now on because all us proper scientists feel diminished by you using our science-word)

If you could reason that there is a significant difference between "computational neuroscience" and say "physics" in terms of their science-ness, then you might have a point. Since you can't, you don't.
I'm terribly sorry. The real scientists on this thread know what and what isn't a proper science. You 'computational neuroscience' people might like to call it a science, but it can't be science, and the people doing it aren't scientists so they don't get to decide whether it's a science or not, since only scientists get to decide that.

And no protesting that you're a real scientist. The real scientists know you're not.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[X-post. The hostly mind-meld is on the blink.]

I don't see a problem with it, in the sense that what Roman Catholics do behind their closed church doors is their business.

It's when they come outside and try to get the rest of us to join in that there's a problem. Which is precisely why this thread started by explicitly not discussing what the religious position might be.

[ 30. June 2015, 13:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, Political Philosophy is the king of all science, so none of you fuckers are really proper scientists.

Experimentalists at best. Hand in your lab-coats at the door.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I don't see a problem with it, in the sense that what Roman Catholics do behind their closed church doors is their business.

So long as vulnerable people are kept safe.

What about RC people who are gay? [Frown]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry, Political Philosophy is the king of all science, so none of you fuckers are really proper scientists.

Experimentalists at best. Hand in your lab-coats at the door.

[Killing me]

So who's in charge of the sheep-dip in your department, Bruce?

(Social science - so called in a lame effort to be treated seriously)

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I support same sex marriage BECAUSE I follow Christ. The two things are hardly contradictory.

Well, it's true that modern Western Christians have tended to become more tolerant of different sexualities and sexual behaviours. But I don't think it's been made clear in any public forum by leading politicians, clergy or theologians that Christianity and SSM are intimately connected. Maybe the Episcopalians or some similar group ought to embark on a public campaign to promote this position.
I don't see the logical link between "I support same sex marriage because I follow Christ" and "leading politicians, clergy and theologians aren't making clear in any public forum that Christianity and SSM are intimately connected".

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I don't see a problem with it, in the sense that what Roman Catholics do behind their closed church doors is their business.

So long as vulnerable people are kept safe.

What about RC people who are gay? [Frown]

Lots of hand-jobs? What, that's not allowed either? This Christianity thing isn't much fun, is it?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I support same sex marriage BECAUSE I follow Christ. The two things are hardly contradictory.

Well, it's true that modern Western Christians have tended to become more tolerant of different sexualities and sexual behaviours. But I don't think it's been made clear in any public forum by leading politicians, clergy or theologians that Christianity and SSM are intimately connected. Maybe the Episcopalians or some similar group ought to embark on a public campaign to promote this position.
I don't see the logical link between "I support same sex marriage because I follow Christ" and "leading politicians, clergy and theologians aren't making clear in any public forum that Christianity and SSM are intimately connected".
Individual Christians believe all sorts of things, but the clergyman in the OP was bewildered by the institutional sanctioning of SSM.

Moreover, politicians who make public statements about the national religion and/or hold prayer breakfasts do so not primarily as a result of their own personal religious beliefs, but in their status as national leaders. When politicians talk about religion it's quite hard to establish what they're saying about their own beliefs and what they're saying in order to appeal to a (vaguely) religious constituency within their nation.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Individual Christians believe all sorts of things, but the clergyman in the OP was bewildered by the institutional sanctioning of SSM.
I see nothing about clergymen or institutions in the OP? [Confused] (I don't think Orfeo is a clergyman either.)

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
And you don't see a problem with that?

Depends on what you mean by "problem". Do I see doctrinal incoherence, contradiction to scripture, breach with tradition, etc.? No. Do I see potential personal problems, perhaps even massive ones, for a couple so afflicted? Sure. But then I find the RC strictures against masturbation ... problematic, personally speaking.

The real question for me is whether I accept that 1) Christian religion can impose crosses on me that I would would not have without it, and 2) whether the RCC is the proper Christian authority to do so in this world. For me the answer is "yes" and "yes".

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Individual Christians believe all sorts of things, but the clergyman in the OP was bewildered by the institutional sanctioning of SSM.
I see nothing about clergymen or institutions in the OP? [Confused] (I don't think Orfeo is a clergyman either.)
Oops! I was thinking about a link posted in another thread! Sorry!

Getting back on track, the unhappy people Orfeo mentioned in his OP are the losers here. Conservatively religious people who worry about the state's relationship with religious values are destined to be disappointed in modern Western culture. It's best for them to focus on their own religious communities and leave the state alone. It's also best for more moderate Christians to pay such people less attention, since it's clear that their political influence is declining.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Conservatively religious people who worry about the state's relationship with religious values are destined to be disappointed in modern Western culture.
From their point of view, perhaps. They probably see president Obama (an evangelical Christian) embracing marriage equality as the state rejecting religious values. Others (including me) will see it as the state and Christian values lining up.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, but you're not 'conservatively religious' are you? You're liberally religious, so to speak!

[ 30. June 2015, 15:01: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bingo's lame football analogy could have been more accurate.

Let us cast our minds back to 1823, where a football match was underway in a well known public school.

"Ah, what fine sport," the spectators murmured to each other.

Suddenly a schoolboy named William Webb Ellis grabbed the ball in both hands and ran with it, scoring a brilliant, if arguably illegal goal.

"That's not football!" came plaintive cries from all around, "That's not how a sport is played!"

Nevertheless Rugby was born (at least apocryphally). Yet still for several years afterwards the true believers in the holy sport of football argued that it wasn't a proper sport.

Why, they used funny shape balls, and threw the ball instead of kicking it as the Good Lord intended and as the Football Association (God's sporting representatives on Earth) laid down.

Those who pointed out that even footballers threw the ball sometimes, and that rubgy players still kicked the ball on occasion, and that both activities involved trying to score a goal - admittedly one lot scored between the uprights and the others shot into a net, but really the difference were anatomical, not philosophical.

Other historically minded people observed that in reality, the rules of football had always been mutable and that many other versions existed from ancient times; some of them included picking the ball up, others didn't. It really depended on what era and what country you looked at.

When the Sports Council agreed that rugby was just as much a game as football, the ultra-conservative soccer players (who scorned all other associations and claimed rightful descent from the original inventor of the game in 8000BC, Ug Gascoigne) sulked, saying that football was ruined forever and their relationship to it had changed utterly and that they could no longer consider themselves to be playing it. Sport is pre-ordained to involved scoring goals in nets, they argued loftily, waving aside the issue of teams that would never ever score like Brentford United.

Others rejoiced at the expansion of sporting options available to people depending on their particular preferences and natures.

Only time will tell who is correct, will football be forever tarnished, or will the addition of rugby to the sporting world make all those frustrated ball-handlers happy and fulfilled, and bring true sport to the world?

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753

 - Posted      Profile for jbohn   Author's homepage   Email jbohn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I find the RC strictures against masturbation ... problematic, personally speaking.

Wanker.

[Razz]


(sorry - too easy...)

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
"That's not football!" came plaintive cries from all around, "That's not how a sport is played!"

"That's not how football is played!" And so they named it "rugby", eventually, because it just won't do to name two different things by the same word (except if context can be expected to differentiate in almost all cases). Indeed, that is another good illustration of the point I was making.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The position you defend, IngoB, is arbitrary. It is arbitrary because it hyper-focuses on one thing whilst simultaneously saying other marriage options allowed in the bible are simply not on.
Now, you can take this position as the one you prefer, but defending it as anything other than arbitrary is silly.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, actually they called it Rugby football: as distinct from Association football, American football, Canadian football, Australian Rules football, and so on. So the parallel would be calling SSM not simply 'marriage' but 'same sex marriage' (or whatever) to indicate the distinction from 'opposite sex marriage' (or whatever).
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A better example is the word "football", which means one thing to North Americans, another to Europeans and a third (maybe) to Australians.

The games described by the word are very different.

In the same way that the American Football League can define the rules of the game they call football, the RCC can define how and what they call marriage.

Neither has any binding effect on the way that other people use the word. Obviously.

[ 30. June 2015, 16:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So a valid marriage in the RCC has these elements:

A man and a woman:
  • Neither of which has a living ex-spouse
  • Both of whom enter freely and knowingly into the union with no hesitations, reservations, illusions, delusions, deceptions, or intent to deceive
  • Who are capable of having PIV sex
  • And who do so at least once

What did I miss?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a reason why Americans refer to "football" as "soccer". And yes, it is possible that we will stick forever with saying clunky things like "same sex marriage", just as we keep on saying "American football" or "Australian (rules) football". My point however is not touched by just how precisely language will evolve. My point is that if people truly think that "gay marriage" is the same as marriage, then we will see any such differentiation - by adjectives or by a different word entirely - disappear over time. I bet we won't, because once people have strutted their ideology sufficiently to keep up with the Jones, everybody still knows that a marriage between a man and a woman is a different sort of thing than a "marriage" between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. But I may be wrong about all that, and then we will see (everyday, not official!) language change towards a comprehensive lack of differentiation. It's a relatively objective linguistic measure of actual compliance to the new and shiny ideology of sexual egalitarianism. Why oppose it?

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The position you defend, IngoB, is arbitrary. It is arbitrary because it hyper-focuses on one thing whilst simultaneously saying other marriage options allowed in the bible are simply not on. Now, you can take this position as the one you prefer, but defending it as anything other than arbitrary is silly.

First, my position can be defended on the basis of natural moral law. That is to say, it does not even have to be religious at all, and can be successfully stated in terms of a purely philosophical analysis of nature. As such it is entirely universal. However, experience shows that arguing natural moral law on sex is at least as difficult as bible-bashing, because philosophy is difficult at the best of times, and where one is trying to tell people what to do with their genitalia is never the best of times.

Second, nowhere in scripture will you find any endorsement of "gay marriage" whatsoever. You will arguably find condemnation of homosexuality though. It certainly would be easier to argue for incest than for gay marriage based on the actual "case law" of the bible.

Third, the idea that the OT and the NT should be considered together as a kind of buffet from which one can choose what one wants, or perhaps as an equal endorsement of all that is ever mentioned there, is so utterly fucking dumb that I refuse to engage with it. With all due respect, if that's your style of exegesis then please join the basic catechesis class of any Christian community on this planet (and if you have a time machine handy, then I will add: throughout history). I know none that proposes such a profoundly stupid attitude to scripture... The rejection of such an approach by essentially everybody who ever called themselves a Christian is about as arbitrary as the realisation that water is good for washing things.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My point is that if people truly think that "gay marriage" is the same as marriage, then we will see any such differentiation - by adjectives or by a different word entirely - disappear over time. I bet we won't, because once people have strutted their ideology sufficiently to keep up with the Jones, everybody still knows that a marriage between a man and a woman is a different sort of thing than a "marriage" between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. But I may be wrong about all that, and then we will see (everyday, not official!) language change towards a comprehensive lack of differentiation. It's a relatively objective linguistic measure of actual compliance to the new and shiny ideology of sexual egalitarianism. Why oppose it?

Given that we live with a generation (at least in the US) that can't be bothered to type more than "u" for "you" or "4" in place of "for", I wouldn't hold out much hope that any but the most ultra-religious will be bothered to make certain they always type those pesky quotation marks around "marriage" when thinking of same-sex couples. As you say, though, we shall see...

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He's just cross because he's just found out he's not a proper scientist.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

Third, the idea that the OT and the NT should be considered together as a kind of buffet from which one can choose what one wants, or perhaps as an equal endorsement of all that is ever mentioned there, is so utterly fucking dumb that I refuse to engage with it. With all due respect, if that's your style of exegesis then please join the basic catechesis class of any Christian community on this planet (and if you have a time machine handy, then I will add: throughout history). I know none that proposes such a profoundly stupid attitude to scripture... The rejection of such an approach by essentially everybody who ever called themselves a Christian is about as arbitrary as the realisation that water is good for washing things.

But we already do that. This very moment, we have selected certain rules in both OT and NT and utterly ignored them, without any fuss. Did you ever eat crab? Lobster? What about the shirt you are wearing this very moment? Take it off and look at the content label. Is it 100% content, or is there some polyester blend in there?
Did you see a woman today? Was she menstruating? How do you know? What about your facial hair? No beard? Oooh. Sideburns?

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So a valid marriage in the RCC has these elements:

A man and a woman:
  • Neither of which has a living ex-spouse
  • Both of whom enter freely and knowingly into the union with no hesitations, reservations, illusions, delusions, deceptions, or intent to deceive
  • Who are capable of having PIV sex
  • And who do so at least once

What did I miss?

Some of what you say is false, some of it is over the top, and it sure as heck is incomplete...

First, you do not have to have sex "at least once" to have a valid marriage. That is false. A marriage is valid "ratum tantum" first, and then becomes "ratum et consummatum" once the couple has had (the vaginal kind of) sex. The difference is that a "ratum tantum" marriage can be dissolved even if sacramental (between baptised spouses) - for just cause, by the pope. A "ratum et consummatum" marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power, since the Divine "union of one flesh" has been established by the sexual act. Still, a marriage does not become valid through the sexual act, but rather through the couple giving each other their word (in a proper manner). The sexual act just makes that "unbreakable" even to the Church.

Second, your purported list of mental attributes required to enter marriage is over the top. It pretty much would mean that nobody ever would get successfully married, for who is ever free of all hesitations and illusions, for example? Rather, matrimonial consent requires that one is of sane and capable mind in general, free and not under undue pressure concerning this decision, and neither ignorant nor incapable of sufficiently understanding that "marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." That's it, basically. That you may have had illusions about how wonderful every day of your marriage will be, for example, does not get you out of that marriage.

Third, while perpetual impotence or already being married to another living persons are indeed "dire impediments" to marriage, there are a good number more. For example, someone in the sacred orders cannot marry. Consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or up to and including the fourth degree of the collateral line makes marriage impossible. One cannot marry the murderer of one's former spouse. Etc.

The relevant code of canon law is online (14 further short pages to click through). It's not a difficult read, really.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And what is 'natural moral law'?

Given that morality has been defined differently at different times and in different places throughout history, it's difficult to perceive any universality there. Just saying that it's a) obvious and b) difficult isn't really convincing.

This is unlike the laws of physics, say, which have (as far as we know, anyway) remained the same and stay the same whether humans are aware of them or not.

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  15  16  17 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools