Girl Genius

I reject this outdated worldview.
Doubly so within the context of this fictional universe in which it clearly doesn't apply.

Why? As long as everyone involved knows what's going on and is okay with it, what's the harm?

Also, polygamy is hardly an invention of the modern world.

(If anyone doesn't want this discussion in the thread, I'll be happy to shut right up about it.)

'Scuse, please?

I would just like to ask people to respect the rights of those on either side to believe within the framework of their own moral system and say so. The rights of belief and speech have to matter when you don't agree, as well as when you do.

But the respect cuts both ways.

---

Ok. I'm going to add a bit more.

There are not just theological reasons for traditional marital structures, there are practical ones, and grounds for believing some kinds of sexual action to have a powerful moral element. Modern changes in economics, social structure, and biological choices have put some of those elements in question...

We've already heard several people here state strongly where they come down on some of those questions. Which is good. But try to remember that ALL of you believe what you believe out of true moral understandings of what is good, right, and true, no matter how your conclusions differ. Treat each other like the passionate, loving, moral people you are all trying to be yourselves: just because someone concludes differently does not mean he or she is not trying exactly as hard to reach the "right" answers.

Thanks.

edited 29th Mar '13 5:01:43 PM by Hippogrif

Mostly Harmless.

& The people involved in the affair are not necessarily the only ones affected. How do you think it feels for a kid to not have a father because his or her mother doesn't know which guy was responsible for his conception?

Also, the Christian Church forbids polygamy. No good can come of the decay of moral standards in the modern world.

I hear you. I just strongly feel the need to express my belief on this important issue. As you said, respect cuts both ways. And I feel that I could not remain silent on the matter. Enough said.

"May you live in interesting times."- Chinese curse.

Well, you see, I think modern morals are generally better than those of the past; at least partly because we now have enough control over our lives to not be as ruthless. So your moral decay, is my moral improvement.

People have the right to pursue happiness, as far as it can be done without breaking the law. If someone wishes to live their life by the standard of their religion, that is fine, as long as they don't harangue those who choose not to. If someone wishes to arrange their life by more modern sensibilities, that is fine, as long as they don't harangue those who are more traditional.

People are allowed to be wrong, as long as they obey our laws. It is the responsibility of everyone to work out how best to live their life. We will all make mistakes and be wrong about something at some time. No-one will be universally loved and respected, we all need to live with the fact we will offend someone, that someone will think we are wrong. Those someones may even be otherwise nice people that we wish would like us. The important thing is to be comfortable with ourselves, and let others be themselves even if we don't like their ideas.

Myself, as long as the people involved in the relationship are happy with it, that's their business and I don't judge.

edited 29th Mar '13 5:11:54 PM by Lightningnettle

Ok. Now: You've stated (and are welcome to have stated) your position, some of the practical concerns, and the religious background from which you draw your own ethical/moral system. You've done so in a way that kind of implies that there can be no other strong or legitimate moral system, which is a bit...questionable. But we do know where you stand, why, and what tradition you draw from.

That said, please note that the other people are also drawing from moral bases and arguments. They don't rank them the same way you do, and frankly there's no need that they should. Morals are no inevitably "Christian," or the world would not be as civil a place as it often is in non-Christian parts of the world. That includes parts with forms of polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry.

edited 29th Mar '13 5:11:56 PM by Hippogrif

Mostly Harmless.

Glad you liked it but wondering if I should have added more weaselings and still the bad fashion of the full size weaseling suit fits... wondering what the Foglios would do if they found out about this... Hippogrif you asked weasels and I provided but it wasn't a surprise though

Well here goes nothing

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I'm not trying to judge. I acknowledge that there are many good people who are not Christians and I also acknowledge that not all people who claim to be Christians are good. As I said, I simply felt that I cuold not be silent. I was using my Freedom of Speech. Thank you for respecting that.

"May you live in interesting times."- Chinese curse.

(Smile) Elf Kid, I probably come down in one of the most complicated and not-quite-like anyone positions of ALL those just stated...and I know what it cost me to reach those conclusions. They were paid for in blood and tears. I'm willing to honor that in you so long as you continue to honor that in others...

And (she said, looking at all her other friends) that cuts both ways. We ALL come to our conclusions at great cost and through great pain. We can respect that in each other, if not one other thing beyond that.

Mauri, I love the weaslies. Always have, always will. Surprise is not needed.

Mostly Harmless.

Elf Kid, if you look closely at Scripture (and I do, believe me) you will find that St. Paul only forbids polygamy to 'elders of the church' or what today we would call the clergy. Lay folk are free to have whatever arrangements they choose so long as it is within the law. This is a 'render unto Caesar' position. Now it is to be admitted that in Biblical times that meant one man with several wives but nothing is said that forbids the alternative. In fact, a close examination reveals that Jesus has absolutely nothing to say about the sexuality of unmarried people. Centuries of pronouncements by the church hierarchy are what we usually consider 'Christian' doctrine but there are many forms of Christianity with conflicting doctrines. It is best, I have always felt, to return to the source.

If it moves, eat it!

I'd be happy with OT3, but in the end my actual prediction is that Gil gets Agatha and Tarvek gets Europe. The Electric Coffin made it look unlikely that Agatha is married to the ruler of Europe, or co-ruling it, and in a way I think having Europe and having Agatha (despite the Heterodyne Princess thing) may be mutually exclusive, because she doesn't want to rule Europe. To some extent I don't think she can leave Mechanicsburg, it needs her too much.

Meanwhile Tarvek is the best at politics, and is learning about the kind of consequences some of his actions can have (like handing over the Spark Wasp) and Gil will hopefully get over his arrogance in believing he's the only one who can be trusted to rule (even though he doesn't even like ruling). Either way I don't think Tarvek will die. It's getting too hard to imagine the three of them without each other somewhere in their lives.

So, thats my prediction, for what it's worth

If you read the El supermercado de las sectas (Supermarket of the Sects) and Pure de Papa (Pope puree) both by Rius you see a lot on the Catholic Church and sects in general.

I am glad you liked it and yes I had fun drawing the weaselings and a Tarvek that if he finds me will turn me into a stoat. Hoping to read what are the opinions on the Ginger Weasel Beer are on the rest of the forum readers .

edited 29th Mar '13 6:04:21 PM by Mauri

Well here goes nothing

Jesus said that if one even looked at a person lustfully, one committed the sin of fornication (Matthew 5;27-28). Also, Christianity is at its roots an extension and ultimate fulfillment of Judaism, which definitely forbids fornication and adultery, as is stated in the Ten Commandments.

edited 30th Mar '13 8:08:40 AM by ElfKid

"May you live in interesting times."- Chinese curse.

Ol' Bear, I am NOT asking you to close this down. But I do want to ask if we want to take this elsewhere or not?

And, for the record:

I'm a history teacher's daughter with a life-long passion for world history. I'm a former religious studies major who graudated with honors. I'm a mythological studies post-grad with a partial (and probably never-to-be-completed) degree. I'm a professional writer, editor, and researcher. I'm a former wife, a mother, a divorcee, with some unpleasant familiarity of what ways human relationships stretch and break. I was at one time a Vestrywoman, a pastoral care director, and considering the diaconate or priesthood in my own tradition.

That makes me both rather fluent in this issues, and insanely touchy about how HARD it is to hold these discussions in a respectful fashion. I am willing to try in part because well.... ...look at the above list and tell me why I would NOT be fascinated. But I also cherish this place and all you people, and want to be sure we do not kill ourselves in this particular forum.

Can we do this gently, gently, and with beauty? Should we do it here?

edited 29th Mar '13 6:09:12 PM by Hippogrif

Mostly Harmless.

I would buy a lifetime supply of your weasel beer Mauri - if you can promise me it is not made with real weasel!

it is possible Tarvek doesn't get Europa - he and Gil could be waiting for Agatha back at the Castle while Tweedle sits on the lightning throne :o)

I can see so many ways the Fs can resolve this, in terms of the political and romantic outcomes. Tarvek, to me, looks like the natural "ruler." Gil's about as likely to do the job well as Klaus: that is, quite well within limits, but never happily or without feeling peeved that he can't go sparking or adventuring. Agatha frankly does not seem like someone who wants to worry about more than her own town, and she'd only want to do that because thanks to things like Der K., the Jager Generals, the various monsters, the long and honorable line of Von Mekkhan Stewards, and so on, she's got an incredible command structure with outstanding continuity to do much of the grotty work for her. Tarvek, though, is honestly fascinated with the intricacies of government and diplomacy. He may even prove good at it if he survives so long.

But there are other ways to deal the cards. None of the in power, all of them in power. New forms of government. Klaus stuck holding the bag forever.

Again, what I dream of for all of them are long, happy, useful lives with friends and people who love them.

Mostly Harmless.

@Elf Kid: How do you know any of the principals are even Christian? As for myself as long as the arrangement is voluntary I see no problem. But then I don't believe in morality as an objective principal but as a societal construct.

edited 29th Mar '13 7:19:29 PM by tricksterson

Trump delenda est

New forms of Government would be fascinating. On a smaller scale I'm hoping we get to see Agatha dealing with Mechanicsburg in the aftermath, because up until now it's been very much a one Spark town, and now she's taken in a bunch of refugees. It's also been a raider town (among other things, but always that) until Bill and Barry put a stop to it, but they did that by essentially refusing to connect with Mechanicsburg's more problematic elements (the Jagers and the Castle). Agatha needs to pull it all together, and I'm curious to see how she manages.

Well I was thinking as an option made here... Needs more weasel. Still I know going the professional way is a good thing. But as a gag (unless the Foglios or someone decides to create it formally) it is a good thing to pull. Still I'd love to have the Ginger Weaseling Plushie.

Well here goes nothing

I like your sketch Mauri, Tarvek looks properly miffed and the weasels gleeful.

So, here's another canonical point. Tarvek's quite open about mentioning his serum. He's quite open about the comment "they got to him." Add that to other comments made since his return from Castle W. and the entire focus of the Vespiary Rescue and I think we can take it as highly probable that he's done the infodump about Klaus — otherwise he'd have no reason to expect Agatha to make ANY sense of the comments about serum or the "they" who got to Gil.

If he hasn't told, I'm at the point of calling foul on the Fs: there's room for off-stage debriefings to occur, but it's NOT fair to imply that the briefing has occurred while hiding the fact that Tarvek lied or mislead during the process of the meeting, and that the lie/misleading you were not allowed to see will matter.

So I think it's reasonably safe to take "Tarvek's hiding the truth about the wasp and Klaus from Agatha."

Indeed, (she said, contemplating the whole thing), if Tarvek HAS done a proper download, Agatha's gentle comfort and "I'm sorry" is quite possibly fully as much comforting him for how badly his own decision went astray as it is apologizing for her own errors in judgement. They both made the best choices they could in the heat of battle/action, and in both cases their choices have evolved to place someone they love in dire danger.

edited 29th Mar '13 8:50:00 PM by Hippogrif

Mostly Harmless.

I... can kind of see your point, and it's possible, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me, from a storytelling perspective, to interrupt that significant a revelation — twice if that's what the Vespiary Squad person was about to say — and then say, "oh, he explained everything offscreen." I'd almost buy "in all the confusion, he forgot he hadn't told her" over that.

"They've got to him" has a perfectly logical interpretation regardless. The serum could be a case of talking more to himself than Agatha.

If Agatha does know Klaus has been wasped — which, granted, is something she might be able to put together if she asked anybody what happened before she "came back" — then she probably needs to reveal that dramatically.

I understand what you're saying — but they've piled up too many clear suggestions that Tarvek has indeed done pretty thorough infodumps.

In all honesty, it's beginning to become an unfair structure no matter which is true. They're eliding too much highly critical stuff and leaving us to flounder trying to figure out what Tarvek did and did not tell Agatha and her people.

He's told a huge amount: that much has become clear. What we don't know is what, if anything, he's left out. And for many people reading that's a bitterly important question on which they will hang their final decision of whether Tarvek is the One True Evil or not.

Mostly Harmless.

Thanks Nettle still I took a few notes on the pages where the weaselings and our dear Ginger taking the stand on Tarvek still without colors it is a bit lost.

Well here goes nothing