The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I wouldn't mind removing the automatic presumption of inheritance. Get a will, is all I can say.
Sure, but you're not getting around that some people won't do that, or that there are numerous other issues regarding polygamy that won't in any way correspond to a marriage between two guys. If you're devastated in an accident, it's quite an advantage that one person clearly gets to decide whether or not the doctor should pull the plug, that's just one example.
Nope you can't. You have to prove that the relationship is sexual.
That's absolutely bizarre the way it comes across to me, so you might have chosen a quite bad example, if you don't mind me saying
Divorcing or inheriting can be difficult enough as it is today, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out how it would be even worse if you could be married to several people who might have other partners themselves etc.
I wouldn't mind removing the automatic presumption of inheritance. Get a will, is all I can say.
It's not technically, but realistically impossible to implement. Unless you disassociate the concept of marriage from the government altogether, which is an interesting thought.
I have no issues with that either, and I think it would be greatly beneficial.
Eh... you can't do that? Then I'm asking along with you, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous that you can't do that.
Nope you can't. You have to prove that the relationship is sexual.
I'd think you also had this little thing called not discriminating if you want to be funded by the state. I'd be surprised if the official Norway directly funds any other organization that openly declares there are different rules for gays than straights. Happy to learn you wouldn't mind seeing the concept go though.
Well. Prepare yourself for a surprise then. But there are forces who wants that to change. Oddly enough, the same forces think we should require the same from other religions. Officially, it's because we have to respect other cultures and so on. Personally, I wonder why that doesn't apply to Christianity. And frankly, to me it smells of a new kind of white man's burden.
Actually, it's not that simple. We have this little thing called freedom of religion.
I'd think you also had this little thing called not discriminating if you want to be funded by the state. I'd be surprised if the official Norway directly funds any other organization that openly declares there are different rules for gays than straights. Happy to learn you wouldn't mind seeing the concept go though.
Edit: Oh, and just for the record - Denmark suffers basically from the same dilemma, of course. While legal partnerships have been recognised for longer than in any other country, and a same-sex blessing is an option, it's not the word for marriage that occurs in the books.
Nikolai, am I right to assume Norway's partnership laws didn't quite offer up equality to 'real' marriages' regarding the church? In that case, it's hardly equality we're talking about, is it?
No, the church could have allowed a blessing for use in partnerships, but it didn't want to, based on the word of God, which any true church is forced to take into account. There was forces inside the Church of Norway that wanted such a change though. But now the church is under much larger pressure to change the church law. But let's make one thing clear: It is no ones right to get the blessings of the church. To marry or go into partnerships, that is something else, but if you want to get the blessings of the church, you should have to respect that church's moral teachings.
Ben Kenobi, do you understand the implication of Norway's church being a state church? Nobody's arguing that some random church shouldn't be setting its own standards for what it does. But a state church discriminating is the state itself discriminating, just like it would be discriminating if the Norwegian police force began to have different solutions for gays than straights.
Actually, it's not that simple. We have this little thing called freedom of religion. But that argument is just the reason I hope the state and the church go separate ways as soon as possible.
Well, I'd be curious to hear more why you think it would lead to chaos.
Divorcing or inheriting can be difficult enough as it is today, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out how it would be even worse if you could be married to several people who might have other partners themselves etc. It's not technically, but realistically impossible to implement. Unless you disassociate the concept of marriage from the government altogether, which is an interesting thought.
Why can't I marry a flatmate is what I'm asking.
Eh... you can't do that? Then I'm asking along with you, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous that you can't do that.
Just like you, I don't view the statement 'I'm married to Jane' in the same light as merely 'Jane and I signed a contract'.
I didn't think you did either. I'd be surprised if anyone actually viewed marriage in those terms. This is one of the reasons I think we should get back to the state 'recognising' marriages, rather then 'defining marriage'. I don't think it's really the job of the state to decide who can and should get married.
That's a fine position, but the consequence of the idea that marriage is merely a legal contract raises several questions (...) You might consider these objections to be subjective, but it raises important challeges to the concept of marriage as merely a contract between two individuals.
No it doesn't. It raises challenges to the concept of marriage as merely a contract in my subjective opinion, or yours. Just like you, I don't view the statement 'I'm married to Jane' in the same light as merely 'Jane and I signed a contract'. But in the objective view, in a political perspective, that's what it is, a contract.
Ben Kenobi, do you understand the implication of Norway's church being a state church? Nobody's arguing that some random church shouldn't be setting its own standards for what it does. But a state church discriminating is the state itself discriminating, just like it would be discriminating if the Norwegian police force began to have different solutions for gays than straights.
[ProtestantBK]
All the more reason to disestablish the Church of Norway
[/ProtestantBK]
[CatholicBK]
If you are going to have a state church, you'd be better off to have the Church as your state.
[/CatholicBK]
Okay, but are you taking that view of marriage and making it a political view?
I don't think it's any more political then saying that marriage should have nothing at all to do with sex.
In principle I do think you should be able to marry several people though, or your sister for that matter, to include the second question. But for obvious practical reasons it's impossible to implement, the result would be ranging from legal confusion to legal chaos.
Impossible to implement? Well, I'd be curious to hear more why you think it would lead to chaos.
Eh... didn't quite understand that one. Can't you have that?
Sex is so important to marriage, you can see it in Paul's comment:
"For the two are no longer two, but one."
Do you honestly think this verse has only one layer?
And then later on when he says that there is a limited right to go without sex, but that the man and the women should only do so by mutual consent and only for a time so that they might not be tempted otherwise.
I'd like that quote. I can guarantee you it won't be crystal clear. If you want to argue from the Bible, that's okay. I doubt it'll help in the discussion with non-believers going on here though. But I dare you to come with biblical, undisputable basis for your opinion that sex is the only thing mattering in God's eyes for a marriage to be valid.
I'd argue if there isn't going to be sex then even if you greatly love the person, you shouldn't get married. By all means, love each other,
Your opinion, but again I dare you to support it from the Bible. If you can't base it there, it's your opinion but nothing more, nothing less. Marriage in society must either be based on a secular reasoning or a religious reasoning, or both.
Unconsummation is also considered one of the indisputable reasons for annulment.
Yeah, in the Catholic Church it is, I know. And that is biblical IIRC. But nothing says that becuause it's a valid reason for annulment, that it must result in an annulment. God made men and women to compliment each other in every way, and not only sexually. See Genesis 2.
I'd argue if there isn't going to be sex then even if you greatly love the person, you shouldn't get married.
Okay, but are you taking that view of marriage and making it a political view?
1. Why can't I have more then one 'legal contract'?
In principle I do think you should be able to marry several people though, or your sister for that matter, to include the second question. But for obvious practical reasons it's impossible to implement, the result would be ranging from legal confusion to legal chaos.
3. Why can't I have a legal contract with flatmates?
Eh... didn't quite understand that one. Can't you have a legal contract with flatmates?
Nikolai, am I right to assume Norway's partnership laws didn't quite offer up equality to 'real' marriages' regarding the church? In that case, it's hardly equality we're talking about, is it?
Ben Kenobi, do you understand the implication of Norway's church being a state church? Nobody's arguing that some random church shouldn't be setting its own standards for what it does. But a state church discriminating is the state itself discriminating, just like it would be discriminating if the Norwegian police force began to have different solutions for gays than straights.
Why should I care what goes on in other people's marriages? And do you think my grandparents should get a divorce, since there's presumably no sexual relationship between them, both being in their eighties?
I presume that your parents weren't adopted.
Look, I'm not dictating to you what you should feel about marriages, I only want that adult people are offered some equality to other adult people in terms of what they can legally do and what they can't. The objective factor of marriage as a legal contract, not the subjective factor of what it means to you or me or anybody.
That's a fine position, but the consequence of the idea that marriage is merely a legal contract raises several questions.
1. Why can't I have more then one 'legal contract'?
2. Why can't I have a legal contract with close family members?
3. Why can't I have a legal contract with flatmates?
You might consider these objections to be subjective, but it raises important challeges to the concept of marriage as merely a contract between two individuals.
Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman who loves each other and wants to promise life long faithfulness and love to each other, in both good and bad days, Ben. Sex is an important part of this, but not necessary. Old people who wants to promise life long faithfulness and love, or people who are impotent or something for whatever reason, can still marry. It's a holy promise in front of God and a sign for great affection, not a sexual contract. But sex usually follows of course.
Sex is so important to marriage, you can see it in Paul's comment:
"For the two are no longer two, but one."
And then later on when he says that there is a limited right to go without sex, but that the man and the women should only do so by mutual consent and only for a time so that they might not be tempted otherwise.
I'd argue if there isn't going to be sex then even if you greatly love the person, you shouldn't get married. By all means, love each other,
Unconsummation is also considered one of the indisputable reasons for annulment.
Leave a comment: