No same-sex hugs allowed

[chatfsh]

No, but it strongly suggests that Jewish society was intolerant of it.  Amongst the orthodox Jews, there is still a strong, scripturally based aversion toward homosexuality.  And the Muslims

[Wolf]

It suggests, but fails to prove. You concede that scripture can say one thing and the society it governs may practice another--I believe Leviticus has over 200 scriptural laws, many of which are insane in any society, so, the possibility of course exists that homosexuality may have been "outlawed" as far as the clergy was concerned, but only as far as the clergy was concerned.

But now, time for Wolf's Did You Know?!

Did you know that if you applied the same standard of evidence to the naturalistic origin of species as you did here to the classical Judaic prohibition of homosexual behavior, then you'd have to accept both? Without any historical records, anecdotes, or other showings that the prohibition of homosexual behavior (at least insofar as men are concerned, the "statute" seems to differentiate between men and women--suggesting that homosexual behavior may have been tolerated among females) was actually enforced, then you and I are just spitting air at each other. EDIT: This is actually unfair to the N.O.o.S people: they at least asserted some evidence to back up their claims. But, wow, I just can't help that side of me that's obsessed with justice and fairness, and gotta give you all the breaks you can get. What a great man am I, huh?

I mean, but you don't have to do that. I'm perfectly willing to concede that you're absolutely right about the actual enforcement patterns of classical Judaic scripture. Even based solely on the scripture itself without any supporting evidence. So long of course that you're fair and apply the same burden to the naturalistic origin of species. Because, you know, that's what an actually decent person would do--not be a hypocrite. You are decent, are you?

[ErasOmnius]

I disagree... the final nail in the coffin of the Byzantine Empire came with the sack of 1204. They had only the barest of control over Asia Minor, having had already lost the territory to Easterners as far back as 1100, and battle constantly for dominion over those provinces. But with the destruction of the capital by Western Crusaders, the Byzantine Empire as a functioning state ceased to exist, and never really commanded any power or authority in the Balkans or the Med ever again.

EDIT: And what the hell, this was in the "same-sex hugs" thread? Isn't this the most ridiculous topic ever started? Who here reasonably thinks its inappropriate for one to hug one's good friend or sibling of the same sex? If we're going to debate the absurd point "gay sex destroys nations," let's at least be honest about it.

Oh, and as for this gem:

Norway, a country with less than 1/60 the population and slightly more than 1/48 the GDP of the United States, can fully fund education through graduate school as well as universal health care for all citizens. Fact. It's not that we can't do it, it's that we refuse to do it: spending the money frivolously on random projects and losing huge overheads to governmental waste. I don't think it's the people that are the problem...

Byzantium: We both agree that the Greek Byzantine Empire had fallen into decline long before 1204, but they still had their flourishments up until the Sack by the 'Crusaders'. My point is that the Eastern Roman entity was able to last almost 900 years because they out-birthed everyone else, and raised their children with an emphasis on discipline and religion.

Would they still exist today? Perhaps. But a culture came upon them, Islam, that actually had a higher birth-rate; and took them over.

Norway: Is a temporary anomaly. Because of Norway's vast petroleum reserves the tide is temporarily staved off. But let's face it once and for all.

The Europeans are being replaced by Middle Eastern immigrants. The Anglo-America culture is being Hispanicized. If trends continue, and they will, the culture trade should be complete by 2050 or 2060.

[ErasOmnius]

Just because the prohibition appeared in scripture does not necessarily mean that classical Judaic society was intolerant of homosexuality. Because most Catholics don't have hamburgers on Friday and Muslims never, ever drink, right? And China is still a state fully practicing Marxism-Leninism? I'm sure classical Jews also murdered their brothers for failing to avoid planting different crops in the same plot.

If a belief is not re-iterated in the New Testament, then it is no longer in effect.

The whole system of blending of clothes, dietary concerns, from the Old Covenant dealt strictly with God trying to keep a nation-state pure and on course in a lust-filled world. In the New Covenant, Christians are not to kill homosexuals, but reach out to them, and show them the Light.

But just as homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testament, it is condemned in the New. 

[Dante]

Really? Chapter and verse, please.

[Wolf]

Byzantium: We both agree that the Greek Byzantine Empire had fallen into decline long before 1204, but they still had their flourishments up until the Sack by the 'Crusaders'. My point is that the Eastern Roman entity was able to last almost 900 years because they out-birthed everyone else, and raised their children with an emphasis on discipline and religion.

See, that's interesting to me, because I remember once reading about Byzantine military tactics ca. 12th-13th centuries, and recall seeing that one of their chief problems was the untrustworthiness of foreign auxiliaries that they were forced to use because of their perennial lack of manpower. You'd think a country that could "out-birth" "everyone else" wouldn't need to rely on foreign soldiers to fill out its ranks?

Finally, the Arab world may have a higher birthrate than the West today, but I think, pretty consistently after the 14th century, the West "out-birthed," as you like to say it, pretty much every Islamic entity in the world. Although serious incursions into Spain and the Balkans were made by Islamic powers and halted, Western birth-rates continued to rise precipitously, to the point where, around 1900, Europeans accounted for almost a third of the world's population. I don't think the Ottoman Empire--because this is really who you're taking about--effected the fall of the Byzantine Empire through demographic overwhelm, rather, I think they did it through military victories and successful transformation of Byzantine neighbors into client states. If the Ottoman Turks were truly able to defeat the Byzantine Greeks and conquer the Balkans via means of demography, then why are there hardly any Turks in the Balkans today? Why do the Greeks have a comparable population to Turkey? I think you're pretty much inventing "history" to support... some sort of nefarious modern view. So, what is it, you don't like the idea that future-Americans might be of a different ethnicity than you? What's the deal here, bro?

[ErasOmnius]

See, that's interesting to me, because I remember once reading about Byzantine military tactics ca. 12th-13th centuries, and recall seeing that one of their chief problems was the untrustworthiness of foreign auxiliaries that they were forced to use because of their perennial lack of manpower. You'd think a country that could "out-birth" "everyone else" wouldn't need to rely on foreign soldiers to fill out its ranks?

Finally, the Arab world may have a higher birthrate than the West today, but I think, pretty consistently after the 14th century, the West "out-birthed," as you like to say it, pretty much every Islamic entity in the world. Although serious incursions into Spain and the Balkans were made by Islamic powers and halted, Western birth-rates continued to rise precipitously, to the point where, around 1900, Europeans accounted for almost a third of the world's population. I don't think the Ottoman Empire--because this is really who you're taking about--effected the fall of the Byzantine Empire through demographic overwhelm, rather, I think they did it through military victories and successful transformation of Byzantine neighbors into client states. If the Ottoman Turks were truly able to defeat the Byzantine Greeks and conquer the Balkans via means of demography, then why are there hardly any Turks in the Balkans today? Why do the Greeks have a comparable population to Turkey? I think you're pretty much inventing "history" to support... some sort of nefarious modern view. So, what is it, you don't like the idea that future-Americans might be of a different ethnicity than you? What's the deal here, bro?

You're right about the population of Europe in 1900! The West [at this time following the concept of being 'fruitful and multiplying'] did begin out-birthing the Turks starting in the early 1500s. The Turks slowly got caught in a vise that began with the naval Battle of Lepanto in the 1570s, the huge military loss at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the each and every year chipping away by the Russians in the 1700s, and the uprisings in the Balkans in the 1800s.

These are gradual differences between the birth rate of the Turks/Arabic client states of the period 1500-1900, and the so-called 'Christian' Europe.

It's different now. For the first time in human history, a supra-national state culture [The West] has advocated not having enough children to reproduce oneself statistically, geographically, and culturally.

As far as the future of the West, it bothers me very little what the future ethnicity is of the country I live in, the United States. I am an Italian-American married to a Scot/French/Native American-American woman.

And I am filled with sadness as so-called 'good people' who put down Hispanic immigrants in the southern part of our country. These immigrants believe in large, well-disciplined families, and are immigrating to obtain jobs and happiness.

The so-called good 'traditional Americans' who put them down are almost embarrassing themselves -- overconcerned about the sexual rights [to abortion, to sleep around on their spouses, to same-gender relations].

[Anathema]

Wrong.  I believe that this little gem is part of the Jewish Torah:

I thought it was obvious, but I'll clarify: I meant in the world in general. AFAIK the jews were the only people in antiquity who punished homosexuality. Some other civilizations looked unfavorably on it, but they didn't execute them like the Hebrews did.

And by the time Islam kicked in, christianity was already the dominant religion of the "known world" (in the eyes of Europe, of course). As someone who doesn't believe in any of those scriptures, it should be obvious that Islam would never have existed without christianity, and that therefore christianity is the root cause of anti-homosexual sentiment outside the jewish community.

Byzantium: We both agree that the Greek Byzantine Empire had fallen into decline long before 1204' date=' but they still had their flourishments up until the Sack by the 'Crusaders'. My point is that the Eastern Roman entity was able to last almost 900 years because they out-birthed everyone else, and raised their children with an emphasis on discipline and religion.

Would they still exist today? Perhaps. But a culture came upon them, Islam, that actually had a higher birth-rate; and took them over.

Norway: Is a temporary anomaly. Because of Norway's vast petroleum reserves the tide is temporarily staved off. But let's face it once and for all.

The Europeans are being replaced by Middle Eastern immigrants. The Anglo-America culture is being Hispanicized. If trends continue, and they will, the culture trade should be complete by 2050 or 2060.[/quote']

The Byantine empire collapsed because of a myriad of reasons, picking out one supposed reason (declining birth rates, wich I'm sceptical of anyway) is disengenious.

For one thing, the Arabs were muslims too and tried to besiege Constantinople twice and failed each time. For that matter, the only reason the Arabs got so far in the first place was because the Byzantines had been exhausted by a war with the Persians.

A much more important cause is the battle of Manzikert (around 1000 AD, if I recall correctly), wich the Turks won (mostly through sheer luck, and mismanagement of the Byzantine troops) and enabled them to settle in Anatolia/Asia Minor. The Byzantines reconquered most of the territories afterwards, but the economic damage and demographic changes caused by the Turks had permanently spoiled it as a recruitment area for soldiers.

And secondly, the capture of Constantinople by treacherous crusaders. After it switched to Greek hands again, the new Byzantine state never became more than a city-empire with some coastal holdings.

As for birth rates in the modern world, the modest growth of western populations is one of the reason why the relatively "few" of us are so well off. Many developping countries have trouble matching economic growth with population growth. And as Edric has mentioned we're beginning to approach the point were the Earth can't support more humans, or at least not without damage to the world's biodiversity. Europeans and Americans don't need to make more babies (or at least not above the level required for sustainment), the rest of the world needs to make less of them.

[Wolf]

The Europeans are being replaced by Middle Eastern immigrants. The Anglo-America culture is being Hispanicized. If trends continue, and they will, the culture trade should be complete by 2050 or 2060.

This is completely factually incorrect. The United States is currently a 75-80% white society. By mid-century, it will be a 70-75% white society--the vast majority of immigrating Hispanics are racially white, and are about as easy to assimilate as the Germans, Italians and Irish were (before Mexican immigration, the largest three ethnicities in the United States). Over the course of two or three generations, these groups were indistinguishable from "native" white Americans, despite not even being considered "white" until the late 19th/early 20th century. Non-Hispanic whites will still retain a plurality of 45-50% of the population, but this is only of course assuming that the current, extremely high level of illegal immigration into the U.S. is tolerated indefinitely and the rates remain the same.

As for Europe... most European countries are 90-95% white societies. Britain is a 95% English country that--like you--often thinks that "the English" will be extinct by mid-century. The non-English 5% are mostly Eastern European, so, racially, Britain is nearly 97-98% white. The ethnic-English share of the population is not projected to drop more than 1 or 2% by 2050. As for Germany, while Turks are immigrating in large numbers, they are immigrating at nowhere near U.S.-Mexican levels, and ethnic Germans remain at 91% of the population, with Turks at a mere 2%. As for France, immigrants make up only 8% of the population, half of which are emigrants from other European states. Although France does not compile racial and ethnic statistics of its population, it's highly likely that between 90 and 95% of it's ~65,000,000 people are ethnically French. Italy is 92.5% Italian, with it's largest ethnic minority, 4%, being "Eastern Europeans" (primarily Romanians). The European states facing the most rapid depopulation are the Ukraine and Russia, in that order, and that is primarily because of emigration and low life expectancy coupled with a low birth rate. However, fret not, Mr. Omnius, as these people are not being replaced by "Middle Eastern hordes"--they are being replaced by no one.

So, why were you under the exact opposite impression?

[athanasios]

Really? Chapter and verse, please.

1Timothy 1:9-11:

9  in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, 10  fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching 11  according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted.

Romans 1:24-27:

24  Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25  even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26  That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27  and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

9  What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God

[SandChigger]

1Timothy 1:9-11

Romans 1:24-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Paulian excrescences which mostly provide evidence of the Heresiarch's own prejudices, sexual hang-ups and dysfunctions.

Islamic Nazi

Ooh, pot and kettle, what?

[Caid Ivik]

1Timothy 1:9-11:

9  in the knowledge of this fact, that law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, 10  fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching 11  according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted.

Romans 1:24-27:

24  Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25  even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26  That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27  and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

9  What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God

[Anathema]

"αισχινης κατα τιμαρχου

[Dante]

Yeah... Greece actually has a long history of open homosexual behaviour. Pre-christian of course. Have a look at this link and this time check the article's sources instead of immediately dismissing it as wikipropaganda, mmkay?

As for the biblical nonsense, which I must admit was in greater volume than anticipated, I have a rather neat reply:

The laws, the rules, the opinions of men who lived long ago are inapplicable to modern society.

Getting back on topic a bit, that couple in Malawi were being moved to seperate prisons last I heard. Any news on that?

[ErasOmnius]

This is completely factually incorrect. The United States is currently a 75-80% white society. By mid-century, it will be a 70-75% white society--the vast majority of immigrating Hispanics are racially white, and are about as easy to assimilate as the Germans, Italians and Irish were (before Mexican immigration, the largest three ethnicities in the United States). Over the course of two or three generations, these groups were indistinguishable from "native" white Americans, despite not even being considered "white" until the late 19th/early 20th century. Non-Hispanic whites will still retain a plurality of 45-50% of the population, but this is only of course assuming that the current, extremely high level of illegal immigration into the U.S. is tolerated indefinitely and the rates remain the same.

As for Europe... most European countries are 90-95% white societies. Britain is a 95% English country that--like you--often thinks that "the English" will be extinct by mid-century. The non-English 5% are mostly Eastern European, so, racially, Britain is nearly 97-98% white. The ethnic-English share of the population is not projected to drop more than 1 or 2% by 2050. As for Germany, while Turks are immigrating in large numbers, they are immigrating at nowhere near U.S.-Mexican levels, and ethnic Germans remain at 91% of the population, with Turks at a mere 2%. As for France, immigrants make up only 8% of the population, half of which are emigrants from other European states. Although France does not compile racial and ethnic statistics of its population, it's highly likely that between 90 and 95% of it's ~65,000,000 people are ethnically French. Italy is 92.5% Italian, with it's largest ethnic minority, 4%, being "Eastern Europeans" (primarily Romanians). The European states facing the most rapid depopulation are the Ukraine and Russia, in that order, and that is primarily because of emigration and low life expectancy coupled with a low birth rate. However, fret not, Mr. Omnius, as these people are not being replaced by "Middle Eastern hordes"--they are being replaced by no one.

So, why were you under the exact opposite impression?

Send the link.

If an immigrant comes to your nation, and has 5-8 children; and the host nation white only has 1.1 child -- your theory does not hold up.

For the record, it does not matter to me, if Europe becomes majority Muslim/Middle East or remains Agnostic/traditional European.

As far as Hispanic immigration into America, I am not agsinst it in the least. I do feel that the law should be loosened to help them get into the USA easier, and I do not believe they should immigrate illegally.

[Edric O]

ErasOmnius, your mistake lies in confusing ethnic origin with culture and religion. People do not always follow the religion of their parents, and they almost never follow the exact same cultural practices as their parents. Compare the culture of China with the culture of the grandchildren of Chinese immigrants to the US, for example. They are extremely different. Culture changes as generations pass. Religious beliefs also change, though at a slower pace.

Therefore, just because people from a certain culture or religion are having more children, that does not necessarily mean that their culture or religion is growing at the same rate as their population.

And, of course, every time we talk about things that will happen 50 years or more into the future, we must bear in mind that the future is unpredictable. Something could happen in the mean time that will completely overturn existing trends.

[chatfsh]

If a belief is not re-iterated in the New Testament, then it is no longer in effect.

The whole system of blending of clothes, dietary concerns, from the Old Covenant dealt strictly with God trying to keep a nation-state pure and on course in a lust-filled world. In the New Covenant, Christians are not to kill homosexuals, but reach out to them, and show them the Light.

But just as homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testament, it is condemned in the New. 

Agreed.  The New Covenant is fully applicable to modern society.  God, in His infinite wisdom, saw to it that certain aspects of the Old Testament laws were reaffirmed in the New Testament -- like loving God above all else, the prohibition against idolatry, adultery and homosexuality.

google translate/some words by me:

"If someone is gay Athenian active or passive, then subject to the rules of the following prohibitions and penalties

ie not:

a: to elect as one of nine archontes.

b: to become priest.

c: to speak in public diki.

d: to understand any public office or to represent the city of Athens within or outside the city.

e: to perform the functions of kirykos.

f: to be consulted on the public, which is to vote and to have political rights.

g: to enter the temples and at the shrines of other public cities.

a: to participate in religious ceremonies crowned stefanoforion.

i: to wander in public places purged with rantisma.

and if someone violated the above prohibitory provisions, and if one has been charged proven homosexuality is punishable by death penalty'.

Interesting, I did not know that. 

[Dante]

New law and old law

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

   Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

   For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

...

Adultery

You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

   If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Divorce

It was said, "Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce."

   But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

...

Money

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

   But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

   The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

   No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

The Sermon on the Mount. You might recognise it. So the New Testament is entirely applicable to modern life, hm?

Edit: I don't know why I bothered doing that, your ridiculous dogma has the moral weight of a diarrhoeaic shrew anyway.

[chatfsh]

The Sermon on the Mount. You might recognise it. So the New Testament is entirely applicable to modern life, hm?.

Yes, absolutely.  When one commits their life to Christ, they are obliged to follow all of his precepts.  As Jesus himself said, he fulfilled the Old Testament law, accomplished all that it required.  No one else could make such a claim.  On the last night of his earthly life, Christ told his disciples that he was making a New Covenant with then.  He, alone, had the right to do that, since he, alone, fulfilled the Old Testament law perfectly.  This New Covenant would remain in FULL force until His return.

Edit: I don't know why I bothered doing that...

Perhaps the Holy Spirit moved you...

[Wolf]

Send the link.

It sucks that you can't even take that post at face value--it seems that you really don't feel like doing any work for these discussions. I'm not going to post all of them, but here is the one for United States demographics. You can find the others by doing wiki searches for "demographics of Germany," etc.

EDIT: Oh, and it's not a "theory," Eras, and it's churlish of you to term it such--it's the actual factual analysis: the total fertility rate (for all Americans, irrespective of race) is about 2.1--which is essentially slightly above replacement. Virtually all U.S. population growth comes from immigration, and the total fertility rate for immigrants is only around 3. The non-Hispanic white American population is not decreasing, it is expected to remain around 220,000,000. The addition of Hispanic whites will increase this number, and that is why the overall share of white Americans will remain about 70%.

For someone who is so concerned about racial and ethnic demographics, Eras you really should do this reading yourself.

[SandChigger]

What does the text say literally?

I ask this, because the word "homsexual" (person) or "gay" are modern inventions.

A proper translation (by Charles Darwin Adams, no less!) helps immensely:

If any Athenian shall have prostituted his person, he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons, nor to discharge the office of priest, nor to act as an advocate for the state, nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or by election; he shall not be sent as a herald; he shall not take part in debate, nor be present at public sacrifices; when the citizens are wearing garlands, he shall wear none; and he shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. If any man who has been convicted of prostitution act contrary to these prohibitions, he shall be put to death. (from Against Timarchus)

The important word in the first clause is εταιρησει, which is a verb form I can't be arsed to parse at this time of night, but it's related to the word hetaira "female courtesan; prostitute", feminine of hetairos "companion".

Note that the death penalty is not for homosexuality at all, as is implied by the half-assed machine translation first posted here, but for violation of the restrictions placed upon someone who HAS BEEN CONVICTED of prostitution.

Re a separate issue, I really must object to things like "Quote from: Jesus" or "As Jesus himself said...", since the person referred to by that name, if he actually existed, left no writings of his own nor were his words taken down verbatim by any professional scribe. To portray the quoted texts as anything other than second- or third-hand accounts is to do naughty & unwanted violence to the fanny of the truth.

[Dante]

When in Rome, SandChigger. Sometimes I'm foolish enough to argue with people on their own ridiculous terms. Thankfully it doesn't last long and I can retreat to my standard practice of denying all points of reference.

"The bible says X!"

"The bible also says Y."

"The bible says Z!"

"Good thing that the bible is a load of rubbish then, right?"

That and I got Hwi to implicitly admit that divorce is the same as adultery, which was amusing enough in itself to make that line of argument worthwhile. Not sure she understood the line "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" though.

Anyway, in another effort to get back on topic, not-so-recent news is that that couple have been presidentially pardoned, though it's not a happily ever after story.

[SandChigger]

No way of them emigrating, I suppose?

[Dante]

Might not even have occured to them. Lets face it, they're not that well educated and certainly not possessed of great funds or friends. Women in their situation would almost certainly be the target of "corrective" rape, and it's not a pretty picture for the men either.

[Anathema]

Frank, you had it right. The character of the Baron says it all when it comes to the topic of this thread.

I missed this part.

I take it you've never read God Emperor of Dune?