Politics: A new beginning

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Cite please?

Damn dude, I'm one of (your people) too. Its one thing not to agree with some (many) policies, edicts or whatever, but homophobic nazi?

Hello

I think G3 was talking about Slave, the fancy pumpkin.

(Though I've lost the thread of why this is so).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Cite please?

Damn dude, I'm one of (your people) too. Its one thing not to agree with some (many) policies, edicts or whatever, but homophobic nazi?

Hello

For nazi sympathizer, cf. BBC News Article , where the current Pope apologizes for actions of past Pope relating to Nazis, but still doesn't discuss or recognize the holocaust.

Yes, overstatement to make a point. Cf. reference to comrade Ty.

Re: homophobia: do you have to ask?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think he was using nazi in its generic sense (many people do; some find this offensive). The homophobic part is easy, so I won't insult you by explaining.

Perhaps homophobic facist is more to your taste?

I accept homophobic fascist as a friendly amendment.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think G3 was talking about Slave, the fancy pumpkin.

(Though I've lost the thread of why this is so).

I think this also works, but I'm too lazy to go dig up the references.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I accept homophobic fascist as a friendly amendment.

How about "homophobic Nazi sympathizer"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How about "homophobic Nazi sympathizer"?

Depends. Are we talking about Slave or the Pope?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
when religion and government become entangled, religion suffers.

Generally agreed. Unfortunately, I believe religious heterosexual marriage antedates many/most modern political systems.

Greedy what kind of asshole cares whether or not two people who love each other are "married"? Why the hell does anyone consider it their business?

Love? Whatever. If you believe in silly antiquated concepts, have at it. No need to make me listen to em too. You gonna start talking about the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus next?

Seriously, some people might believe they bought into a particular concept that others are trying to appropriate by governmental decree. Sure its just a word or a title, but some people attach a lot of meaning to it.

At the same time, if your question was why people would care how or why two other people bonded themselves to each other contractually, such that they were obligated to empty each other's bedpans when they were 75, then you and I are on the same page brother, er, comrade.

Hello

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If he's pope, can I call him a homophobic nazi, or will you make me limit it to homophobic nazi sympathizer?


(Still having trouble coming to terms with my Catholicism).

You call him whatever you like.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But we find you interesting.

We would like to dissect you.

Yes I know, lesbians are fascinating.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
How about "homophobic Nazi sympathizer"?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Depends. Are we talking about Slave or the Pope?

I guess we'll find out when I shove my jackboot up your homo ass, now won't we?

But now seriously. Me? Homophobic? Laughable. Nazi? Silly.

Fascist? Er...I have a meeting, gotta run.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I guess we'll find out when I shove my jackboot up your homo ass, now won't we?

But now seriously. Me? Homophobic? Laughable. Nazi? Silly.

Fascist? Er...I have a meeting, gotta run.

I can attest to the laughability of the homophobia and the naziism.

He's probably a fascist, but who am I to talk, I'm a benevolent dictator.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think he was using nazi in its generic sense (many people do; some find this offensive). The homophobic part is easy, so I won't insult you by explaining.

Perhaps homophobic facist is more to your taste?

Guess it depends on how you define homophobic. And facist.

and generic sense. and insult.

What the hell are you talking about? All of a sudden nothing you people say even makes sense any more.

Oh, the Pope doesn't mention the word "holocaust" in a speech, so he's like a Nazi! No, a facist!

Oh, and the religion which has existed for 2000 years (don't bother google-boy... its a figure of speech), and which he leads, and which he has been taught to never question, and which he has been taught is not_wrong, teaches that God loves everybody but God loves heterosexuals just a little bit extra.... aaaaaaaaiiiiiiigggghhhh, he's an ogre. No, a facist homophobe!

You people are just mad because he helped free Poland and Nicaragua and almost half the world from your ideological masters.

Arghhh. Why do I bother. Your side lost. My side won. Get over it loosers.

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Guess it depends on how you define homophobic. And facist.

and generic sense. and insult.

What the hell are you talking about? All of a sudden nothing you people say even makes sense any more.

Oh, the Pope doesn't mention the word "holocaust" in a speech, so he's like a Nazi! No, a facist!

Oh, and the religion which has existed for 2000 years (don't bother google-boy... its a figure of speech), and which he leads, and which he has been taught to never question, and which he has been taught is not_wrong, teaches that God loves everybody but God loves heterosexuals just a little bit extra.... aaaaaaaaiiiiiiigggghhhh, he's an ogre. No, a facist homophobe!

You people are just mad because he helped free Poland and Nicaragua and almost half the world from your ideological masters.

Arghhh. Why do I bother. Your side lost. My side won. Get over it loosers.

Hello

Those signal they keep beaming into your room without your consent seem to be having an effect. You should adjust your receptors.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Those signal they keep beaming into your room without your consent seem to be having an effect. You should adjust your receptors.

Not to compliment you, but I think you were the only* one who understood that part of the argument regarding the reception. You should probably contact a lawyer about those signals. They might be why you are so weird. No matter, they'll find someone to sue for that.


Hello

*Not really. One of maybe 3 or 4, one of whom I think explicitly alluded to the fact that nobody or almost nobody gets prosecuted for this (receiving), but then asserted that such a defense is "babbling".

Scratch that. You all understood it perfectly. And I'm sure you don't roll around in shit like pigs because you are so intelligent. Or pick your noses.

Anyone got an umbrella?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Generally agreed. Unfortunately, I believe religious heterosexual marriage antedates many/most modern political systems.

Probably in some cases, but not in the case of Christianity, at least. The Church didn't authorize, sanctify, bless, conduct or otherwise condone marriage until quite late in the game. Then, they would give a blessing on a marriage, bur as they might to someone starting a new business venture or heading off to join the army, but marriages were still not conducted as ceremonies or sacraments withing the church (until the 1500s at least weddings were usually performed at the church door, if within a religious context at all, because the priest and the church had no role whatsoever in the marriage itself except to bless it afterwards). It wasn't until the 16th centuries that it became standard to have a priest basically run the show.

The marriage traditions that were adopted in, for lack of a better term, Christiandom, were largely Roman in origin, though various pre-Christian pagan traditions and regulations also continued to apply. For instance, the giving of mutual consent to the marriage ("I do") is a Roman legal requirement. The importance of consummation to make the marriage binding and non-annulable was a germanic pagan legal requirement. Various dowery or other contractual traditions (parents consenting and "giving" the bride) came from other pre-christian European traditions. Anyhow, all of these were entirely secular.

Basically, as the church gained temporal power it got progressively more involved because they realized that, if they controlled marriage, they controlled the alliances of powerful families and could keep the nobility from gaining sufficient power and cohesion to challenge the church. For instance, bans on marriage within certain ranges of cosanguinity (7 generations was standard - much greater than the current 2) were created for essentially political reasons - it kept families from reaffirming alliances through blood too often.

I note, also, that through out the middle ages there were effectively two forms of marriage, both legitimizing heirs but one permanent and binding involving the transfer of property and rights, and the other not necessarily permanent and not involving the transfer of property and titles [essentially what most people think of when they think of "handfasting" these days]. (Charlemagne, great defender of the Faith, never permitted any of his daughters to enter into binding marriage, because it would have meant them taking on the rank (lower) of their partners and transferring rights to their inheritance to them.) The church got involved only in the binding sort, because their interest was the transfer of rank and property not in the status of offspring or the moral posture of the unions. As late as the 12th century, some religious authorities were holding that all that was required for a marriage to be binding was the spoken mutual consent of the parties involved (with no witnesses), and the pope openly recognized the legitimacy of "non-binding" marriages. Finally, the Fourth Lateran Council required marriage to be blessed and witnessed (though still not conducted) by a priest to be recognized by the Church. But the Church of England recognized "secret" marriages (where the parties gave consent with no witnesses and no public ceremony) as legitimate until the 1th century, and until the mid 20th in Scotland, though the general idea that marriage, being a civil contract, should be conducted in public (i.e.: with witnesses) was pretty much set by the 17th century.

But even then, it was a civil, not religious institution. Note for the record that the catholic church never maintained it could prevent or challenge the legitimacy of marriages of Jews, though it did not (still doesn't) recognize the marriage as a sacrament.

edited to add: did y'all forget Rule No. 1 of the Internet: that the first one to say "Nazi" or "Hitler" automatically loses?