Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 17

= March 17 =

Did Alexander really weep?
Is it really true that Alexander the Great wept when he had no more worlds to conquer, or is this just another urban myth? His article dosen't really mention this, and I can't find much online other than a site which references the "Alexander wept" quote to some of John Milton's writings...can anyone help? Icanhearthegrassgrow 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This alleged quotation is, I think, a distortion of a passage from Plutarch- Do you not think it a matter worthy of lamentation that when there is such a vast multitude of worlds, we have not yet conquered one? Clio the Muse 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The literal truth of the tale is less important than its nature as a literary trope. Alexander cultivated a following of court "biographers". His personal charisma was left unblemished by his dying young, at the height of his powers; his legend expanded in the Hellenistic age that followed, when "events" like the episode of the Gordian knot first surfaced. Read Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, where a fine historian tells a great story. --Wetman 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wetman, it is indeed a fine piece of work. But I would also recommend Alexander the Great of Macedon by Peter Green.  And if I were not Clio, I would be Diogenes! (On reflection, I think I am far closer in temperament to Messalina!) Clio the Muse 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your intriguing answers... its funny how the truth can be so distorted by time. I will definetely be seeking out those sources you recommended! Icanhearthegrassgrow 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Messalina? Clio, I am sure you are being unfair to yourself. Messalina had nothing like your intellect.  Marco polo 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Marco; but she had all of my native cunning! Clio the Muse 01:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Distorted by time? "What is truth?" --Wetman 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is truth, Wetman? It is that which springs from argument among friends, at least it does according to David Hume, the great empiricist.  Clio the Muse 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall the incident correctly, Alex did weep, but it was because he stubbed his toe. I think he was releived his work was complete, but wanted life to continue. Of course, he was drunk DDB 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why people like violence?
Is there an explanation as to why people enjoy seeing violence? Think of horror movies, bad news. I'd like some biological or psychological answers as to why. (Also, I'm not implying everyone likes to view violence) PitchBlack  01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the copy of an answer I gave earlier this month on this very subject. Clio the Muse 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a paper by Victor Neil in the August 2006 journal Behavioural and Brain Sciences which may be pertinent to your inquiry. The full title is Cruelty's Rewards: The gratification of Perpetrators and Spectators. In essence it is an overview of cultural practices from the earliest times, focusing on the vicarious enjoyment of cruelty and pain.  The capacity for cruelty, and the enjoyment of the suffering of others, is a constant if latent feature of the human psyche.  Think of the spectators at the Roman arena; think of the pleasure derived from cinematic violence.  It is possible to extend this analysis to look at the problem of evil and sadism in more general terms.  The monstrous, in other words, is not abstract or 'other', but an immediate, internalised danger.  Humanity's baser impulses have been superficially channelled and controlled by personal socialisation and the super-arching structures of morality and law.  These can, however, disintegrate, both at an individual and collective level.  We know all to well from both contemporary politics, and from  modern history, that cruelty and indifference, once released, can have devastating consequences.  Clio the Muse 02:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a neuron (Premovement neuronal activity) that specifically fires when a person sees another doing something. If we see someone smile, these reflective neurons encourage us to smile. If someone sneezes, we too, sneeze. Violence is conflict. In a gladatorial fight, the viewer can be victor and vanquished, which is a huge rush. There is the relief that one isn't as hurt as the loser. There is the release from the cultural penalties attached with committing such an act. I'm not into such things as boxing, but the incidental things that make up a school teacher's life leads me to this view DDB 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From an evolutionary viewpoint (speaking strictly as a layman), an organism that didn't take an interest in violence, especially intraspecies, would be less likely to survive. It's a short step from 'interest' to 'like'. Clarityfiend 05:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see what individual or group might have the inverse reaction to watching violence and have a total aversion to it. My hand is up but I think it is mainly from overdosing from it. Keria 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it often seems unnecessary. Just looks like a way for scriptwriters to hide a boring and uninteresting script... If fictional characters are uninteresting, I don't care much if they get hurt or killed... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that studies done before it was illegal discovered that heavy users of LSD tended to be pacifist. The Jade Knight 08:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that those who've undergone a lobotomy would be rather pacifist as well, yet I still wouldn't recommend one. Loomis 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Why do people like violence?
 * Answer: If you perceive another human being as the source of your suffering, then you flucking wanna kill him and cut his head off and use it for soccer practice. After which you have a glass of beer because justice is served. People like violence because people like "justice".
 * 220.239.107.13 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-religious marriage
In what ways can you have a non-religious marriage? No churches or priests. PitchBlack 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Most marriages in Australia seem to be like that. Although many get married in churches, and often take vows, many laugh at both activities. I've known couples to marry, using a civil celebrant, on a boat or in a park. Once, in a back yard. The legal status is important, all suffer when they divorce, such is the price of legal protection :D DDB 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The type of civil wedding available varies from country to country; in some places, the mayor or a civil authority performs all civil ceremonies at City Hall, and in others marriage commissioners may perform the ceremony in any location the couple desires. In some countries (France and Monaco, notably) all couples must have a civil wedding. They may have a religious wedding as well, but without the civil wedding they are not legally married. So it depends on what country you're in and who you're asking to perform the ceremony. -- Charlene 06:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of atheist and humanist groups offer wedding ceremonies that don't go into all the religious blah. I guess they would emphasize more the social and human aspect. I can't provide any link though but have a look a your local level. Keria 13:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what you're saying, Charlene. I would imagine that just like here in Canada, in pretty much every country, even those having a religious wedding must somehow have it registered by the secular authorities in order for it to be recognized by the state as a "marriage". I'm curious, how is it different in France? Loomis 13:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First you get married, in a civil ceremony, with witnesses and such. Then you are married according to French law. If you wish, you may then have some religious ceremony with imams or marabouts or whatever. I think in France it is even illegal for a priest, imam, marabout, or whatever, to perform a religious marriage ceremony when the couple is not already married by law. --Lambiam Talk  14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume so. You have to show the priest a certificate from your real marriage ceremony or he won't perform the wedding. Algebraist 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for the timing issue, i.e. that the civil marriage must come before the religious marriage, I still don't see the difference. How is this "civil ceremony" any more of a ceremony than that which is required in most of the rest of the world, i.e. the swearing of an oath, the signing of a contract or whatever? Loomis 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's different to what is required in Britain. In Britain, you can have the civil part (the signing of the register) as part of the religious service, or you can just have a secular service. In France, you have to have two seperate ceremonies if you want a religious wedding. 81.157.44.217 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh. Now I get it. Thanks! Loomis 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My parents were married by a celebrant, not a priest. --124.180.137.10 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Prose work shorter than 1000 words
Our article on short stories says they are, "in contemporary usage, ... no shorter than 1,000 [words]", which seems a little dubious to me. What term would describe a unit of prose fiction shorter than that? Thanks! Bhumiya (said/done) 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A short short story. --Wetman 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A drabble.  meltBanana  15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fictional prose miniatures by authors such as Daniil Kharms are often referred to as vignettes. ---Sluzzelin talk  17:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, vignette. Thanks for the responses. Bhumiya (said/done) 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Feghoots. Corvus cornix 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hip Band
i bought a new pyjama (hosiery material) whose hipband is very tight. i just want to loosen it by 2 inches. do suggest me the various ways by which the elastic can be loosened. Thank you. bye - shivaram —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.30.111 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
 * From the headline, I thought you were talking about Devo... @_@ 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried this? Jfarber 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not shirred elastic but in a deep "hem",slit open the "hem" at a seam and take out the old elastic.This can then be replaced by a piece of elastic 2" longer.Do this by pinning a safety pin on the end of the elastic.Then,holding onto the free end,thread the safety pin through the hem.This can then be sewn together,after taking off the safety pin, as neatly as possible so as not to rub.The "hem" can then be re-sewn on the seam.If you havn't got another piece of elastic,a small piece of material,2" long could be patched onto the end of the elastic.This is how I fix my tight waistbands.hotclaws**== 10:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Incest
The following question may offend or puzzle certain users, please rest assured I am asking this question purely philosophically:

If homosexuality or sodomy (be it homosexual or heterosexual) or other odd sex acts, are allowed because what two consenting adults do to eachother should not be made illegal - then would incestuous relations not follow and soon be legal, too? Keep in mind the distinction between inbreeding and incest - incest doesn't necessarily involve reproduction. Should incest between consenting adults remain illegal? Why or why not?

Disclaimer: I am not comparing homosexuality with incest, instead I am referring to the justification of sexual liberties which allows homosexuality, yet disallows incest. Rfwoolf 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. I suspect that one of the biggest factors to consider regarding legalisation of anything is public opinion. At present I do not see anything to suggest that the legalisation of incest would be positively received. Whilst you accurately note that 'two consenting adults' is used as justification for the continued legality of other acts, it ignores the biggest hurdle - culture. There will, i'm sure, be people who note genetic reasons for not allowing this, but science would be being used as a cover for morality. The simplest reason against legalisation is that it is culturally considered to be wrong/unnatural (though obviously it occurs in nature all the time). Laws do many things...prosecuting harm, prosecuting damage, and also enforce national morality. This can be as simple as laws against 'public indecency' which doesn't actually 'harm' anybody physcially, but perhaps may affront their morality. I don't propose either should be made illegal, but the reasoning is due to the interlinked relationship of morality and law. ny156uk 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw a video piece on CNN.com a couple weeks ago (maybe last week) of a German couple who are brother/sister and they had four children, I believe. At least two of them, from what I recall, were born with physical abnormalities.  The man was jailed for a time because incest is illegal there.  To answer your question though, I don't think you'll find a reason to ban incest that isn't tied to one or both of the following two arguments: 1) Religion and 2) it's icky.  If a state is supposed to be seperating its laws from the rules of a church then the first shouldn't matter, though it often does.  The second shouldn't matter either since, as you've basically said, we all live different lives and as long as what were doing isn't hurting anyone then it shouldn't matter how "icky" they might think what you do in your own bedroom is.  Dismas |(talk) 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One obvious problem with Incest is that it is usually a coercive relationship, as when a parent and minor child or older and younger sibling do it, and not really bewteen consenting adults. Most societies (but not all) make all such relations a crime. However much the parties may say they do not wish to reproduce a child with genetic problems, unintended pregnancies are a frequent result of any heterosexual relations, and inbreeding is a very bad idea genetically unless someone is diong animal experimentation for some reason. Edison 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if consensual adult incest is legal or not. A vanishingly small percentage of the population is refraining from bedding their siblings due to fear of punishment. Most people just find it icky, so they don't do it. --TotoBaggins 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the Westermarck effect, yet I'd be interested in statistics or estimates regarding the "vanishingly small percentage". Why wouldn't it matter if this minority felt repressed, guilty, and unhappy because of the religious and political majority's sensitivities of ickyness? ---Sluzzelin talk  16:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Incest by itself is not illegal in several countries, including Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, France, Japan, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Portugal, and Turkey. --Lambiam Talk  16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting... I wonder if incest was ever illegal in those countries - was there a repeal/reform of the laws or were the laws never made? But thanks for the answer Rfwoolf 16:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know for all countries, but in France the prohibition on incest was removed with the new Penal Code adopted after the French Revolution of 1789. The French law came to be of force in the Netherlands and Belgium when these countries were incorporated into the First French Empire. The earlier prohibition was never reinstated. --Lambiam Talk  17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find a major difference between the two as incest between siblings of opposite sexes can produce a child with much higher odds of birth defects. The birth of a child makes incest cross the line from victimless crime to child abuse. Mikmd 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What about individuals who have known diseases that will be passed on a generation? Would that be 'child abuse' too? Should you not have a child if you know there is a significant chance they may not be born healthy? ny156uk 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And what about individuals who are really ugly and have suffered their entire lives because of it and will pass those genes to their children? I don´t know whether it should be illegal to do that, but it is for sure immoral. A.Z. 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted the actual reproduction side of things should have legal consequences, but then the laws should reflect inbreeding and not incest - the one refers to sexual relations and the other refers to reproduction. Rfwoolf 16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to throw my two cents in, marriage between first cousins is illegal in the US, yet only results in a 2-3% higher risk of defects.. Also, what about gay incest? What if one of the parties knows that they're sterile? Shui9 18:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First cousin marriage is only illegal in some of the states — I'm sure there's a list somewhere.--Pharos 00:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to enter into the argument regarding sexual alignment, however, I am aware that there are natural reasons why people usually don't commit incest, and they have nothing to do with culture or law A Science Report. Culture and law do have effects. Is incest of father daughter or mother son cultural? Possibly not mainstream culture, but counterculture? DDB 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

One of other the major arguments for gay rights (apart from "freedom of choice", discussed above) is that homosexuality is not in fact a choice, and that it is gay people's natural expression of love. Such an argument would not apply to incest at all; noone has ever claimed incest is some sort of inborn sexual orientation.--Pharos 00:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And what if someone could?


 * With regard to the "ick" factor, I have to disagree somewhat. Gay rights is both a novel and sensitive issue. It's not that homosexuality hadn't in past eras been considered totally ok by society, just not in any of our lifetimes, that's for sure, and hence its being a rather novel and sensitive issue. As such, I feel many of the good people among us haven't yet come to terms with the fact that it's ok for a heterosexual to have a natural aversion to the idea of homosexual sex. It doesn't make you a gay-basher or a homophobe if you can't help but wince at the thought of two men or two women being sexually intimate. I openly admit to it. (Well being a straight male, for reasons I don't quite understand, much moreso the former than the latter). Yet all the while I'm absolutely pro gay-rights, with a couple of what I believe to be justifiable exceptions which I won't get into, unless anyone's interested.


 * My point is that I believe in gay rights not because I don't find homosexuality "icky", once again I openly admit that I in fact do find it rather "icky". The reason I believe in gay rights is because I don't feel I have any right in imposing my "ick-factor" on others, and using it to deny those with a different "ick-factor" every right and every degree of respect the rest of us get. "Ickyness" is a natural, yet subjective aspect of humanity. Who here doesn't find the notion of our own two parents being sexually intimate with each other as possibly the "ickiest" thing conceiveable? Yet had they not engaged in such "icky" acts, none of us would be here today having this discussion!


 * All of the heterosexuals among you above seem to be good people in the sense that none of you are homophobes or gay-bashers, and all of you seem to believe in gay rights. Yet I believe there's one last hurdle many of you, indeed much of society has to jump in order for an honest but necessary paradigmatic shift to finally take place. The problem that I see is that while all of you seem to be absolutely accepting of gay-rights, none of you seem to be willing to admit to your personal inner uncomfortabilities about it. I'm not saying that all of you share the same aversion as I do, but surely some of you do. It just seems that we're expecting too much from straight society, we're expecting straight people to not merely be pro gay-rights, but in addition, to lie to ourselves and each other that we're not the least bit turned off about homosexuality. But we are! And it's ok! It doesn't make you a bad person at all, any more than your aversion to even thinking of your own parents' sexual relationship makes you love them any less. I know I love my parents, yet when it comes to knowing how I came to be, well, lets just say I'd prefer if it were indeed some stork that brought me to them. Similarly, I love gay people, just please, spare me the details!


 * Of course I realize I haven't adressed the OP's question, referring to incest. I congratulate the OP, because that one's a real stumper. I really don't know. I really can't think of a reason why consensual adult incest should be illegal. In fact, given all the above replies, unless someone brings me some further evidence to change my mind, I'd have to be honest and take the bold position in saying that laws against consensual adult incest are illegitimate, and should be revoked. Loomis 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that people should be more honest and say that they find icky the things they find icky. I´m interested in the justifiable exceptions for gay rights you talk about. A.Z. 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the argument. Incest should be legal. A.Z. 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just learned reading the answers above that in my country it is! A.Z. 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just changed my mind. I´m thinking of two consenting adults deciding to eat one another or marry a dog. They don´t hurt anyone, yet it´s wrong. (Actually, if I think it´s wrong then I think they are hurting me by doing this wrong thing) The problem here appears to be the role Law should play. I don´t want people to "allow" gay people to marry because they are not hurting anyone. And I don´t want people to "allow" incestuous relations even though they find it wrong. I want them to recognize that they are a married couple and they love each other and so on. Also, it is completely impossible for someone to "allow" a person to do something if they think that thing IS hurting other people. Like religious people who think gay marriage and incest are bad for society. If they really believe it, they should fight incest and homosexuality, and I don´t see how recognizing that this does not harm anyone and making it legal will do it. Law is misterious to me now. Law is not something defined... Law is just messy. I don´t seem to understand what´s the relation between culture, morality and Law. Now, incest is not in itself immoral to me at all. It´s just icky. A.Z. 09:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly thanks for your input. Yes I am already aware that if you endorse the philosophy that "what two consenting adults do that doesn't affect anybody else should be legal" -- that it would effectively be allowing things like assisted suicide, and canabilism. As it is, both are illegal (I assume even voluntary/consented canabilism). But that's where the line can be drawn. Indeed laws can have their limits and their recourses. With incest you can draw the line at reproduction, saying that if you reproduce you are then inbreeding and have a high risk of birth defects, and certainly you can draw the line at murder/suicide/manslaughter even if the affected party is willing. Canabalism is an iffy one, though. How do you define canabalism, especially if it doesn't kill someone. You may have heard of the case in recent years of a German man that found another man on the internet, and asked him to eat his penis (literally) together, and then to kill him. For argument's sake, should it be legal to cut off your hand and sell it? Or allow someoen else to cut off your hand? These are all medical issues really, the law should allow only surgeons and doctors to perform and form of limb surgeries. So after all this, it still seems to me that incest between consenting adults should be legal in theory. All things like murder, suicide, assisted suicide, canabilism, medical procedures and limb amputations should remain illegal. Rfwoolf 11:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While the "ick factor" may be the real reason for it, the stated reason for the banning of incest is presumably that it can lead to screwed-up kids. (Also, in the case of incest between people of different generations, you can say true consent is impossible. I'd guess that this situation -- abuse of a young person by an older relative -- accounts for 99% of incest prosecutions.) Now it's certainly possible for adult siblings to have sex without making babies, but how then do you frame the law? That it's OK with a condom? Or if the woman is post-menopausal? Or on birth control? It's far easier just to ban the practice, which I'm sure is very rare anyway. -- Mwalcoff 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What about that one person who loves his sibling? A.Z. 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean here. -- Mwalcoff 09:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean you didn´t take into account that by forbidding incest you will disrupt some few loving incestuous families. If you still don´t understand, just ask and I´ll try to explain it better. A.Z. 09:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the need to prevent birth defects and messed-up families, and the fact that (by my guess) at least 99% of incestuous relationships cannot be described as fully consentual, provides adequate reason for a ban on the practice, even if there are one or two sets of adult siblings out there somewhere who really want to get it on. -- Mwalcoff 19:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A.Z., since you asked about what I consider to be two justifiable exceptions, the two issues I'm speaking of are situations where I believe gay rights actually do conflict with other rights, and are therefore, strictly speaking, not a simple matter of gay rights.


 * The first involves gays in the military. I can see a justifiable reason for excluding gays, as it seems to conflict with others' right to privacy. Military life involves living in close quarters with others, showering in common areas, and certainly a degree of nudity amongst members within the same barracks. It's for this reason that female soldiers are segregated from males in the military and given their own separate barracks. Female soldiers, as well as males, deserve the privacy of living in close quarters in a totally non-sexualized environment, that is, an environment where no other soldiers who are sexually oriented towards women, such as heterosexual men and homosexual women are present. Now it's not that the male soldiers would necessarily sexually harrass, or worse, even rape their female counterparts, although unfortunately there is a potential for that. Much more simply, as I said, female soldiers deserve the privacy of not being forced to live in close quarters with heterosexual men. Similarly, I think it would be an invasion of privacy for male soldiers to be forced to live in close quarters with homosexual men. Now it's not out of any silly fear that homosexual men just wouldn't be able to control themselves, and would inevitably do any harm to their fellow soldiers, it's just, once again, a matter of the right to privacy. If this could somehow be overcome, I'd be more than willing to change my position, but as I see it, I can't think of any other way around it.


 * Likewise, my second exception involves adoption rights. Once again, I see this as more than a mere issue of gay-rights, but an issue that conflicts with another right, that being the right of every child to be raised in the best possible environment for their development. Though many may disagree with me here, I'll be honest. I believe that it's the right of every child to be raised by a mother-figure AND a father-figure. I really don't see it as an issue of gay-rights at all. In fact, I'm against any single people adopting children, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, as likewise, they'd be denying the child his or her right to be raised by a mother-figure AND a father-figure. Both these issues are extremely sensitive, and in every other possible sense I'm absolutely pro gay-rights. I just feel that when these rights truly conflict with other basic rights, such as the right to privacy, or my belief in the right of every child to be raised by both a mother-figure and a father figure, in these two exceptional cases, despite how unpopular these views may be, I feel that unfortunately, gay-rights must yield to these other rights I've mentioned. Loomis 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting thoughts. With regards to adoption with gay couples, I'm afraid in the bigger picture and in developing countries there are too many orphins and not enough adoptive parents, and from this point of view I would completely allow suitable gay couples to adopt children -- I would rather they be raised by a gay couple than be raised in a crammed orphanage or worse. Like any adoption, a screening must be made, issues like finances and accomodation must be taken into account, too. I do believe that they've found that children growing up with homosexual parents didn't affect their sexuality. So in theory it isn't a bad thing at all. However, if the tables were turned, and there were more adoptive parents than there were orphins, then I suppose they could be picky about their matchings, in which case they may opt for heterosexual couples -- but I doubt that it would be law to prefer heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. So as things stand now, I very much doubt that any law should prevent suitable gay couples from adopting children. Rfwoolf 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, actually. Of course a loving, caring homosexual couple is a far better environment for a child to grow up in than in a miserable orphanage. And it truly pains me that my words may offend some, as they inevitably will. But I truly mean no insult, and I hope that's understood. Yet as I said above, "I believe there's one last hurdle many of you, indeed much of society has to jump in order for an honest but necessary paradigmatic shift to finally take place". What I mean by that is that in an ideal society, homosexuals would be treated just like the rest of us. Not just equally enjoying in all the basic human rights as the rest of us, but as well, equally subject to the occasional but necessary curtailment of those rights. Perhaps this may sound counter-intuitive, but I actually believe that the recognition of the latter would actually be a final "perfection" of true equality and resepct for gays, not a dilution of it. Right now we seem to be in something of an intermediate stage, struggling to understand how the law should be adjusted to afford full equality to gays, without yet being able to address the limitations that will inevitably have to be dealt with.


 * But this phenomenon is not a new one. For example, the US Bill of Rights was one of the first documents to formally assert a wide range of rights that were rather novel for that day and age. For example, the First Amendment affords the right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech, and articulates that right in a rather robust fashion. Yet eventually, the American people came to realize that even that most fundamental of rights must occasionally be curtailed. As US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in 1909 in Schenck v. United States: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Ideally, gay-rights would be seen in the same way, as a fundamental right on the one hand, yet one which, just as freedom of speech is, must occasionally yield to other rights, without such curtailment being seen as "anti gay-rights" any more than Holmes' assertion should be considered as "anti freedom of speech". Loomis 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Loomis, why do you think children are better raised by a father figure and a mother figure? A.Z. 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a REALLY tough question, yet one I feel compelled to answer, lest my views seem arbitrary and irrational. And there's nothing worse to me than coming across as arbitrary and irrational. I'd like to begin though, by returning a question to you: Do you feel it's as ideal for a child to be raised in a single parent family, with only a mother, or only a father, rather than by a couple, be they same-sex or opposite-sex? If not, why? Do you not agree that two parents are better than one? Again, if so, why? I'm not dodging your question, I promise to answer it, yet I'd just like to get your view on this preliminary question in order to perhaps better explain my position. Loomis 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can think of such a wide spectrum of ways to raise a child that, albeit the fact that I have some basic thoughts on certain things which should be certainly avoided and things which should certainly be done while raising a child, I can´t say one or another way has an advantage when it comes to comparing single people with married people. I can imagine healthy and happy children as a result of both and I can also imagine problematic and depressed children as a result of both ways. There´s nothing I know that favors one way or the other. By the way, am I using the word "albeit" properly here? A.Z. 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your question is indeed a tough one, A.Z. Though I've been struggling to come up with a legitimate, unbiased, objective rationale for my exception regarding gay adoption, I've yet to arrive at one that isn't based more on my subjective feelings on the subject than on any cold, objective rationale. The only point I feel comfortable in making is that in this particular case, we're not simply dealing with consenting adults, as now we've added an third party-minor to the equation, incapable of giving consent, and that that child's rights must be taken into account as well. Still, at least for the time being, I suppose the only intellectually honest thing to do is to retract that exception, for now at least, until I can sort it out in my head in a more objective fashion, if and when that ever indeed happens. (Btw, in the particular sentence you were writing, I'd say that the word "despite" would be more appropriate than the word "albeit" :) Loomis 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to consensual incest, there's a pretty good movie about a brother and sister who only meet as adults, and experience a very strong attraction. The sister is married to Alan Rickman, if I remember correctly. It's called "Close My Eyes". --TotoBaggins 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxford University
Does anyone now how far Oxford University is located from London. I know where it is located, I just cannot seem to find how far it is from London. Thankyou.

-I choose to remain anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Oxford to London on my apple says 60.2miles. Since you do not specify where in London to start from (and London is a gigantic city) you are look around the 60 miles mark. ny156uk 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anon, you can still remain anonoymous even if you do sign your name. All someone can deduce from your signiature (if you aren't signed in) is the country you're located in (via your IP address).  If you get an account, no-one can tell even your country - unless you tell them.  No-one is asking you your name or anything.  It just helps us distinguish you from someone else. For example, if someone added another message here and didn't sign their name, no-one would know if it was you or not. By clicking on my signiature, you can't tell where I am, or my name.martianlostinspace 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If it helps, it takes about an hour by train to get from Oxford to London. A little less than an hour on a fast train, closer to an hour and a half for a stopping train. By car it takes about an hour and a half, but it depends where you're going in London. Oh, and I too treasure my anonymity, which is why I have (at least one) account. 81.157.44.217 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourteenth year of Theodosius
If one were to say in the fourteenth year of Emperor Theodosius and this is speaking of Theodosius I, what year is that? How did you determine that (method)?--Doug talk 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumably from his appointment by the Emperor Gratian on 19 January, 379 as co-Augustus in the east, along with Valentinian II, to replace Valens, his former colleague, who had been killed the previous August at the Battle of Adrianople. The fourteenth year of his reign, by this calculation, was therefore from January 392 to January 393.  Clio the Muse 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Doug talk 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

moses
i found something wrong with the moses page on wiki how come i cant edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.166.201 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2007
 * It was semi-protected because it gets vandalized a lot. If you place the template editprotected on the talk page and say what it is that needs fixing, someone will do it for you. Alternately, you could register an account and do it yourself. Picaroon 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What error did you discover? Clio the Muse 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

US Presidents who spoke Latin
Can anyone provide a list of all of the US Presidents who spoke Latin? I seem to remember that up to a certain point all the presidents used to give commencement speaches in latin at Harvard, until one President didn't speak latin, or something like that, but I could be way off base in this. Your Help is appreciated. --YbborT 23:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Did Andrew Jackson speak Latin? I suppose it would really depend how long the speech was, but addressing a college assembly in Latin does not necessarily imply a close knowledge of the language.  Might there be some confusion here between the national office of US President and that of college president?  According to this site  the last time Latin was used in formal greeting at a Harvard presidential inauguration was in June 1829. Clio the Muse 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I heard the story referring the University's president, but I could be wrong. In any events, my question is about the US presidents. --YbborT 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I appreciate that, Ybbor, but take the example I have given of Andrew Jackson. His formal education was very limited, and I do not believe ever extended to a study of Latin; so the practice you are hinting at must have ended at a fairly early stage. But, of course, this is all supposition on my part, and it is still possible to speak a few words in Latin, I have to stress, without having true knowledge of the language.  Clio the Muse 01:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Renaissance through the 19th century, education aimed at social elites in most western and central European nations (and former American colonies thereof) had a strong component of Greek and Latin, so just about any U.S. president who came from a reaonably well-off background and had a regular education would be pretty much guaranteed to have learned some Latin. But conversational fluency was not the main goal. AnonMoos 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I think it's highly unlikely that presidents from before the invention of the railroad would make annual trips to Boston for some silly purpose like giving a speech to Harvard students in Latin. It would be a major hassle.--Pharos 06:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Harvard's commencement exercises still feature a Latin oration, but it's delivered by a student. Wareh 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

George Washington was largely self-taught and therefore his command of Latin was probably limited. Advanced study of the Classics is not a requirement for the job.