(June 22, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Metis Wrote:(June 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
See post 1588
This is correct, thank you.
^Yes.
1. Am I just blind or is this post I'm quoting #1588? If it is I'm not sure what I should be looking at
2 & 3. Pleasure
Haha, no!
Post 1588 is this one, copied and posted:
"I do not think there is a particular line drawn in stone on what kind of age differences a married couple can morally have. It is not always-and-everywhere-no-matter-what, ok. It can depend on culture, emotional/physical maturity of the girl, how respectfully the man handles it, etc.
Obviously in 21st century America this would be immoral, both because of the culture and because it is against the law. But I can see how in a totally different culture it can be different.
I do agree with all of you that this in particular is subjective.
Another thing I think is subjective is the standards of modesty. I think it'd be immoral if I walked around my neighborhood block topless wearing fig leaves over the bottom, but I do not think it is moral that the indigenous people do this in their "neighborhoods"."
Our numbers must be different for some reason.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
