What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Except you can't. Most theocons will preach that sex which in any way interferes with the possibility of conception is a sin. :rolleyes:
Granted most Theocons are some permutation of evil/crazy/stupid:

Stupid-Evil-Crazy2.jpg


But just because they are doesn't mean a good/sane/smart person can't promote birth control and also believe life begins at fertilization, or at penetration, or even at that first come-hither look:

dr-evil_288x288.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Perhaps it's just a matter of degree...there is a wide swath of Protestant belief in which preventive birth control is just fine while post-conception birth "control" is murder. Even the morning after pill is okay with these folks because "human life" only begins after the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall. If the fertilized egg is flushed from the womb before it implants, even that is okay with them.

Not sure how in vitro fits within this view....

According to Catholic canon, if you use any contraceptive methods other than so-called "natural planning", you get extra time in the slammer in purgatory. :p
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

According to Catholic canon, if you use any contraceptive methods other than so-called "natural planning", you get extra time in the slammer in purgatory. :p
FWIW, I don't think the Church views Purgatory as a "place" anymore. It is more like a rung on a celestial Maslow ladder: Heaven is the Actuality of oneness with God, Purgatory is the Becoming of oneness with God.

Hell is still Philadelphia.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

According to Catholic canon, if you use any contraceptive methods other than so-called "natural planning", you get extra time in the slammer in purgatory. :p

Hence my use of the word "Protestant." or are you saying that Catholics are theocons?? :confused:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

In my experience, they can be, even though the Protestant variety would hate to be associated with the icky papists.

Not a lot of sermons about the Whore of Babylon anymore. ;)

luther-whore.jpg


(Not only that, but in Heaven there is no beer.)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FWIW, I don't think the Church views Purgatory as a "place" anymore. It is more like a rung on a celestial Maslow ladder: Heaven is the Actuality of oneness with God, Purgatory is the Becoming of oneness with God.

Hell is still Philadelphia.
Purgatory is still a place one goes to get "purified" to get into heaven. It can be a short stay, or it can be for a while. Hell is for those who spit in the face of God.

Since Apb. Chaput got to Philadelphia, hell has no more dominion.

Do we still recognize "sin"? Or, do we prefer a church of feel good?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FWIW, I don't think the Church views Purgatory as a "place" anymore. It is more like a rung on a celestial Maslow ladder: Heaven is the Actuality of oneness with God, Purgatory is the Becoming of oneness with God.

Hell is still Philadelphia.
The entire state of Wisconsin is worse than Philly, then. Alan Rickman said so.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why are we assuming that everyone who believes that life begins at conception is religious?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why are we assuming that everyone who believes that life begins at conception is religious?
Probably because that's the most vocal group with that position and they also apply an arbitrary unsupported sanctity to that life which then protects it up until it comes out of the strange female lady parts that really just needs to keep it's legs together unless it's married.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Probably because that's the most vocal group with that position and they also apply an arbitrary unsupported sanctity to that life which then protects it up until it comes out of the strange female lady parts that really just needs to keep it's legs together unless it's married.
You forgot that the guy is supposed to keep it in his pants until united in holy matrimony, too.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You forgot that the guy is supposed to keep it in his pants until united in holy matrimony, too.

Yeah, but biology means his consequences are, in reality, far less severe than the average woman's. And let's face it, it's not like guys really get shunned for sleeping around, especially pre-marriage. "man-whore" is a relatively new slang term.

Tiger Woods only got slammed because he was married and his wife was way hotter than his mistresses. If he'd still been single, the world would've given a collective, "meh."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You forgot that the guy is supposed to keep it in his pants until united in holy matrimony, too.
I didn't, guys can't control themselves, women are tempting them into action against their sound logic and reason. It's the woman's job to stay chaste, not the mans.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Yeah, but biology means his consequences are, in reality, far less severe than the average woman's. And let's face it, it's not like guys really get shunned for sleeping around, especially pre-marriage. "man-whore" is a relatively new slang term.

Tiger Woods only got slammed because he was married and his wife was way hotter than his mistresses. If he'd still been single, the world would've given a collective, "meh."

No, half the world would have said "meh" and the other half would have nudged each other and said, "Good for him" with a wry smile.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I didn't, guys can't control themselves, women are tempting them into action against their sound logic and reason. It's the woman's job to stay chaste, not the mans.

So that's why you switched sides? :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

guys can't control themselves, women are tempting them into action against their sound logic and reason.

What happens when the exact opposite happens? You know, the "human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria" kind of scenario?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Yeah, but biology means his consequences are, in reality, far less severe than the average woman's. And let's face it, it's not like guys really get shunned for sleeping around, especially pre-marriage. "man-whore" is a relatively new slang term.

Tiger Woods only got slammed because he was married and his wife was way hotter than his mistresses. If he'd still been single, the world would've given a collective, "meh."
Guys are irresponsible. No doubt about it. And as a society we don't emphasize healthy behaviors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top