Gavin

[SIZE=1]Eyes fluttering open, Neil Gratzner saw three things wrong with his situation, one, this was not the bed he had gone to sleep in last night, two, this was not the room he had gone to sleep in last night, and three, he could see these things clearly without the need of his glasses. His fingers instinctively moved their way over towards the bedside locker, any other day his fingers would feel the cold metal frames of his glasses, now however there was only the soft sensation of paper. Tentatively he slid the page, letter, whatever it was off the locker and began to read it, hopefully it would tell him he?d merely been sick and this was a hospital he was not familiar with somewhere in Ireland, unfortunately he had the distinct feeling this would not be the case. ?[i]Dominique Villette, Supreme Chancellor, West France[/i]?. Well that answers some questions he supposed, obviously he?d been in this coma a considerable period of time for all the letters contents to have occurred, while not a scientist he had performed well enough in secondary school science to know that genetic alteration on such a scale was technologically impossible in the early twenty-first century, the very fact that the entire globe had once again been plunged into war concerned him. What of Ireland ? What of the Vatican ? What of the Church ?! Obviously this letter had not been written directly to Neil, but rather as a generic message to be read by all those who had arrived in Paris 2, to give them some semblance of understanding in a very alien milieu. He cast back the covers of his bed, he was wearing some kind of full length sleeping gown, unisex by the design appearance, although given the time differential between his period and this, it was equally possible this was the height of masculinity. Either way Neil felt the need to wash himself, the cold sweat beads accumulating around his forehead. ?[b]Excuse me sir ?[/b]? The language was English, but there was a Parisian tang to the accent. Perhaps Neil would be as well off to converse to her in her own language, if French was still spoken here, or if the dialect of French he was fluent in was still spoken here. ?[b]Yes Madame ?[/b]? ?[b]You speak French ?[/b]? He merely nodded back, he hoped that by conversing with her in French she might take a better liking to him, and maybe even tell him more about what had gone on while he had been in this... coma. ?[b]Good, far too little of today has been spent conversing in my native tongue. There are so many non-French people here today that is it relaxing to simply slip back into my normal language, however my good sir, you are clearly not French. I might call you English but I do not think I would be right.[/b]? Neil shook his head, more instinctively than anything else, he would need to control his normal behavioural pattern to better communicate with this woman. He was so used to allowing part of his conversational replies to be made up through body language that it would require him to will himself to speak fully. ?[b]Thankfully your perceptions are keen Madame, I am not English, I am Irish. Father Neil Gratzner at your service.[/b]? ?[b]Ah, Father, I was wondering when I would have the pleasure of meeting you. You are the first man of the cloth we have had here in a considerable period of time. I am Anne, and I am here to help you adjust after the coma you have just awakened from, as well as that I am here to inform you of the ball you are invited to attend at 8 PM sharp. The Supreme Chancellor is eager to meet you all.[/b]? ?[b]Sumpreme Chancellor Villette will meet us at this ball ?[/b]? ?[b]Oh yes, I am sure he will be able to answer your questions far more fully than I would be able to. In the wardrobe near just to your right you will find a selection of clothing from which you may choose to wear to the ball.[/b]? ?[b]Ah Madame ? I do not wish to sound ungrateful for you have been truly kind to me on this very strange morning. However I am as you correctly pointed out a man of the cloth, and it would be inappropriate for me not to wear the robes of my order.[/b]? She simply smiled back at him, like a mother who?s child had just asked a question she knew was coming. ?[b]Of course Father, there are several clerical cassocks of a Roman Catholic priest among the other items of clothing, we had a feeling you would prefer to wear the robes of your order so they were commissioned for your use tonight. When you are washed and dressed, you simply touch this panel and it will guide you to the ball. I must say Father that you are one of the longer sleeping ones I?ve had today, the ball is in just under forty-five minutes so you will have to be quick. Adieu, we may or may not speak again, but I sincerely hope we do.[/b]? ?[b]Adieu Anne, and again thank you for your kindness. May the protection of the Lord be ever with you.[/b]? The French woman merely bowed as she left the room, leaving Neil to assimilate all the information he had just acquired, piecing it along with the information garnered from the letter to fill in the ever expanding jigsaw puzzle of what had occurred. Moving into the bathroom he found what appeared to be a shower, there were cleansing materials provided and the hot water helped to calm his somewhat unsettled nerves. Looking into the mirror, the twenty-seven year old priest saw just how different he looked without his glasses, his eyes were considerable bigger looking and the dark patches below his eyes from too few nights sleep had all but disappeared, he looked refreshed and truth be told he felt refreshed. The clothing closet was larger than the woman had described, or perhaps Neil has simply grown comfortable with his own Spartan possessions to realise how meagre they might compare to a person of wealth. There were indeed ?several? cassocks from which he could choose, any one of fourteen, each tailored with a slightly different cut, but all of his size and in keeping with the dictations of the Church. He chose one that was most similar to his normal robes, the material however was noticeably more expensive, it slipped over his frame with ease and very more smooth against his skin than anything Neil had ever worn before. His shoes and collar were presented on nearby racks and quickly he found himself fully ready to attend the Supreme Chancellor?s ball. Gently he pushed against the white panel Anne has indicated and a soft feminine voice emanated giving him the directions he required to find his way to the ball. ?[b]Well my Lord, all things are as You will them, and I Your humble servant will do my best to serve you here.[/b]? The ballroom was far larger than he could ever have imagine, he could not help but to admire it craftsmanship and elegance. As he was admiring it however, he did not realise another person had come over to speak with him.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]I should have a post for tomorrow evening, I've been a bit swamped with work off OB lately and just haven't found the time to put something I'm satisfied with together.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Desbreko][color=#4B0082]If oldies want recognition, [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=52384][u]they already got it[/u][/url], and they may be [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=53509][u]getting more in the future[/u][/url]. If oldies want responsibility, they're going to have to show that they'd be more capable as a moderator than newer members.[/color] [color=#4B0082]I'm not going to jump down your throat, and I should hope none of the other mods/admins do. Turning this into an us vs. them situation would just be stupid. In fact, I'm glad you posted in here, Gavin, as your post is very reasonable and brings up some valid concerns. From your description of the group, I have nothing against MAMA. I think the motives you listed are great. Like I've said, I'm always ready to listen to concerns that members have with staff and anything else. This thread doesn't have to mean the end of the group. But this thread is not exactly, "on the quiet." If you guys want to raise concerns in this forum for people to discuss, that's fine. But if someone wants to point fingers and single out specific staff members who they have problems with, this is not the place. They can do that privately in a PM to me and I'll look into their concerns. As for the lack of staff in The Arena, I'm aware of that. But I would ask people to please understand that hiring good moderators is not an easy job. I've been working to fill out the site's staff since being given the responsibility, and I am continuing to work on it. Right now I'm looking into filling out Tokyo 3, which will hopefully be done within the next few days, and after that my attention is going to turn to The Arena.[/color][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Thanks Des, kick me while I'm down by bringing up that topic as a way to get recognition. ;) However I do feel the need to point out as others have, and that has been seriously missed by those non-MAMA members, is that MAMA was [B]never[/B] about recognition, it was never about us getting people we didn't like booted out of their staff positions and getting one of us put in there. I mean so many of us have Mods for friends, and hope to continue those friendships even in the aftermath of this that it should be seen as completely absurd that this was ever about Oldie recognition. This was always about the common good, the fact the group was independent of OB should stress that, after all you don't get much recognition when nobody knows you're responsible. We went off OB to do it, because of exactly what happened when the group was exposed, people thought it was a stupid idea. The very idea that some group of members might have a problem with some staff members and would feel the need to start an independent group to try and address the problem seems stupid because most people don't see our problems. But I do stand behind the idea the group was founded on. I think the thing about the Arena Des is that it is the stomping grounds of so many of us, it was only natural that we were going to call for change there. We really do have nothing against Sarah, I think she's a good Mod and a great person, but severely swamped in somewhere like the Adventure Square which has traditionally always had two moderators to split the work, and where applicable a third in the form of the Category Moderator. Now I'm not sending a broadside volley at Josh, I mean God nobody has contributed more to the Arena than him over the years. But you have to admit Des, when you hear the "in the coming weeks" speech too often, you begin to lose heart.[/SIZE] [quote name='Raiyuu][font=trebuchet ms']Catchy as it is, the MAMA acronym doesn't seem to accurately reflect the feelings of its cardinal member. How about MATS - Members Against The System? If there's no grudge against mods then the name of the group is pretty misleading.[/font][/quote] [SIZE=1]Well I must admit Raiyuu that I did stress the need to change the group name from MAMA to something less provocative because of how badly I knew the name would be received if the group ever came to light. I know that's a lot of ifs, but I suppose in all reality we were going to be found out. I'm not saying that others held a more hard-line set of beliefs than I did, I'm just saying the name was poorly chosen to reflect the groups intentions. [/SIZE]

[quote name='Avenged666fold']You are aware she is being sarcastic 80% of the time right? I mean whenever she say's something that sounds insane she is trying to make a point. Also she is in general honest and most of the things she say are actually true(not the oppinionated thing's of course) like when Bill.Clinton quoted his favorite NEW testament verse fro mteh bible and then he quoted an OLD testament one that actually happened it is not just some bull **** joke. Oh and im gonna buy the book this thursday if im lucky and i'll tell everyone how I like it. :D[/quote] [SIZE=1]I'm sorry to say Avenged that from what I've read she does not be sarcastic in her views very often, in fact I would say that she is sincere in what she says most of the time, regardless of how absurd it seems to be. Still if you want to buy the book and gain some enjoyment out of it, feel free. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Athena][size=1]Okay, I have something to bring to everyone's attention. I'm doing this because I'm very angry with the other members of MAMA. This is ri-goddamn-diculous about how these members are just leaving AC!D!C out to get picked apart. He took a risk, and posted because the other members have been to chicken-**** to post. So here it goes, to the best of my sane ability. MAMA stands for "Members Against Mods and Admins". It's a group that's been "secretive" about their angst/anger/whatever the crap you want to call it of how they perceive the OB now from back-in-the-day. They're upset about all the new mods, the poor quality in posts these days, how "n00bs" are running the scene, and about how they feel that "oldies" are being treated poorly (mainly because they're sour that they aren't mods themselves instead of the new members). Honestly, I did go through an angst stage that I'd been here for a long time, and felt I didn't get the recognition I felt I deserved. Over the past six months or so, I just don't care anymore. However, this group still does...and the issues AC!D!C posted on were not from his own mouth/mind, but from the members of MAMA who have done [b]NOTHING[/b] to back him up, or themselves up. Their excuse to not backing Joe up? "I don't see how it would help at this point now." So, grow up, or speak up.[/size][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Alright Annie seeing as you basically just exposed everyone of us in the group, including those of us like myself who only joined MAMA last week and didn't notice the thread until about five minutes ago, I'll speak up. MAMA better known as Members Against Moderators and Administrators was group founded on a simple ideal: Make OB a better place for all it's members, new and old by creating a place where we could gather evidence that could not be ignored against staff members we felt were not doing their jobs properly. This was not a case of Oldies rebelling against a system that we felt favoured n00bs and left older members out in the cold, it was a case of those of those of us who genuinely care about OB wanting to repay the forums for years of entertainment and friendship. Now for those Moderators and/or Administrators who are about to jump down my throat I should remind them that the group was only ever against those Moderators and Administrators whom we felt were not doing their job, Bio was the first one raised although I must admit I do not use the Underground enough to have noticed. A lot of you do great jobs regardless of what ages you are or how many posts you have, however there are those of you who simply do not do the jobs we expect from someone in your position, and because we needed somewhere independent to discuss those we felt were not up to the task it was obvious we needed to go off-site to do it. Those of you who feel this group is somehow a stupid idea, or an Oldie-only club for those who feel they were passed over for Modship are entitled to your opinions, but I personally say you're wrong on every account. We are a group who were dedicated to improving the genuine quality of the site on the quiet, so that people like Joe wouldn't have to create these kinds of threads in order to see positive changes. Unfortunately thanks to Annie's little out-burst we won't be able to do that any more, but perhaps with more time we would have been able to do some good work. There genuinely are things wrong with the way OB is run, we're desperately short of Moderators in some areas, most notably the Arena which has descended into a condition not seen in years. I don't blame Sarah, but I reported a thread over a week ago that still hasn't been locked, the Arena has never had so few mods, not in five years and we feel that something needs to be done now rather than after "the coming update". So Annie, well done, I salute and applaud to your destruction of a group that only ever had the good of OB at heart.[/SIZE]

[CENTER][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=8]STAR WARS[/SIZE] [SIZE=5]KNIGHTS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC III MASTERS OF THE FORCE[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]IT IS A FRAGILE TIME FOR THE OLD REPUBLIC. THE DARK LORDS OF THE SITH HAVE BEEN DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN, BUT THE DEVASTATION WROUGHT BY FOUR SUCCESSIVE WARS HAS LEFT THE REPUBLIC PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO COLLAPSE. TERROR HAS SWEPT ENTIRE SYSTEMS IN THE OUTER RIM IN CHAOS, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 21,000 YEARS HAS THE THREAT OF GALACTIC CIVIL WAR BECOME A REALITY. IN DARK TIMES LIKE THESE, THE CITIZENS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC WOULD LOOK TO THE JEDI, GUARDIANS OF PEACE AND JUSTICE IN THE GALAXY TO AID THEM IN THEIR PLIGHT. THE MACHINATIONS OF THE SITH LORD DARTH TRAYA HOWEVER HAS LEFT THE JEDI ALL BUT EXTINCT, AND LEFT THOSE SURVIVORS SO DISILLUSIONED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN UP THE MANTLE OF JEDI KNIGHT. WITH PANIC QUICKLY SPREADING TO ALL CORNERS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE CHANCELLOR HAS BEEN FORCED TO DECLARED A STATE OF GALACTIC EMERGENCY. MOST DISTURBINGLY, CONTACT HAS BEEN LOST WITH SEVERAL SYSTEMS NEIGHBOURING THE UNKNOWN REGIONS AND RUMOURS HAVE SPREAD OF A THIRD SITH CRUSADE COMING TO CLAIM THE REPUBLIC. THE SENATE KNOW THAT WITHOUT THE JEDI, THE REPUBLIC WILL FALL...[/SIZE][/CENTER][/font] [SIZE=1]The duelling arena of Ord Mantell was, as usual, filled to the brim with those who couldn?t wait to sate their appetite for death and gore. Unlike Taris that came before it, Ord Mantell?s arena had not such limitations on it, death matches were frequent and highly desired exhibitions, while their more tame versions where energy suppressors were active tended to prove more popular with children and adults who did not have the stomach to watch a real fight. Sitting by the edge of the arena with his young female companion, Balthazar waited for the next match to begin, participating was a man who might prove very useful to him in the coming days. He watched as his young aide turned her head slightly as the previous death match came to a grizzly end, Cisa for all her combat training still never had grown to accept death as a constant companion, and for Balthazar, and old friend. ?[b]Admiral, I never understand why you picked up a taste for such... uncivilised spectacles.[/b]? He laughed, not at her personally, but at the very concept he wouldn?t enjoy a pair of warriors pitting themselves and everything they had, their life included, to prove their superiority. Maybe it was the fact she hadn?t fought in the Mandalorian wars as well as the Second Sith War, to many the Sith War had been a effort to exterminate the traitors, those who had once been friends and comrades but had betrayed everything that had been sacrificed against the Mandalorians. Had she actually fought against Mandalore?s legions she might understand better, when the fights had been even, when he had respected his enemy for his skills, never holding a grudge for having been beaten, it was war and the better warrior always deserved the win. Cisa appeared as though she was going to speak again, but he raised his hand to silence her, the next match was starting, the man who they had come to find would soon appear. ?[b]Ladies and Gentlemen, you?ve waited for it, you?ve begged and pleaded for it... WELL HERE HE IS. I PRESENT TO YOU THE GREATEST VIBRO-DUELIST WE HAVE EVER SEEN ON ORD MANTELL, I PRESENT TO YOU, KRATOS THE KILLER. Now what duellist would be fool-hardy enough to challenge Kratos, to try and wrest his title away from him, ladies and gentlemen, you know him, you?ve seen him climb through the ranks like a shooting star, step forward GILHAD THE GLADIATOR. LET THE FIGHT BEGIN.[/b]" The pair took opposite sides on the Arena floor, Kratos looked unconcerned by his challenger, despite the fact that the Iridonian at over two meters looked as if he could tear the head off a full-grown Krayt Dragon. He carried a single blade, composed of what looked like Mandalorian Iron, a crude name given the substance was most certainly not composed of the element iron. Gilhad was the first to make a move, charging directly toward his opponent as had become his signature style. He came closer and closer, the tension grew and voices roared higher, three meters... two meters... one meter... his blade struck down like a meteor threatening to cut Kratos in half. But the blade never landed against it?s target, first Gilhad fell to the ground as both his legs were cut from underneath him, leaving him to bellow angrily while trying to strike his target, then Kratos slid his blades easily along Gilhad?s exposed spine before jamming them down just below the neck. Gilhad roared no more, and the match was over. In the following minutes the noise was deafening, partially from roars of Gilhad?s fans who felt they had been somehow cheated, others from fans of Kratos who had watched their hero cut down his latest opponent, and others still who held no interest in this match but were just excited by the death sport. Balthazar left his seat along with Cisa to head towards the duellist?s anteroom, standing as though guarding the door was a Nagai, pale and sickly looking like the rest of his race, he still bore a menacing smile. As Balthazar moved towards the door, his hand shot up. ?[b]Where do you think you?re going ?![/b]? ?[b]I wish to speak to Kratos.[/b]? ?[b]That?s a laugh, hit the pavement buddy, unless you want to get cut up right here, right now.[/b]? ?[b]You want to die that badly ?[/b]? Balthazar?s tone was even, dead even, there was not a trace of emotion, he simply snapped his fingers for Cisa to hand him his vibro-foil. The Nagai seemed taken aback, usually noblemen who wanted to speak to duellists wanted to hire them as bodyguards for prestige reasons, often they could barely even hold a weapon correctly, but Balthazar held the weapon with the confidence of a man who could kill without a single blow. Coughing, the Nagai stepped aside, eying Cisa as she moved passed after Balthazar. ?[b]Visitors, I so rarely have them. Please sit down... Lord Balthazar, you do me honour by coming to speak with me.[/b]? Kratos had proven himself the charismatic man Balthazar had heard him to be, he stood in a nearby doorway, partially robed as though he were only after cleaning himself from the match, or was about to. ?[b]My apologies for coming in upon you like this Kratos, it is simply rather difficult to get a hold of you outside the ring.[/b]? ?[b]No apologies are necessary from someone of your stature my lord, had you wished to see me you need only have asked.[/b]? ?[b]Thank you, now as you might imagine I have come to offer you a job working for me.[/b]? ?[b]Directly to the point I see, with due respect, why would I be interested in working for you ? I have all I need right here, fame, money, women.[/b]? ?[b]Yes you have, but never a challenge, Gilhad was perhaps the best chance of a challenger you?ve had in months and the ease with which you killed him if beginning to affect fans. Some say you?re too good to be beaten and they?re starting to lose interest. With me, I can guarantee you opponents who will most certainly challenge you?re distinct skills.[/b]? Kratos merely looked at Balthazar, the same look Balthazar was giving him, a dead contemplative stare. Slowly he nodded his head in acceptance before extending his head to ask his employer to lead the way. A time later the three entered Balthazar?s immense home, leading the party forward Balthazar opened the large doors to his reception room. Seated at various points of the vast centre were many different people belonging to many different species. Taking his place at the head of the table and gesturing for Kratos to take the spot just down from his, Balthazar began to speak. ?[b]Gentlemen, and lady. As you are all aware I have invited you here to my home to buy your services, exactly what I will have you do will not be revealed just yet, however I do feel it necessary for the people working for me to get to know one another. So for the next few days you will spend your time here, rooms have been prepared for you and you are free to visit all but the restricted rooms, those being my library, my study and my own room. The kitchens, medical room and gym are available at all times, day or night so if you wish to make use of them please do. Now I must take my leave of you, it has been a long day and I?m rather tired. Good night.[/b]" Moving down through the expansive corridors towards his own chambers, Cisa made an effort to voice her concerns. ?[b]Are you sure this is wise ?[/b]? ?[b]We shall see, won?t we ?[/b]? [CENTER]||||||||||[/CENTER] Alright, the Underground thread is already up and with it the accepted list to the RPG. All characters except Kratos can go over how they were approached and their thoughts about working for Balthazar now, please keep in mind that entering any of the restricted rooms will result in your death at either the hands of Balthazar?s guards or Balthazar himself.[/SIZE]

[CENTER][FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=8]STAR WARS[/SIZE] [SIZE=5]KNIGHTS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC III MASTERS OF THE FORCE[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]IT IS A FRAGILE TIME FOR THE OLD REPUBLIC. THE DARK LORDS OF THE SITH HAVE BEEN DEFEATED ONCE AGAIN, BUT THE DEVASTATION WROUGHT BY FOUR SUCCESSIVE WARS HAS LEFT THE REPUBLIC PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO COLLAPSE. TERROR HAS SWEPT ENTIRE SYSTEMS IN THE OUTER RIM IN CHAOS, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 21,000 YEARS HAS THE THREAT OF GALACTIC CIVIL WAR BECOME A REALITY. IN DARK TIMES LIKE THESE, THE CITIZENS OF THE OLD REPUBLIC WOULD LOOK TO THE JEDI, GUARDIANS OF PEACE AND JUSTICE IN THE GALAXY TO AID THEM IN THEIR PLIGHT. THE MACHINATIONS OF THE SITH LORD DARTH TRAYA HOWEVER HAS LEFT THE JEDI ALL BUT EXTINCT, AND LEFT THOSE SURVIVORS SO DISILLUSIONED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN UP THE MANTLE OF JEDI KNIGHT. WITH PANIC QUICKLY SPREADING TO ALL CORNERS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE CHANCELLOR HAS BEEN FORCED TO DECLARED A STATE OF GALACTIC EMERGENCY. MOST DISTURBINGLY, CONTACT HAS BEEN LOST WITH SEVERAL SYSTEMS NEIGHBOURING THE UNKNOWN REGIONS AND RUMOURS HAVE SPREAD OF A THIRD SITH CRUSADE COMING TO CLAIM THE REPUBLIC. THE SENATE KNOW THAT WITHOUT THE JEDI, THE REPUBLIC WILL FALL...[/SIZE][/CENTER][/font] [SIZE=1]Welcome to The Valiant, the Underground thread for Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic III: Masters of the Force. Now as most of you know, an Underground thread is an accompanyment to both the Join and Play threads located in the other sections of the Arena. For those of you who don't know, these threads are here to post problems, suggestions or general comments on the RPG, it's characters and even the players themselves. It also saves me from having to answer the same question posed by three people via PM. The name of the thread bares some significance as those of you who read by biography will remember that The Valiant was the name of Balthazar's flagship from the Second Sith Wars, I abhor using the name Jedi Civil War as it's simply inaccurate. The ship will come into play later in the RPG, when we leave Ord Mantell which will not be that far into the future, this is KOTOR after all so we need to do some exploring. Now the bit everyone's been waiting for, the Accepted List that will make up our cast, keep in mind that I was intending to go for a smaller group than usual KOTOR games and I have done that. So without further stalling, here's the list, exluding myself of course. [list][*][B]Cygnus X-1[/B] - Jeth Ordo [*][B]Trowa_fan[/B] - Saerroul Tierr [*][b]Monkatraz[/b] - Kerec [*][b]Illusion[/b] - Jalin Talis [*][b]The Boss[/b] - Kratos Zintarian [*][b]Deathsye[/b] - Trig Sentaris[/list] For those who've survived the chopping block, please be aware that if I'm not happy with the way you conduct yourself or your level of quality I will drop you from the RPG without hesitation. This has been a pet project of mine for some time and I would like to make it a success. However, I will do my best to help anyone who is genuinely committed to this.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Hmm, six weeks since the last reply and thankfully it wasn't from me. With the release of the first Legacy Era Star Wars novel [I]Betrayal[/I] a fortnight ago, which is set approximately five years after the end of the New Jedi Order era has rekindled the Star Wars universe with a bang. Now don't get me wrong, I liked the NJO enough, but found it hard to really get to grips with the Yuuzhan Vong as a culture as well as their technology being so completely superior so often to the New Republic/Galactic Alliance. [spoiler]Betrayal however starts us out on familiar ground, with Jedi Knight Jacen Solo leading his apprentice Ben Skywalker on an inspection of an weapons production facility on Adamar. All is not as it seems however and it becomes apparent over the course of the novel that the Galactic Alliance is slowly transforming into a repressive and authoritarian regime similar to the Empire in the eyes of some of it's citizens, while elsewhere the Corellians are seen as milking the system of the Alliance without contributing their fair share to the galaxy at large with little intention of doing so. As you might imagine, the books real value lies in how it's developing the Jedi Order as well as Jacen Solo as a character, for many of us the Yuuzhan Vong war as well as his subsequent travels among other Force religions in the years that passed was the sign that Jacen would not be held to the typical restraints and beliefs of a Jedi.[/spoiler] [CENTER][B]MAJOR SPOILERS COMING UP[/B][/CENTER] [spoiler]It is completely unsurprising then, though well written enough to be somewhat unexpected, that his descent along a mirrored path to his grandfather Anakin in the prequel trilogy leads to his eventual seduction at the hand of a Sith Lord. Well almost, as Luminya can't really be called a Sith, and claiming the mantle of Sith Lord for himself. What is surprising is how easily Jacen was seduced, and really how awfully obvious Luminya's drawing him to the Dark Side was done, a speech to him claiming that the Dark and Light sides are so similar in application that one can be a Sith without succumbing to the corruption of the Dark Side is one's will is strong enough. Perhaps Jacen had already fallen and not realised it, or perhaps he is far more naive than we ever believed, the result is the same and with the murder of a fellow Jedi attempting to arrest Luminya, another act Anakin committed, Jacen is now set to become the next and perhaps most personally devastating Sith Lord Luke will face. The fact that Jacen believes he will not be seduced by the Dark Side's corruptions, as Luminya told him that only the weak of mind were corrupted, is obviously going to play a big part in his eventual fall and battle with the Jedi Order. Will he try and convert Ben to the Dark Side, or will he try to convert sister Jaina ? The scene as a galaxy as large is also set to erupt into conflict as the Alliance tries to desperately reign in rebellious Corellia, but this seems to be the symptom of a much larger conflict brewing on the horizon. One that will shatter the Skywalker and Solo relationship perhaps irreparably.[/spoiler] Has anyone else read the book and agrees/disagrees with my thoughts ?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. After reading Ken's reply I did a bit of searching on Wikipedia, as I've often heard the name Ann Coulter thrown about along with such lovely terms as "racist" "fascist" and "evangelist". Although the last one could be taken to mean she is rather extreme in her views of Christianity than a normal religious person, I recall he remarks made in the wake of 9/11 as being rather disturbing, perhaps a more accurate title would be "crusader". [B][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism[/url][/B] [B][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter[/url][/B] Regardless, there's the hyperlink to the actual book article on Wikipedia as well as a hint at it's contents, and the article on Coulter herself. I must say however, as someone who is conservative in nature and political alignment, this witch gives me a considerable chill. I mean the idea that she actually promotes taking away the vote from women on the grounds it would help the Republican party in America is ludicrous, she does realise she is a woman doesn't she ? I'm certain that in certain states in the U.S. there would be support for that ideal, but really it is flabbergasting to think she is sincere in a lot of the crap she peddles. On that same note, while I vehemently disagree with what she has to say in terms of her political beliefs, as well as her so-called religious beliefs, anyone who agrees with her has the right to do so without be referred to as a "crazy racist she-wolf conservative moron" as I'm sure there are those on the extreme liberal side who's beliefs are similarly bewildering. Extremism on both sides is sadly the natural process of a democratic process and this isn't going to change.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Caine]1) how long until you enter the seminary, how long before you become a deacon, how long until you become a priest? If there's anything you think is wrong with your application of beliefs, that's a lot of time with some good examples of how to be better. 2) Good luck with whatever you do, whether you want to be a priest or not.[/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Well this is lightly off topic but, it's two years until I finish high school, after which I enter the seminary, not sure how long I'm there before being made deacon, but I'll have to be at least twenty-five to be ordained as a priest. So basically the next five years after high school will be training in the seminary. And thanks for the good luck wish.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Jokopoko][color=teal][size=1]To be honest I'm not sure because people all have there own reasons for not being able to post, just like Gavin did at the start of the RP, and come to think of it it's Sin's turn to post so if anyone talks to Sin make sure to give him/her a nudge.[/size'][/color][/quote] [SIZE=1]I'd say we should probably give a person a day or two at the most to post before skipping on to the next person. With the amount of people involved in this we need to be able to keep things flowing, or else it could get to the stage where the last person on the chapter cast list, in this case Andrew, doesn't get to post for a month because of delays.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Dodeca][SIZE=1']So just because six and a bit billion people want to deny gay people's right to get married instead of one, that makes it better? If six billion people believe they have just cause to oppose something that has little to no relevance to them, just because it doesn't fit with beliefs that the affected people don't share, then those six billion people really need to get their priorities sorted. I'm a Christian, and although I may not feel all that comfortable with homosexuality, I'll be damned if I'm going to force my beliefs onto other people.[/SIZE][/quote] [SIZE=1]I can understand that Dodeca, and respect the fact that you believe that you shouldn't force your beliefs down anyone else's throat. In all honesty I fear I've been being far too dogmatic in my application of my beliefs while at the same time missing the equally vital respect and compassion that is preached, I suppose it's just the frustration perhaps of being the only one of this side of the issue while at the same time finding myself unable to reconcile with the fact that I may be being genuinely discriminatory against people for something they simply can't help. It's never been my intention to insult anyone else by voicing my beliefs, nor making people who are homosexual feel somehow wrong or evil, and if I have then I am sincerely sorry for it. As I've said earlier in the thread, the way the world is becoming such a secular place with no time for spirituality is something that genuinely concerns me, now whether that spirituality be Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion doesn't matter, but I feel people are losing touch with the fact that there is something far greater out there than any of us and people are beginning to forget that. Which is why I feel spirituality of some description is important for people, and perhaps I've let that cloud my opinion on this issue. I think it's a case that my beliefs are such an integral part of me, and so bound to the history of Ireland by blood, that it's very difficult to look at any issue from a purely secular point of view. And as this thread is the greatest proof, I've most certainly failed to adequately look at the issue in all it's aspects rather than black and white. I think I've been hating the sinner as well as the sin, which for someone who normally considers compassion the most important part of myself is very unsettling.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Dodeca][SIZE=1]But are they really damning themselves any more than any other person? This may just be the fruit of my Protestant alignment, but I was lead to believe that any person, Christian or otherwise is affected by sin, even something as simple as refusing to acknowledge God's existence, and that nothing other than Christ's intervention could remove that sin. From what I've been taught, one extra sin on the pile isn't going to make hell any less bearable for a non-Christian, and stopping them from practicing homosexuality isn't going to do anything if they don't come to Christ. Think for a moment, if the Church suppresses homosexuals' ability to make their own decisions, would they be more likely to 'join up' or less likely? You may disagree with me, and have every right to, but I think you'd be condemning more people than you'd be saving with that approach. [Don't take any of this as a personal attack against you, Gavin. Your points are well-structured, and I [i]can[/i] sort of understand where you're coming from, but there's not much else that I can argue against, really. : P][/SIZE][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Well I was talking about it from a Catholic point of view, by which anyone can seek forgiveness for sins by going to Confession, so actually seeking redemption is something anyone can do if they believe. You're right of course in the fact I've been sounding like a dogmatic evangelist rather than a concerned future-priest, at least hopefully future-priest, although I believe a friend may be right when she says I am too rigid in my application of beliefs. Again I'd like to apologise to anyone who took offence from my previous replies, I know it's not an excuse but perhaps ironically enough I've found it hard to discuss the fact I wish to become a priest with my own family. Out of the three children I was the only one likely to go to college, something neither my mother or father did, and there seems to be an onus on having me "live" before I make the commitment of entering the seminary. I've been probably transferring this fear and anger into my posts on this topic, making them harsher and much less in keeping with my usual respectful and sincere manner. I truly don't have anything against anyone who is homosexual, they're all people like everyone else and as deserving of their pursuit of happiness, and I suppose unless they make the choice to believe what I believe, I'm very wrong to try to stop them pursuing their happiness in whatever form it takes. I mean the person I respect most as a role-player on OtakuBoards, and who has helped me become a far more accomplished writer generally in the last few months is Josh [Shy] who I have never seen as anything other than a friend and a very decent person. I think I may have done him and our friendship a great disservice by taking such a hard-line on this issue. Oh and Sandy, I'm sorry for making it sound like you were a child in regard to my example, or that my beliefs elevated my above you as that wasn't my intention. I just meant it in regard that I don't want anyone to come to harm for what I perceive as being something wrong, but my perceptions aren't your perceptions, and if you feel there's nothing wrong with it, then what I say shouldn't matter.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Papa Smurf']...Gavin, you do realize how unbelievably bad that sounds? Hopefully you do. If not, I'll use myself as an example why what you're saying is entirely stupid.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Alex, do me a favour, if you're going to be discourteous enough to basically label my opinions as being stupid, then at least do me the courtesy of reading the actual reply in terms of the context. That post was in response PaganAngel's question about why God would punish someone for being homosexual, basically he asked me to answer a religious question, or rather to give the reason the Catholic Church has given as to why God considers homosexuality a sin. [/SIZE] [quote=Papa Smurf]I've spent a lifetime controlling myself. I am always aware of this rage inside of me, and because I'm aware of it, I'm able to manage it effectively. That rage will never go away. I've accepted that. It's a component of deeper psychological workings--and partly on a chemical level that's not so easily fixed through medication. In the past, I've tried to deny that the rage exists. I've tried to forget about those dark urges in my subconscious, the urges that push me to get really, really bad to a lot of people, to pick random fights and destroy other human beings. And do you know what always happened when I tried to fight/block/suppress that rage? Really bad things to myself. Usually self-inflicted. Denying feelings lead to personal devastation. I've dealt with rage issues. That was stressful enough.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Believe me Alex I understand the damage that suppression of rage does, I did it a lot of my childhood over being bullied, quite badly over being overweight, so please don?t even think you can lecture me on what it feels like to have to repress the urge to throttle someone to death with your bare hands. I bottled rage of intensity you can hardly even imagine for so long that I finally began to accept that I had to deal with it, either by doing something stupid like getting self inflicted injuries, or I could talk to people and work out my issues, guess which one I chose ? You can lash out or you can deal with the fact you have a problem, the former is what children do, the latter is what adults do.[/SIZE] [quote=Papa Smurf]Do you honestly believe that "not practicing" one's homosexuality is going to help them in any way at all? Think about how many people in the world today have killed themselves because they didn't think they could "come out." Or think about how many people in the world today have been shunned so much by society for being gay/lesbian that they've entirely withdrawn and would take decades of therapy usually to help them. But you want them to suppress who they really are? Would you rather me have suppressed the rage and wound up dead long before the chance of having this discussion? EDIT: Hopefully people will start seeing why religious doctrine is entirely useless in this discussion. Religion is quite often a black and white view of the world, and black and white views are the last thing anyone needs in a governing body when it comes to making laws.[/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]I honestly believe not practicing it is going to get them anywhere ? I don?t know, and that?s my genuine answer. In a few years I?m going to hopefully enter the seminary in Kildare, which means that eventually I?m going to be ordained a priest of the Catholic Church. Now that means that I?ll take a vow of chastity, I?ve never had sex, and chances are I probably won?t, unless something happens in the next two/three years to change that. Now does the fact that I won?t ever have sex, a basic part of normal human behaviour mean that I?m going to flip out in maybe 25/30 years ? Or will it mean that I simply accept that I promise I made to God is more important than controllable sexual urges ? You talk as if these people not practicing their homosexual behaviour is going to cause them all to go crazy in the same way someone who suppresses homicidal tendency for years does. I think it?s genuinely sad when someone kills themselves because of something they can?t admit to others, but it?s not as if gay people are the only ones who do that. Someone I knew quite well committed suicide because he didn?t get enough points in his Leaving Cert to study medicine and couldn?t admit to his parents that he simply couldn?t live without his dreams, he shot himself alone in a field with his father?s shotgun. I?m not trying to say that a gay person who kills himself/herself because they can?t tell their family for fear or rejection is any less sad than the case of my friend, but what I am saying is that if someone feels they can?t admit something about themselves, they need to seek help, professional help. Do I want someone to suppress who they really are, at the core of their being ? No, probably not, but if what?s at their core is something that puts their immortal soul, regardless of whether they believe it?s there or not, in jeopardy then I most certainly do want them to suppress it, or to deal with it in such a way that that piece of their core being no longer exists. As I?ve said already I?m not trying to oppress anyone else, I?m merely giving my reasons for why I think this kind of behaviour isn?t right, that?s not going to stop anyone from doing so, no more than it should because people need to make their own decisions in life, because that?s what life is. But it does concern me greatly that the world today has become such a spiritually devoid place, where this tiny, tiny span of life is all that matters, as opposed to the infinity of the hereafter. Do I wish you were dead Alex because you didn?t deal with your problems ? Of course not, after all I?d never have had the opportunity to have some many great debates over the years. As for whether religious doctrine and it?s black and white view of the world has any place in law making,, well that?s for governments to decide. But personally I think people confuse civil rights with civil liberties for too much nowadays. [/SIZE] [QUOTE=Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna]I think I can sum up this debat in two lines - Gavin: Stop repressing my right to repress and impose my morales on other people! Everyone Else: No. That's stupid. Pretty much that's it. Gavin, I hardly see how giving people the right to do what they believe is oppressive of your rights and beliefs. That's stupid.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Cygnus, no offence, but if you wish to sum up my own thoughts on this issue, you might do a better job of it. I haven?t said that I want to oppress anyone else?s rights, except sarcastically of course but that wasn?t picked up upon. What I have said is please at least allow my right to protest something I consider wrong, after all it not the vaunted American ideal of freedom of speech based on the idea that anyone should be allowed say anything they feel like, regardless of how offensive of hurtful it may be to someone else. I?m sorry to sound frustrated, but being one of the few on this side of the issue means you have a lot of flack to deal with. Secondly they?re not my morals, because by saying that you?re talking as if I?m the only person, one out of six and a bit billion people who wants to deny gay people their right to get married. They?re the morals of anyone who follows the tenets of the Catholic Church properly, which is somewhere in the one billion mark, and I?m not even counting members of other religions who feel the same way. Now I?ve already said from a legal standpoint only I don?t care if they get married or not, they?re only condemning themselves to an eternity to hellish torture, but seeing as religious beliefs that aren?t in line with giving gay people their liberty to marriage don?t seem to matter, I won?t continue. Thirdly the very fact that you won?t accept other people have a problem with this issue and are simply calling their views stupid because they don?t fall in line with your own is quite pathetic really. I suppose I could be equally childish and make a similar summing up where the facts are skewed completely out of reality, but then again I actually try to put a bit of effort into debating an issue.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]As someone else pointed out, I was indeed pointing towards the Counter-Reformation. In addition, it's not like that was the only time during which corruption plagued the Church. I believe I was taught that the Church had been selling indulgences for quite a while, owning property, etc. before, during, and after the Counter-Reformation. I was unaware of creating a "hundred year" timeline... I thought I said one thousand, but I might be wrong. It's great that the Church has shaped up now. However, I'm willing to wager that the Papacy hasn't fumbled because of the 1.1 billion followers who would be outraged to hear of corruption. The loss would simply be too great to even risk corruption - I thought I already said that these people were the check and balance to Papal authority. In any event, the Pope still walks around with his silver-and-gold staff with the crucifix attached to the end in his billowing robes and celebrates Mass in a huge Cathedral that [probably] took millions to build while there are billions suffering. It's not like they're off the hook, yet I digress from the debate. Really, that's all I want -- for you to let gays have their supposed "eternity of suffering" and make their own choice by the millions. As far as I know, no gay person is asking for the Pope's blessing; they are content with living their life with their partner. It's really great that you don't want them to go to hell. I seriously believe you're genuine in your statement. Unfortunately, a vast slice of the population does not share your faith, and as a result, should not be bound by the tenants of Catholicism. God gave man free-will, and all gays are asking for is their continued free-will. The most [and best] you can do is to voice your opinion to others, and let them take it as they list. Christ never shoved his message down anyone's throat. He presented it in a rational, non-confrontational manner and let others make their own decision.[/size][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Yes, I meant to type in Counter-Reformation but for some reason I seem to have forgot the "counter" bit, still the point was picked up all the same. The sale of indulgences, a foul practice indeed, I?ll admit occurred for a long time, the counter-reformation also led to the Inquisitions, another part of Church history no Catholic should ever be proud of. However the core seeds of the counter-reformation was to try and right the Church after so many years, which was eventually accomplished, though sadly the effects of the counter-reformation as well as the counter-reformation itself are relatively new at just under 500 years old. In all reality Retri, I think most Catholic people are more outraged at how staggering badly the Church handled the amount of paedophilia that went on, rather than if the Church met with a little financial fumble, because what is the value of money if a tiny portion of those supposedly trained in simulation of the twelve Apostles can do such horrific things to children. Besides with the fact amount of different divisions of the Christian faith that exist in the world today, if people don?t like how their Church is handling issues, they can always find another that better fits their beliefs. As for the cost of the building the Vatican itself, well I?ve actually been in the Vatican and I can tell you that if those splendid building to the glory of God is where some of my donations went, or rather the donations of my family generations upon generations ago went, it was money well spent. However the fact is the Catholic Church does give considerable sums to the poor in impoverished countries, most of which have Catholic missionaries already out there, unless of course you?re saying that the Church should donate all it?s money, including that needed to refurbish other churches across the world and keep their priests in some form of habitation directly to the poor then that?s a different matter. Would you allow a child to steal if you knew they?d face punishment, serious punishment ? No you wouldn?t, why ? Because you would feel obliged to prevent the child from being punished, but why ? Because you would feel distressed to see someone do something they would be punished for even if they didn?t know it was wrong, or as the case is here if we?re to compare the two, if someone tells them it?s wrong and they don?t believe it. I don?t want anyone to go to Hell, not the man who murders a child in cold blood, or the person who commits genocide, why ? Because I believe in redemption, and genuinely I?m easily distressed at someone else?s pain. The case is that this liberty being made into law will further jeopardise people?s souls, I know Christ did not force his message to those who did not want to hear it, because he knew people need to make their own choices, but perhaps Christ was able to sleep better at night than I would be able to, knowing someone is going to Hell for what they?ve done. Anyway this issue is really debated to the end of it?s point, that is unless someone would like to start discussing the validity of religious beliefs in Republican law-making policy in the United States. The case remains that many people are for gay marriage while others are not, at this point all we can do is agree to disagree.[/SIZE]

[quote name='PaganAngel']Now, how is it right for God to consider homosexuality an outrage and a sin? Homosexuals don't become so on free will or choice. That'd basically be like God saying, "Hey, you, you have a birth defect, so you're going to hell." (just an analogy, I'm not in any way suggesting homosexuals are defective.) Yeah... what? How can He punish people for something that wasn't even their choice? I'm sorry, I'd love someone to clarify that.[/quote] [SIZE=1]OK, the short and simple answer to that is that while people may be born homosexual, they don't have to practice their homosexuality. To use another analogy, people are born with the capacity to engage in extra-marital affairs but have the choice not to, if they do, it's wrong but they actively made the choice to make the wrong decision. Now as I said that's the short and simply answer to it, but the vast majority of the choices we make in life, good and bad, are down to burden of choice that was placed upon Mankind by God at our creation.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Bombu][color=darkred']Oh, and Gavin, as for Australia, I wouldn't give up on them yet just yet, heh. They did pretty well against Japan, who have some quality players, so who knows what's going to happen.[/color][/quote] [SIZE=1]I'm not counting them out just yet, I just don't honestly think they have enough to compete against the big leaguers like Spain and Italy. I'd love to see them progress further, as in into the semis, and it could happen, but if they get drawn against someone like Germany they're screwed.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]In a normal democratic country (ideally, that is) equality and freedom is stressed at the expense of irritating the "special" people who are opposed to granting certain minorities (because of skin color, religion, sexual preference or whatever) rights that should be granted to all men and women equally. I hope your government remains sensible and grants the freedoms discussed in this topic to homosexuals instead of reverting to draconian, theocratic nonsense just because the 'majority' of it's citizens are traditionalists.[/color][/quote] [SIZE=1]What you have done there Ken is effectively contradict yourself, on the one hand you've said that you believe in democracy and granting people basic human rights, which is done in Ireland. While on the other, you've said that a law which would effectively only serve a tiny minority should be implemented even if the majority of the voting population would be against it. I'm sorry but there's something distinctly confusing about that, as it doesn't seem very democratic for one tiny segment of the population to be able to create laws that the majority are against. [/SIZE] [quote=Deathknight][color=crimson]You're not seriously suggesting that we should look to that tiny, specially administrated city-state as an example, are you? [b]All[/b] theocracies (ones that have a [i]real[/i] country to oversee/deal with :rolleyes:) inevitably tyrannize or persecute portions of their population (dissidents primarily) justifying it as a crusade against 'heathens'. [/color][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Are you suggesting then that countries with smaller populations should not have their laws declared valid because they don't rival the U.S. in terms of population size ? The Republic of Ireland has a population total of just over 4,000,000 that's less than 2% of the American population, so because you have more people are your laws somehow more right than ours ? I gave the example of the only Roman Catholic Theocracy I'm aware of, if there are others, please enlighten me.[/SIZE] [quote name='Caine']I'm not sure I understand you here. I know many religious people. I am religious in the sense that I have a religion (Roman Catholic) and I follow it as best as I can. I know people who are more religious than I am. I do not automatically assume they are bigots. You say that it is intolerant of others for them not to follow your beliefs, and I simply do not follow this logic.[/quote] [SIZE=1]I was probably unclear as that my quote was intended to be somewhat sarcastic, what I was basically saying is that the level that "separation of Church and State" is being taken to the point where eventually it will become just "suppression of Church". And that's what I oppose, now please don't even bother attempting to argue the point that the liberal left if they should get all their beliefs through would even consider allowing us on the religious right our say to what we consider to be right and wrong. Despite the name, Liberals are usually as oppressive as Conservatives in the name of universalism, where by anything they think is right, regardless of how morally corrupt it is, should be made legal. If homosexual marriage is made legal, how long before polygamy gets the green light ? It's the same thing really, people who want to get married and who love one another very much. Two women and one man, three men and two women, six women and two men, six women on their own. It's all about love seemingly. The morality of it be damned, if it's legal then why not.[/SIZE] [quote name='Caine']I don't believe it. Is the entire problem simply semantics? For the purposes of any posts I have made on this topic, "marriage" means a legal union between two people unless I explicitly state otherwise. It has nothing to do with what those people did in a church/temple/mosque/whatever. This began as a debate over the "Defense of Marriage Act" It is a US Government thing. It has nothing to do with the Church. Pope Benedict has no official say in what happens with it. It is about what you call civil unions. The Church can do as it pleases, I think this entire debate has been about the legal, state sanctioned marriages which have no relation to the ones performed by an ordained minister of the Catholic Church.[/quote] [SIZE=1]Alright, semantics aside, I've already said that if it's purely legal, let them off, let them get married and have the fifty percent divorce rate heterosexual couples in the U.S. enjoy. Let them have the nasty bitter divorces through the courts, let them have all the misery that comes afterwards. Just because they're allowed get married like anyone else does not mean it's going to be all sun and roses. I mean if people want to be really, really realistic here, gay couples are going to have the same one in two chance of splitting up as straight couples, it's not as if they're somehow going to all have perfect marriages just because they're now allowed get married legally. To lift a phrase from the liberal camp, gay or straight, people are still people. Caine, just by the way, Roman Catholic clergy members are called Priests, not Ministers.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Oh, right, except for the small fact that the Catholic Church has indeed been relatively corrupt up until the last hundred years or so. The selling of indulgences, the Church owning property, the vast amounts of wealth, all of these scream of corruption. Sure, the Church has been pretty good as of late, but for the last thousand years or so, it's been a corrupt entity that commanded more than just religious authority throughout Europe. Theocracies are corrupt unless there is another body keeping them in check; in modern times, I would assume that globally concerned people are that body. In any event, I'm a staunch liberal who doesn't care much for those on the right wing (Please note I speak only of their beliefs, not their self-worth). I wholeheartedly support all efforts for gay marriage/civil unions, and I hope it's only a matter of time before our nation moves past this 1950s conservative mindset. PS: Very sorry for rehashing anyone's points. I [admittedly] only scanned the thread, however the first page was indeed scary for me. ;)[/size][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]I think Retri what you're referring to would be the Reformation, when acts like Simony, Nepotism and other major corruptions were cast out from the Church is favour of a more pious life. Unfortunately your "hundred year" timeline if off by a few centuries. I'll admit freely that the Church was corrupt for a long time, now however, and we're dealing with the now, it's not, which is impressive for an organisation that has 1,100,000,000, that's 1.1 billion, followers and manages gargantuan sums of money each year. I can't think of a single country/organisation with similar size and income that does as well. And I really don't care for the liberal left in a similar fashion. But as I've said twice already, as long as they're not looking for the blessing of the Catholic Church or it's members, or mind the fact that we won't ever consider their marriages morally official then let them marry in their millions for all I care. Of course the real issue here to the religious, is that gay people by breaking the will of God, who incidentally most gay people don't believe exists, are putting their mortal souls in danger. Now seeing as they don't believe in God that doesn't really matter, but for those of us that do believe in God there is that slight little niggling worry we're allowing countless people to condemn themselves to an eternity in Hell by accepting that homosexual behaviour is appropriate. I'm not persecuting anyone intentionally by denying them the right to get married, what I am trying to do is prevent them from an eternity of pain for not following the laws of God. If anyone thinks I'm being disingenuous with this statement, well there's nothing I can do to prove I'm sincere, but I should hope my reputation for being honest will convince some others.[/SIZE]

[quote name='John']Ok then, let me strip down my argument to its real point: you want to take a human right away from a group of people rather than tolerate a belief contradictory to your own. That's not how democracy (or Christianity or any vaguely related religion) works. Which leads me nicely into...[/size][/quote] [SIZE=1]Good, because it's about time people actually said exactly what they mean, which is what I'm going to do right now. Gay people are [b]not[/b] the majority in Ireland, they are a tiny, tiny minority, those who support gay rights are [b]not[/b] the majority, they are a minority as well. Last time I checked, in a normal democratic country, minorities didn't have the right to tell the majority how to think or what was right or wrong. And being "Christian" a term warped by the Americans too, has nothing do with it.[/SIZE] [quote name='John][b']Theocracy never, ever works or has worked. It's a codeword for tyranny.[/b][/quote] [SIZE=1]Which leads me to raise the example of Vatican City, a city which I have visited and [B]is[/B] a theocracy and [B]works[/B]. Is it a tyrant's nation ? No. Theocracies do not work when corrupt, immoral men take charge.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Caine]no, no, no ,no ,no, no. Let me get this straight, you wish to impose a limit on other people, because if you don't impose that limit [i]they[/i] are being intolerant of [i]your[/i] beliefs?[/quote] [SIZE=1]Rather straight forward isn't it ? The very fact that today being religious seems to equate you immediately with intolerance of other people and their beliefs, despite the fact that they are equally intolerant of yours is something of an oddity isn't it ? However as I have said I oppose homosexual marriage on religious ground primarily because I think it's wrong, it's funny that somehow my beliefs are automatically wrong because other people disagree with them.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Caine]I believe you are confusing state marriages with religious ones. The RCC can marry or not marry whoever it chooses to. The government (at least in the US) was founded on equality and religious tolerance, and so should act based on tolerance, not the wishes of one group. State marriages do not take place in a church, and have very little to do with religion Its hard for me as an American to see this as an assault on marriage, because degrading marriage any further is pretty much impossible. The word has almost no meaning here. Maybe in Ireland things are different, but in order for me to understand how you see this as degrading I'd have to know how you view marriage.[/quote] [SIZE=1]I can understand the differences, and really what you're talking about are civil unions and marriages which in my own mind are two quite separate entities. Civil unions are government sanctioned "pairings" for the lack of a better word, having no religious segment to them. A marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together in the eyes of God in His church presided over by a member of the clergy, and is not legally recognised by the State until a marriage certificate is acquired. Those are the differences effectively, although civil unions are usually referred to as marriages. As I said giving homosexual couples the right to civil union is a different topic altogether as there is no religious segment to the joining. It is a commitment under the eyes of the State only. I understand how it would be hard for you to see how this could be an assault on marriage given how badly twisted marriage has become in the United States where roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce and you can effectively be married by anyone. I don't think the figure is that high here in Ireland and generally marriage is still seen a religious ceremony with legal standing. Basically marriage isn't seen as a joke here yet, it's still regarded as something to enter seriously and with a bit of pre-thought.[/SIZE] [QUOTE=Caine]The issue may be divisive, but that is exactly why it must be faced. We cannot simply turn our backs, we must face reality and deal with it. We must debate it, because if we don't then our views truly can't change, and we will always be divided. Finally, did it ever cross your mind that since you admit that its wrong to deny them that right, maybe we shouldn't?[/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Yes but the major problem is that people's views never change, it's always going to be divisive until one side gets enough support to simply overwhelm the other. I've always found it strange that one something that is wrong from the point of view of the religious right gets into law, the debate on it dies immediately, as if to say "It's over, you lost". As I recall one of the southern states of the U.S. rebanned abortion a while back, although it escapes me at this moment which state it was. I didn't actually say that it was wrong to deny them that right, I said it would be as wrong to deny me my right to prevent the distortion of my religious beliefs and the institutions that are a part of those beliefs. There is a difference.[/SIZE]

[quote name='John]Nuuuuuu, the point isn't to get you to accept homosexuality as [i]ok[/i], but to get you to accept that [i]other people[/i'] consider it ok. The point here is that no matter what you think is right or wrong, not everyone else thinks that. Therefore, you're not really voting for or against homosexuality, but for or against whether people should be able to set their own moral and ethical boundaries. Your stance seems to be that people should have their boundaries set for them, against their will. That smacks mightily of a theocracy.[/quote] [SIZE=1]A valid point John, except in the case of the Republic of Ireland we're having gay marriage made legal without consulting the voting population, it's not as if the vast majority of Irish people want gay marriage and we on the religious right are waving the canes in anger, this is a case where people are generally against the idea on religious/moral grounds. As for the theocracy bit, if it works... ;) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]I was personally dreading when this nasty little topic would rear it's ugly head again, as all it does is prove a divisive issue between the religious right and liberal left. There is no winning either side of this debate because generally neither side will budge on their opinions, and why should they if they feel they're correct. Personally I oppose granting homosexual marriage on religious grounds, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and so my major objections to the idea of granting a same-sex couple the right of marriage stems from the fact that I believe the institution of marriage to be a purely religious practice between two members of the opposite sex. Now while this may sound hypocritical to those who feel I'm not being "Christian" and I really do dislike it when people make those kinds of comments because they're as based in ignorance as people describing homosexuality as a curable disease, the opposition to homosexual marriage comes directly from the Holy Father himself, and was staunchly opposed by his predecessor Pope John Paul II. Again this may simply sound like a case of regurgitation, in that I'm simply repeating the line of the Church but I happen to agree wholeheartedly with the line being taken, in that it is my religious belief that such a perversion of the holy institution is wrong. On a slightly more secular level, I oppose homosexual marriage coming into the Republic of Ireland because it would mean I would be legally obliged to accept that such an custom would be right in the face of my own beliefs. The very fact our own Justice Minister is attempted to sneak the laws in without a referendum by the population, because he knows it would be soundly beaten, is equally disturbing as it indicates the beliefs of the majority of the country are secondary to the wished of the Minister for Justice. Those facts aside, it seems to be rather more distasteful today to be a practicing member of Catholicism as to be homosexual. I don't oppose homosexual rights, or rather that is to say I bear no ill-will towards people who are homosexual, but the idea that they wish to distort one of the major institutions of many religions to suit themselves seems just as wrong as denying them that right in the first place. If this is really about giving them the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple then that's another issue, but if I must I will protest any attempts for a gay couple to degrade a church in Ireland with their so-called marriage ceremony.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. I'm surprised I didn't notice this thread before, as like most European males I'm glued to watching the opening matches of the 2006 World Cup, this despite the fact Ireland haven't qualified for the first time in years. I watched the England-Trinidad&Tobago match earlier today and I have to admit I was one the edge of my seat hoping T&T would be able to hold England to a draw, I mean the very fact that one of the so called "contenders" for the World Cup was very nearly held to a nil-all draw by a team not supposed to be near their league is perhaps a portent of things to come. It's funny really, the anti-England sentiment in Ireland is all but dead, save when it comes to football or rugby, in which case we hate to see them win anything. Personally I'm hoping Germany wins it out, if only for the fact my adopted country Australia probably don't have a chance. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]I posted the X-Men intro post, as well as the general brief for the X-Men characters, it seems the beginning will be made up of two Brotherhood posts followed by two X-Men posts and then one of each as expected. Bill what do we do about characters who weren't picked, like say Scott and Jean ? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. One of the things that particularly appeals to me about Otaku[b]Boards[/b] is despite it's Anime origins, it's actually a very diverse community, which is nice for those of us who no longer watch/enjoy Anime. Having set up shop in the Arena nearly five years ago, I became an RPG addict fairly quickly and that's really the only other kind of forums I visit on a regular basis, that and sci-fi forums really. The one universal fact I've come across in my travels is despite how nice other sites look with their thirteen different styles to choose from, OB always has the substance to back up it's style. No other site I've come across have the same level of quality in their RPGs, or the same level of proper spelling, articulation and grammar in their discussions. It's really a trade off in the fact that BravoFleet's S.T.O.R.M.S. RPG segment, set in Enterprise era Star Trek, generally is fairly active but the level of quality isn't nearly as good compared to here. Which is why I'm trying to recruit people from OB into my ship to maybe up the quality calibre. All jokes aside, OtakuBoards is the best board on the net.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting. Hmm, being a Roman Catholic I simply take what I know happens on belief, I live my life and after X amount of years, I die and make the trip up to Saint Peter and the Gates of Heaven. He has a look at my life and either tells me I was a decent enough man to get into Heaven, or I wasn't good enough and go to Purgatory, or I was a real **** I end up in Hell. Seeing as I try to live a good life, and obey the rules of God and the Church I hope that eventually when I do move on to the next life I'll get the all-clear from Saint Peter.[/SIZE]

[quote name='otakufan']I live by the quote "get busy living or get busy dying."[/quote] [SIZE=1]I'm nearly certain that line is taken from the Shawshank Redemption, and if that's correct then the line was written by Steven King. Personally my own quote to live by is "Dominus illuminatio mea", which translates from Latin to mean "the Lord is my light". Basically when broken down to it's most basic meaning, it reflects my belief that when life is at it's worst one need only rely on God and you'll fine the good to keep you going. Seemingly it's also the motto of Oxford University, which I wasn't aware.[/SIZE]