myrkul999 on June 25, 2012, 07:39:59 pm
Please note that the Catholics impose their idea of sexual morality on Catholics only.  As long as membership is *voluntary*, this is completely compatible with AnCap, as far as I can see.  (I realize there were some nasty periods of Church history where membership was not so voluntary.)   Would you agree?  

In a similar vein, you can attend Bob Jones University as an atheist or any other religion (and I know several atheists that have - there are some good programs there) - BUT you have to agree to abstain totally from alcohol, other drugs arbitrarily made illegal in the US, fornication, and a few other restrictions (as spelled out in your student contract) for the duration of your degree program.   Most honest people are willing to to abstain for 2 to 4 years as part of their contract.   This is compatible with AnCap, as it is a voluntary contract.  Agree?

Agreed on both counts, so long as all the restrictions are voluntary, I see no problem in imposing them.

A "marriage" (ie specifically something that is called a marriage) typically, even in very homosexual-friendly societies, has been heterosexual and reproduction-oriented. However, there have been numerous other ceremonies over the ages which are not so specific.

The problem is that today, the concept of marriage has been tied up and wrapped into the ideas behind those other ceremonies. Worse, there's been a legal definition applied to that concept, when prior it was primarily up to the churches to decide what was "marriage" and what was not.

What we need to do is separate the ceremony from the legality.

Apollo-Soyuz on June 25, 2012, 09:56:53 pm
What we need to do is separate the ceremony from the legality.

Well, how are you going to keep the races from mixing then? What about all those government entitlement programs that pay out surviver benefits?

[trolling/]

myrkul999 on June 26, 2012, 12:59:10 am
OK, to get (briefly, I imagine) back on-topic, This:
Quote
SFX: [audience hub-bub]
(and the resulting SFX in the comic)...

Classic.

SandySandfort on June 26, 2012, 07:56:03 am
OK, to get (briefly, I imagine) back on-topic, This:
Quote
SFX: [audience hub-bub]
(and the resulting SFX in the comic)...

Classic.

When I was in university, in my radio-TV classes we used "murmur-hubub" for the background conversation in group scenes. For angry group scenes, we threw in the words "rhubarb-rhubarb!"

Andreas on June 26, 2012, 08:45:57 am
Rhubarb indeed... that's used in Danish stage tradition ("Rabarber-rabarber-rabarber"), but for normal crowd-noises. The lack of vowel dissimilarity, and the three-syllable flow (ta-ta-ta, instead of taa-ta) makes it less alarming-sounding. But it porridges nicely, in any case.

macsnafu on June 26, 2012, 10:16:45 am
I remember reading a humor strip that used "watermelon-cantaloupe" for background discussion. 
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

 

anything