Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

And Ohio gets yet another black mark in my book. I know NC allows non-religious "civil service" marriages, because a few of our friends had them (mostly to save money).

I wonder how strict Ohio's definition of "clergy" is. Considering there are religious organizations that exist almost entirely as "mail-order ordination" houses, where you can be ordained for like $50.

Pseudo-edit: Actually, it looks like there are free ordinations available. I might just have to get me one of those. Could be handy to be able to whip out the "I'm a minister" card.

You can get a civil union in Ohio as well... but you can't get Married without the clergy.  The thing about it though, The Federal Government (where all those benefits were) does not recognize civil unions.

Damn, I feel behind on my knowledge of Ohio law here... apparently Common Law marriages are no longer permitted:

Common law marriage in Ohio was abolished effective October 10, 1991

So it looks like the only way to be joined in Ohio is marriage.

Also, didn't mean to say Civil Union (that apparently has a different connotation than I was using.)

[Nadaka]

edit:removed quote pyramid

It's not corpsepaint, it's "self-anointing with the sacred oils". If you're gonna be a priest, you have to learn the jargon.

I kinda feel a little bad about mocking clergy, because at one point in my life I was seriously considering becoming one. I still bear no ill will towards the clergy, just the ones who use their positions to act like total douchebags (I'm looking at you, Fred Phelps and various Catholic pedophiles)

I thought we were making fun of metal?

[Vector]

This is really fucking cool.

Yes, I know it links to Shakesville.  The link contains absolutely nothing that would be of offense to anyone in this thread.  Trust me, I combed that thing.  This is worth it.

[quinnr]

This is really fucking cool.

Yes, I know it links to Shakesville.  The link contains absolutely nothing that would be of offense to anyone in this thread.  Trust me, I combed that thing.  This is worth it.

...that is one of the awesomest things I have read this week. Very cool.

[Duke 2.0]

 Its cool and all, and I present no defense to neo-nazis, but it feels kind of like a dick move. Like, imagine the same stunt being pulled at a gay rights rally. Or one of my religious events. I'm just feeling some dissonance between this stuff being accepted towards one group but not others.

[RedKing]

This is really fucking cool.

Yes, I know it links to Shakesville.  The link contains absolutely nothing that would be of offense to anyone in this thread.  Trust me, I combed that thing.  This is worth it.

Spoiler: I can't help but picture the NDP leadership's response. (click to show/hide)

HOOOOOGAAAAN!!!!!!

@Duke: Being that it's a t-shirt, and wasn't particularly aggressive or offensive (It's not as if the shirts said "NAZIS SUCK I HOPE YOU ALL DIE OF AIDS") I wouldn't necessarily see a problem if it went the other way. If a church snuck rainbow t-shirts into a gay pride rally that faded and said "God still loves you, here's our website if you want to stop being gay" I think most would roll their eyes, say "Well, at least it was free" and proceed to use it as a cleaning rag. That's purely my opinion, of course.

[Vector]

No.

I'm sorry, but I honestly can't do anything but support this.  I am not a happy-feely-touchy lovebird, and I do not extend my feelings of total temperance, compassion, and acceptance towards people who would like to kill me four or five times over, or use me as a breeding vat.  Sorry.  No.  I wouldn't kill them, and I wouldn't hurt them, and I wouldn't wish ill on them.  But I also do not support a Prime Directive response to their "culture."

[Phmcw]

Its cool and all, and I present no defense to neo-nazis, but it feels kind of like a dick move. Like, imagine the same stunt being pulled at a gay rights rally. Or one of my religious events. I'm just feeling some dissonance between this stuff being accepted towards one group but not others.

No. Seriously they should be arrested, and will be if they dare to only express their idea publicly.
Nazism and fascism are no jokes, and those people are advocating the murder of million of people and their supremacy over billions of other. They got of easy.

[Sheb]

Also, I don't think the move is dickish at all. If the Westboro Church started giving out T-Shirt that faded to say "You will die in hell for being gay", the problem wouldn't be with the method, but with the content. And since the content here isn't dickish at all, I don't see no problems.

[Reverie]

I am glad that the message was passed in such a clever way as to prevent an upstart.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. Seriously they should be arrested, and will be if they dare to only express their idea publicly.

Phmcw, re-read this, just this. Think about what you're advocating here.

Tyranny will not solve tyranny.

[Duke 2.0]

 My argument is more aimed towards the core idea of "We can do this because our idea is right and they are wrong", with this as an example more than something I would defend. If this happened in a more in-person way like me and my buddies seeing this article in the newspaper we would probably join in on smiling and laughing at it. But to use this as a point for a discussion on where the 'prime directive' goes and its various lines seems fine. Anything to better define what our morality is and how far it extends.

 Of course we shouldn't give an inch of ground to ideology that promotes hate and the removal of freedoms. There is no chance that what they advocate will be accepted and tools for leaving particularly angry/powerful groups should be around. We just need to look at where the line is drawn and why.

[Vector]

A government that permits Nazis or other advocators of genocide to seize power ever again is malfunctioning.

Hate to say it, but I do have my limits.

[Kay12]

I agree, somewhat, but that leads to a nasty conclusion - democracy is, in principle, unable to prevent that and is as such prone to malfunction in itself.

Oh how much better the world would be if we could actually have enlightened dictators...

[Vector]

Oh how much better the world would be if we could actually have an enlightened population...

I would agree with the philosopher-kings approach, other than the fact that I'm totally terrified of the inherent corruptibility in such a system.  I don't trust any one person with the wheel.  I'd like to, but... no.

So the next option is to be a government that attempts to educate its populace.  It's not a guarantee, but I think it's the best we can do without the (considerably greater) dangers of "enlightened dictatorship."

(EDIT: this is, of course, why I'm dead set on being a teacher of some sort.  If I don't become a professor, I will do other teaching work)