we did study shakespeare too which was just as crap as clueless apart from maybe Mcbeth, we studied the film clueless, camera angles an the likes and why they did certain things an all that crap.
Hells Bells, when I did English we had to study Shakespeare & Waugh & Chaucer (and not in a modern english version either) & Stoppard. Beggars the question as to what exactly kids are getting taught these days.
at the end of clueless alice silverstone starts goin out with her step brother, and cruel intentions in abit weird when they're gonna sleep together, so what if they're step siblings it's still wrong.
hahaha, random nick the chef but cool I see your point.
Arse - I don't think its that simple, I mean how is it morally worng? I mean what they never grew up together, just met as teenagers and fell for one another? Its love, how can that be wrong? They could produce a baby without added risks of problems so nature has it as ok. I mean its all up to interpretation I guess but I don't see it as that bad. There is a lot worse going on int he world then 2 non related people getting it on.
Everyone on this Forum is hotter than the sun, but Buffy is, like, super hot, she’s hotter than the hottest thing ever, but then a bit hotter. But still not as hot as that old lady dressed as a super-heroine on Guiding Light. Or David Jason dressed as Batman. Hubba! Brrrr!
As for step-lovers, I don’t want to sound like Mr softy liberal marshmallow heart but they should be made to run a gauntlet of physical and verbal abuse down the Headrow before being stoned to death in Millennium Square, by members of their own families. There would of course be rides and candy floss for the kiddies.
And hey, what if you were totally hot but your step-bro/sis was a real honker and they were like totally trying to get on you and touch you and stuff. Never mind morals, that would be superbadnasty. Eeew!
when there are murderers, rapists, pedo's, thieves, muggers, drug dealers and all osrts of nasty people out there to arrest, I dont think 2 concenting, non blood related adults should be arrested just coz they fall in love and have sex.
it's moral crime of the century and they should be stopped by MORAL MAN, key word in step relation is BROTHER AND SISTER, imagine your brother or sister trying to bust a move on you....yeah.....exactly thats what I thought. Anyway back to topic, what's everyone doing over christmas? going to somewhere nice and hot? staying in england to be eternally rained on?
Seriously though, incest occurs pretty much only in Genesis and after that God starts laying down the law and getting real strict about such naughty things. The Shadow knows.
ur right , its mainly in genises. I thought there was some more in the OT but its been sooooo long since I read the bible and memorising scrpiture was never my strong point.
its still condoned in it anyway.
seriously, no blood ties, who the hell cares? its not that bad.
hey, there is all kinds of deep discussions on marality and behaviour and good and eveil and responsibility we could have but they have no place ona comics forum.
nah its too deep really. Lets keep it to men and women and tight costumes!! (see I dont take myself too seriously, leaving myself wide oepn for a joke with that comment)
What about parent who divorced and had a go at their child's partner's parent?
If they later married, it'd be weird because their children would already be married to each other, but they'd also become step-siblings. It's all a big moral confusion when people can't stick to their first marriage or end up with kids before getting married. Even if there's no family blood involved, it would seem really morally wrong. Like it's ok because you're adopted NOT. Practically (biologically) it seems ok, just not morally (sociologically), maybe we need some academics to jump in on this topic.
what would you do if you got with a girl (or a guy if u ra girl) and then through that say ur mum met their dad or vice cersa again, feell in love and got married...would you then give up on your love, that you met first because now you would be step bro and sis??? Would that be fair??
Inter family relations have a had a long history of being socially accepted, its really only in the last centuary it has become taboo. Hell the British tradition in the upper classes is to keep it in the family, the Royals all marry along family blood lines, thats your country's leader. If they can do it, why not some non blood related ordinary people?
Great empires had inter family relations, the British Royals, The Romans, The Greeks and plenty more and yes they are past now but thats down to time, not their marriage habits.
put it this way ok.
Some masked man comes in the shop and ribs you or one of your female staff, threatening you or staff with a loaded gun. They steal your money and trumatise you/staff.
Who would you rather the police arrest and spend their time investigating?
the guy that robbed your shop and trumatised your staff or 2 concenting adults, in their twenties or older who aren't blood related, have fallen in love and have a relationship???
Minor point perhaps, but traditionally you're supposed to love someone before you marry them, not because you've married them.
I broke your code too. "Some really really tall, like over 7 foot tall, masked man comes in the shop..."
''Geoff Tipps, a clever man with a big cock, comes in and stops the king from being killed. He is a Hero. His cock is big'' http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0435687/quotes
yeah look what incest did for royal familys, they all went nuts, oh the romans did it so it must be ok, no not really does the roman empire still exist? no. I'm not a christian so why would i care what they do in the bible, so you're saying that before the bible was written there were no morals?
and the Royals are still going so that answers that point and the Romans ruled for god knows how long and pretty much ruled the world. Yeah they arent around now but thats itme, time move son, not coz they did a bit of incest.
I am saying modern day morality, dervies form old morals decided years ago which was taken from the Bible, which condones incest.
so using "morality" as an argument against step relations is a bit lacking.
So X, to extend your reasoning - The Aztecs had one of the most richest empires in South America, and they committed ritual sacrifices. As America is now one of the most powerful countries in the world, does that mean that they should start sacrificing babies and virgins if they want to get even more powerful?
The error you're making is to take two facts and assume there's a link between them, when in fact they're independent. The Romans and the royals didn't get their power from incest, in fact it had nothing to do with them getting power at all.
Let's try some other "facts" * Ed Gein was a man AND lived alone, so all men who live alone make furniture out of corpses. * Napoleon was really short AND became emperor of France, so the if you want to be emperor of France, you need to be short.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
IF you can demonstrate that incest was the reason for the growth of the Roman empire, then I'll happily admit defeat.
Also, the bible says a lot of things:
Ever cursed either parent? Death. "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Mark 7:10).
Overweight? Death. "The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel" (Psalms 78:31)
Parents not married? You're going to hell. "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord: even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord" (Deuteronomy 23:2).
except not really because i never said incest made empires did I????
People were going on about how bad step-relations is and how its morally wrong. I said that some of the most powerful and successful family's/civilisations/political systems inudlged in incest (such as the romans) or had inter family/blood line/step relations (like the british royal family).
So if step relations are so bad, and so affecting and so on, then why did it not effect these great empires?? It didnt, it didnt bring them down, it didnt stop them being succesful and it hasn't stopped people holding them in the highest regard for hundreds of years. So while you guys may see step relations as "wrong" the millions of consensus dont agree, or at least not enough to do something about it at any rate.
The Aztecs and the indignious tribes you speak of were central and south american based and bare no realtion to the USA. So saying there is some suggested link of power is false. The USA was built by the brits and germans (empires) and the central americas get their asses handed to them on plate and have done for hundreds of years.
I never said the Bible was a 'how to for life' and nor is is something that should be taken literally.
But someone up their pointed out that the bible condemns step relations. I point out it condones it, including step relations. The morals that was spoken off are derived form the Bible, so using a moral argument against it falls down becuause your basis for morals, backs step relations.
As you point out hough rob, the bible is full of inconsistancies and if had ever did an RS lesson with me or seen me in the odd religious chat room, or talking to fundamenalist and literalist christians, you would know my feelings on the bible.
saying that, the bible is down to interpretation, including some of those quotes you have their. Its context, subtext, historical factors, form, subject and redaction criticsim theory and so on.
the ed gein and napolen points menat nothing as I never said one thing equals another.
I said one thing that you think is bad (step relations) did not negatively effect something that was successful and had an impact on the world (empires).
I notice OK, that you didn't answer my question. Who would you want the police to arrest? the armed robber or 2 adults in love that happen to have one parent married to the others parent???
I think Walkin's point is that it didn't do that much damage, not as if it lead them to greatness. Unfortunatly if he chose less grandeur examples it wouldn't hold up as much, make your own examples.
Also if your parent married someone who wasn't your biological parent would the Bible consider that they were your parent as well? and so their children become your siblings? Is there any mention of such instances in the Bible?
I am pretty sure in the OT at leats theire are families that married and so creating step bros and sisters that then got married. But my recall of OT tales off the top of my head isn't too great.
the bible condones blood incest tho so, you know, al down to interpretation.
Ok, so step bro and sis get togther. How does it ruin them in itself? It doesnt. Only outside factors do that, not anything that they do. Any damage is external and so not down to the step relations being together.
not religious in the snese of being a bible bashing, literalist, christian nutter.
I am a christian but I dont go to church, I am techincally C of E but I am not really aprt of any church. I have my own ideas and intpretations of religion, the bible etc.
I do find religion and subjects surounding it, fascinating tho and I would say it is in interest of mine.
but do I go to chruch, rgeular read a bible or a fundamentalist? No I am not and I have upset quite a few christains and rleigious people with my views.
so you are a fundamentalist upsetting normal people with your radical views. I'm still goin with rob, what he says is more believeable and also he's not sexually obsessed with a fictional woman.
All of a sudden, now the Asda shop is out of the way and there's no more work until the 8th and the mobile is switched off, I'm starting to feel festive. Not a lot, but it's getting there.
