Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:32:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1567 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message
news:I15rpI.1v7n@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> > So are public restrooms. Are you against separating those?
>
> I recognize that the law requires boys to pee in one place and girls to • pee in
> another, but I can't really think of a solid reason that this should be • so,
> other than because people can be quaintly immature about functions • involving the
> extretory and/or genitive organs of the body.
>
> You may note, for example, that the port-o-potties at many fairgrounds and
> campsites are not gender-specific, so there's obviously nothing inherent • in the
> booth/stall itself.
I'm with you on this one. I visited a dorm at MIT that had a co-ed bathroom,
that had multiple stalls and showers. At some Unitarian Universalist
conferences I've been to, one bathroom has been designated a "theirs". A
caving event I used to attend has three shower rooms, his, hers, and theirs.
With the way some folks express their homophobia, you'd thing they'd be a
lot more worried about getting jumped in the restroom by a member of their
own sex rather than the opposite.
I do grant though that co-ed multi-stall bathrooms might increase the amount
of assualt against women, though it seems like that should be a solvable
issue.
Of course the reason we won't see genderless bathrooms anytime is that men
who have most of the legislative power aren't about to vote to have to stand
in line to get into the restroom.
I have seen areas where portapotties were marked his or hers.
> Many atheists, I suspect, get married in churches for much the same • reasons.
> Family members do not respect the atheist's view, and the atheist decides • to
> placate the family by going through the motions, possibly because an • hours-worth
> of lip service is less inconvenient than 50 years of "you should have • gotten
> married in a church."
Hmm, a couple reasons... Some atheists attend church (ask around at any
Unitarian Universalist church). Others may do so because they associate
weddings with churches in a good way even though they themselves don't go to
church or believe in god.
> > People are morally rudderless; the Church is the moral anchor.
I'd say some churches are more morally rudderless than the people. I also
question just what makes a minister have a better moral rudder than anyone
else. Until you can prove that you are really interpreting "The Word Of God"
correctly, I'm not inclined to grant the church any special ability to be a
moral rudder, though I will grant that groups of people who come together to
discuss and share their views can server as a moral rudder.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) I recognize that the law requires boys to pee in one place and girls to pee in another, but I can't really think of a solid reason that this should be so, other than because people can be quaintly immature about functions involving the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
