Freethought & Rationalism Archive

oneofshibumi · 08-11-2002, 08:22 PM

BlueNose,

OOOps!!! You are right. Thank you for the heads up. Unfortunately, the information I used was rather old (mid-70s) and from Spain. My instructor was a Benedictine monk, who in retrospect I believe was Gay. However, after researching the points you brought up, I accept your points as true. The laws my instructor referred to were the ones against the Mollies (bars were Gays hung out in old England). Also, the evidence that showed that King James I. I will edit my statement immediately. Thank you again.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: oneofshibumi ]

Bible Humper · 08-11-2002, 09:13 PM

Hello Oneofshibumi,

Quote:

It was also the period of time that the Church outlawed Fornication Under Crowned King (FUCK). The answer is yes, responding to the etymologists in the forum. That is where the term comes from. The right of the King (or anyone who was a royal) to sleep with a woman on her wedding night.

I couldn't find the reference to this in your link.

I read somewhere that the whole "prima nocte" thing is just an old urban legend, are you certain that the Council of Trent wasn't perhaps referring to the open taking of mistresses by monarchs who were married for politics rather than love/attraction?

08-11-2002, 09:14 PM

If I remember correctly "free love marriages" as we know it today was an institution of the 11th century. Before that arranged marriages only were sanctionned and it was the uniformity of Catholicism that made free love marriages possible. "Marriages arranged in heaven" (for Catholics only) is what led to the glory of the Church in the years to come and did not end until its end.

08-11-2002, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree:
The only difference between a "married" couple and an "unmarried couple" living together is the fact that the "married" couple has a piece of paper that says they are "married."

The church doesn't even figure in.

Fair enough Bree. You can cut a penny in half and pretend that the two of you make one just as the half penny you each have makes one. It may work for you but if it doesn't, is your marriage not worth more than half of one penny?

08-11-2002, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Agnos1:

1) The idea that Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or "viewpoint."

2) The old Christian ploy of attacking a "viewpoint" and pretending that they are not in fact attacking the person.

Have to remember here that the Church must move the people and not be moved by the people. If homosexuality is more than just a viewpoint it is an inclination because the viewpoint of the parents was wrong and the poor children are the victim of their parents' confusion (liberation).

Science is behind the eightball in this regard and the obvious evidence for this is the ever increasing occurance of homoseuals in society today. Takes this one step further and you'll find that the need for fertility clinics proves that something is wrong with our modern "gender equal society" (I find the word "equal" a misnomer because I've always adored females).

AtlanticCitySlave · 08-11-2002, 11:18 PM

The answer to the question is no, it doesn't. I'm not even sure the question makes any sense. As someone already pointed out, there are thousands of denominations of Christians, many of which openly invite gays and lesbians to their services, have gay/lesbian members, and even have gay/lesbian ministers. The fact that there are gay/lesbian churches, members, and ministers. I mean, there's even an online magazine for <a href="http://www.whosoever.org/" target="_blank">gay/lesbian christians.</a>

Sure, the Bible may imply homosexuality is wrong, some Christian denominations may say the same thing, but to make the blanket argument that Christianity, as a whole, promotes gay and lesbian bigotry, is simply wrong.

GeoTheo · 08-12-2002, 09:17 AM

Hello All:
I have just read all these posts with interest, today. I have beem camping with realatives in Itaska State Park in MN, since thursday. I have some car problems to take care of and hope to be online again for a long stretch later this week.
As I have told Scigirl, I don't have a home computer and post from either a public or University Library.
I think there were some good points here, but the debate is not over as has been said. I will spend most of my effort responding to scigirl's posts but I might pop in here now and again. I am at a public library and now have to get off the computer.
Sorry for creating so much suspense.
Theo

oneofshibumi · 08-12-2002, 03:07 PM

Splashing Colours of Whimsy,
Thank you for the heads up. You are right about the etymology of FUCK. According to Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning I gave to the word is incorrect. The meaning of Fornication Under Crowned King.
I will edit my post to represent my new understanding.

Thank you again.

Splashing Colours of Whimsy and Amos,

The Council of Trent did make marriage available to the “surfs” or the common people. I am including a link to a web site.

<a href="http://marriage.about.com/library/weekly/aa070198.htm?once=true&rnk=r6&terms=Polygamy" target="_blank">http://marriage.about.com/library/weekly/aa070198.htm?once=true&rnk=r6&terms=Polygamy</a>

Bree · 08-13-2002, 08:15 AM

From <a href="http://alt.usage.english" target="_blank">alt.usage.english FAQ</a>:

Quote:

[Fuck] is a very old word, recorded in English since the 15th century (few acronyms predate the 20th century), with cognates in other Germanic languages. The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (Random House, 1994, ISBN 0-394-54427-7) cites Middle Dutch fokken = "to thrust, copulate with"; Norwegian dialect fukka = "to copulate"; and Swedish dialect focka = "to strike, push, copulate" and fock = "penis". Although German ficken may enter the picture somehow, it is problematic in having e-grade, or umlaut, where all the others have o-grade or zero-grade of the vowel.

AHD1, following Pokorny, derived "feud", "fey", "fickle", "foe", and "fuck" from an Indo-European root peig2 = "hostile"; but AHD2 and AHD3 have dropped this connection for "fuck" and give no pre-Germanic etymon for it. Eric Partridge, in the 7th edition of Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (Macmillan, 1970), said that "fuck" "almost certainly" comes from the Indo-European root *peuk- = "to prick" (which is the source of the English words "compunction", "expunge", "impugn", "poignant", "point", "pounce", "pugilist", "punctuate", "puncture", "pungent", and "pygmy"). Robert Claiborne, in The Roots of English: A Reader's Handbook of Word Origin (Times, 1989) agrees that this is "probably" the etymon. Problems with such theories include a distribution that suggests a North-Sea Germanic areal form rather than an inherited one; the murkiness of the phonetic relations; and the fact that no alleged cognate outside Germanic has sexual connotations.

You can also find out more information at
<a href="http://www.snopes.com/" target="_blank">www.snopes.com</a> - do a search for the title "What the Fuck?" and you'll get a nice page full of information.

For the record, I wouldn't trust the Oxford English Dictionary. Here's the definition of America:

Quote:

AMERICA: a place which one longs to reach; an ultimate or idealised destination

Sowthistle · 08-13-2002, 02:30 PM

Is it my imagination, or was GeoTheo's last contribution to the debate a complete non-sequitur?

ST

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sowthistle ]

08-11-2002, 08:22 PM	#31
oneofshibumi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 749	BlueNose, OOOps!!! You are right. Thank you for the heads up. Unfortunately, the information I used was rather old (mid-70s) and from Spain. My instructor was a Benedictine monk, who in retrospect I believe was Gay. However, after researching the points you brought up, I accept your points as true. The laws my instructor referred to were the ones against the Mollies (bars were Gays hung out in old England). Also, the evidence that showed that King James I. I will edit my statement immediately. Thank you again. [ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: oneofshibumi ]</p>

08-13-2002, 02:30 PM	#40
Sowthistle Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 358	Is it my imagination, or was GeoTheo's last contribution to the debate a complete non-sequitur? ST [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sowthistle ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2002, 09:14 PM	#33
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	If I remember correctly "free love marriages" as we know it today was an institution of the 11th century. Before that arranged marriages only were sanctionned and it was the uniformity of Catholicism that made free love marriages possible. "Marriages arranged in heaven" (for Catholics only) is what led to the glory of the Church in the years to come and did not end until its end.

08-11-2002, 11:18 PM	#36
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	The answer to the question is no, it doesn't. I'm not even sure the question makes any sense. As someone already pointed out, there are thousands of denominations of Christians, many of which openly invite gays and lesbians to their services, have gay/lesbian members, and even have gay/lesbian ministers. The fact that there are gay/lesbian churches, members, and ministers. I mean, there's even an online magazine for <a href="http://www.whosoever.org/" target="_blank">gay/lesbian christians.</a> Sure, the Bible may imply homosexuality is wrong, some Christian denominations may say the same thing, but to make the blanket argument that Christianity, as a whole, promotes gay and lesbian bigotry, is simply wrong.

08-12-2002, 09:17 AM	#37
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Hello All: I have just read all these posts with interest, today. I have beem camping with realatives in Itaska State Park in MN, since thursday. I have some car problems to take care of and hope to be online again for a long stretch later this week. As I have told Scigirl, I don't have a home computer and post from either a public or University Library. I think there were some good points here, but the debate is not over as has been said. I will spend most of my effort responding to scigirl's posts but I might pop in here now and again. I am at a public library and now have to get off the computer. Sorry for creating so much suspense. Theo

08-12-2002, 03:07 PM	#38
oneofshibumi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 749	Splashing Colours of Whimsy, Thank you for the heads up. You are right about the etymology of FUCK. According to Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning I gave to the word is incorrect. The meaning of Fornication Under Crowned King. I will edit my post to represent my new understanding. Thank you again. Splashing Colours of Whimsy and Amos, The Council of Trent did make marriage available to the “surfs” or the common people. I am including a link to a web site. <a href="http://marriage.about.com/library/weekly/aa070198.htm?once=true&rnk=r6&terms=Polygamy" target="_blank">http://marriage.about.com/library/weekly/aa070198.htm?once=true&rnk=r6&terms=Polygamy</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.