NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=629253

The gist of the article: Next week the government is to put forward its investigation into gender neutral marriages and is going to propose that straight marriages and gay partnerships/civil unions be made one and the same as they basically already are except in name and the fact that the Church of Sweden (former state Church) has not been able to perform legally binding civil unions. Instead they have just been offering legally irrelevant "blessing ceremonies" that, again, were identical to church marriages except in name.

Today, the leadership of the Church has said that they are willing to perform gay marriages when those and straight ones are made the same in name as well, which is as I said expected towards the summer.

I do have to say that Swedish Lutherans have been making it harder and harder for me to find reasons to dislike them. Luckily I will always have their religiosity to mock. ;)

Oh, and finally! Partnerships and marriages have been legally identical for years now. The reform process certainly has been slow.

yes, well. Good for them then.

W00T!

If you ever get your sorry ass married, I expect an invitation to the ceremony.

“Legally binding” :eek:

W00T!

If you ever get your sorry ass married, I expect an invitation to the ceremony.

Bitch, please. You ain't seeing me anywhere near a church. The Stockholm archipelago in the Summer, perhaps, or under an aurora during the midnight sun in the Winter North, though...

“Legally binding” :eek:

It's a remnant from their state church days, they can perform marriages that the government recognises without the involvement of a secular official. While that is wrong in itself, and I had hoped that this reform would have seen them stripped of this for straight couples just like they have been for gay ones, I can't bitch too much about it.

Bitch, please. You ain't seeing me anywhere near a church. The Stockholm archipelago in the Summer, perhaps, or under an aurora during the midnight sun in the Winter North, though...

I'll host your wedding then, in true pagan fashion. Bet you'd look fine in buckskin :D

always a bridesmaid,never a bride

I'll host your wedding then, in true pagan fashion. Bet you'd look fine in buckskin :D

That's so un-vegan. No animals shall suffer for my happiness.

Fur!

Buckskin with wolverine trim....but in the north they keep the hair on the buckskin and turn it inward. Very warm.

That's so un-vegan. No animals shall suffer for my happiness.

You cause all of us to suffer for your happiness on a regular basis.

And since when have you been a vegan?

It's a remnant from their state church days, they can perform marriages that the government recognises without the involvement of a secular official.

but doesn't legally binding imply that should you break it you get a hefty fine?

also I see this as a stunt to get more church members rather than a genuine act of “sanity“ (though still lets hope the pope reads this news whilst eating something tough;))

Today, the leadership of the Church has said that they are willing to perform gay marriages

Rock on, Swedish Lutherans!

always a bridesmaid,never a bride

You have a yearning to be a bride then?

I'll host your wedding then, in true pagan fashion. Bet you'd look fine in buckskin :D

Fur!

You cause all of us to suffer for your happiness on a regular basis.

That's different. I don't care about you.

And since when have you been a vegan?

When it comes to clothes, for a long time now.

That's different. I don't care about you. Yes you do, you just know I'm into it:p


When it comes to clothes, for a long time now.

Alright, well there are some fine vegan-parkas available too. Can I at least feed you animal flesh? Sheesh!

You have a yearning to be a bride then?

yeah. I guess I gotta catch the bouquet first

Sweden moves one step closer to Utopia.

Yes you do, you just know I'm into it:p

That is purely incidental.

Alright, well there are some fine vegan-parkas available too. Can I at least feed you animal flesh? Sheesh!

No flesh, just their embryos and secretions.

.

I do have to say that Swedish Lutherans have been making it harder and harder for me to find reasons to dislike them.

Lutherans, HA! You would really hate it if they were lutherans I assure you.

Sweden moves one step closer to Utopia.

Or rather, one step further away. You see, if they were to become closer to Utopia, they wouldn't give legal recognition to gay couples. Rather, in the name of equlity, they would take legal recognition from straight couples. Now that's equality.

That's so un-vegan. No animals shall suffer for my happiness.

Boring. :D

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=629253

The gist of the article: Next week the government is to put forward its investigation into gender neutral marriages and is going to propose that straight marriages and gay partnerships/civil unions be made one and the same as they basically already are except in name and the fact that the Church of Sweden (former state Church) has not been able to perform legally binding civil unions. Instead they have just been offering legally irrelevant "blessing ceremonies" that, again, were identical to church marriages except in name.

Today, the leadership of the Church has said that they are willing to perform gay marriages when those and straight ones are made the same in name as well, which is as I said expected towards the summer.

I do have to say that Swedish Lutherans have been making it harder and harder for me to find reasons to dislike them. Luckily I will always have their religiosity to mock. ;)

Oh, and finally! Partnerships and marriages have been legally identical for years now. The reform process certainly has been slow.

It would be in Sweden, the liberal paradise (liberal without political connotations).
How come the UK lags behind?

Ilaer

Lutherans, HA! You would really hate it if they were lutherans I assure you.

*shrugs*

compared to catholics?

Lutherans, HA! You would really hate it if they were lutherans I assure you.

I don't get it. They are Lutherans (http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/sprakversioner_en.asp). You see, in Europe and Scandinavia in particular, Lutherans tend to be, uhm, the "saner" of the religionists.

I don't get it. They are Lutherans (http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/sprakversioner_en.asp). You see, in Europe and Scandinavia in particular, Lutherans tend to be, uhm, the "saner" of the religionists.

I wouldn't call them lutherans. Lutheranism tends to be very evangellical and very close to calvanism, which is not a good thing at all. I would describe the church of sweden as more "liberal reformist/protestant".

Edit: Although these days lutheranism tends to be a very flexible word...

It's about bloody time!



Mazel tov :)

I wouldn't call them lutherans. Lutheranism tends to be very evangellical and very close to calvanism, which is not a good thing at all. I would describe the church of sweden as more "liberal reformist/protestant".

Eh, the Scandinavian state churches (or whatever you want to call them) are generally a result of Martin Luther. Hence Lutheran. They're very far from being evangelical or even calvinist. Calvanism is Calvin, not Luther.

Oh, and they're protestant. That has to count for something in terms of tolerance :p

I wouldn't call them lutherans. Lutheranism tends to be very evangellical and very close to calvanism, which is not a good thing at all. I would describe the church of sweden as more "liberal reformist/protestant".

Oh, I see the problem. You're completely clueless on the matter, and hence you spout nonsense. Alrighty, then.

*snorts*

Oh, I see the problem. You're completely clueless on the matter, and hence you spout nonsense. Alrighty, then.

Despite the fact I have studied and written exam essays on him (which have got good grades).

Despite the fact I have studied and written exam essays on him (which have got good grades).

Notice the fact that the countries that had him around turned protestant, tolerant and away from evangelism.

Notice the fact that the countries that got the people who called themselves lutheran (but hardly were), ended up being the US evangelicals...

Despite the fact I have studied and written exam essays on him (which have got good grades).

Seemingly despite that, yes, because what you wrote was plain old wrong ("lutheranism close to Calvinism" - bwahaha, there is a world of difference, sweetie). Not to describe the Church of Sweden as Evangelical Lutherans is like describing the CoE as not Anglican... revise your studies, please.

*snorts*

It better be white powder off some Filipino ass...

It better be white powder off some Filipino ass...
Filipina's.

Filipina's.

Don't be sexist.

Don't be sexist.

I absolutely shall. Reason being, it does you no good to snort white powder off a hairy ass, and even though filipinos tend not to be all that hairy, I like the asses of women more than men anyway.

And if you weren't such a sexist, you'd shag me, despite my female bits.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=629253

The gist of the article: Next week the government is to put forward its investigation into gender neutral marriages and is going to propose that straight marriages and gay partnerships/civil unions be made one and the same as they basically already are except in name and the fact that the Church of Sweden (former state Church) has not been able to perform legally binding civil unions. Instead they have just been offering legally irrelevant "blessing ceremonies" that, again, were identical to church marriages except in name.

Today, the leadership of the Church has said that they are willing to perform gay marriages when those and straight ones are made the same in name as well, which is as I said expected towards the summer.

I do have to say that Swedish Lutherans have been making it harder and harder for me to find reasons to dislike them. Luckily I will always have their religiosity to mock. ;)

Oh, and finally! Partnerships and marriages have been legally identical for years now. The reform process certainly has been slow.

Heh, you really can't go a day without an insult, can you? But, on the plus side, you could get married.

Heh, you really can't go a day without an insult, can you?

One insult a day keeps the morons at bay.

But, on the plus side, you could get married.

I don't actually intend to as I see marriage as a ridiculous heterosexual, patriarchal sham that gay people shouldn't apply to themselves, since our relationships are better than that. However, it's nice that those who wish to stoop have the option to stoop.

I don't actually intend to as I see marriage as a ridiculous heterosexual, patriarchal sham that gay people shouldn't apply to themselves, since our relationships are better than that. However, it's nice that those who wish to stoop have the option to stoop.

Hahahaa, we share the exact same opinion on marriage :D But I don't think it's a sham hetereosexuals or bisexuals should buy into either.

I absolutely shall. Reason being, it does you no good to snort white powder off a hairy ass, and even though filipinos tend not to be all that hairy, I like the asses of women more than men anyway.

Pfft, what you can't snort you lick. Really, are you some sort of amateur all of a sudden?

And if you weren't such a sexist, you'd shag me, despite my female bits.

I'm not sexist, but my cock is.

Pfft, what you can't snort you lick. Really, are you some sort of amateur all of a sudden? No, I'm being picky. I'd rather snort off a (and/or lick) a hairless ass, in particular a woman's hairless ass.

But to be perfectly honest, I never was into inhaling foreign substances.


I'm not sexist, but my cock is.

Then don't tell me to not be sexist.

I'm not sexist, but my cock is.

I'm using that line someday.

But to be perfectly honest, I never was into inhaling foreign substances.

Ah, you've always been more into degustation than inhalation.

Then don't tell me to not be sexist.

Then don't claim bisexualism.

Ah, you've always been more into degustation than inhalation. Yes. Sick, I know.



Then don't claim bisexualism.

I prefer women's asses to men's. And women's breasts to men's :D What can I say?

I guess I'll make peace with my sexism then.

Hahahaa, we share the exact same opinion on marriage :D But I don't think it's a sham hetereosexuals or bisexuals should buy into either.

Then why did you?

Then why did you?

Are you daft? I'm not married! I did get married once, yes, but it was a sham marriage, to help an immigrant get into the country. I certainly wouldn't do it for any other reason.

I'm horrified that you'd believe otherwise!!!

I call him my husband because I'm too old for 'boyfriend' and if I say 'partner' people either think I'm gay or in business.

Yes. Sick, I know.

Puh-lease. Sick? Who you talkin' to, hun?

I prefer women's asses to men's. And women's breasts to men's :D What can I say?

You can admit that you've seemingly never been on a proper bouncy castle of a man.

Are you daft? I'm not married! I did get married once, yes, but it was a sham marriage, to help an immigrant get into the country. I certainly wouldn't do it for any other reason.

I'm horrified that you'd believe otherwise!!!

OM Christian G and Jeebus, your kids are wallowing in sin and you're all going to hell!

I call him my husband because I'm too old for 'boyfriend' and if I say 'partner' people either think I'm gay or in business.

Oh, the horror of them thinking that. Stop lying.

OM Christian G and Jeebus, your kids are wallowing in sin and you're all going to hell!
Well they're already pagans, and I won't let them near the church, so yes.


Oh, the horror of them thinking that. Stop lying.
How dare you accuse me of subscribing to marriage.

You should know better, considering how little I value monogamy etc.

Take it back you silly faggot! Or I'll tell everyone about how you got drunk and propositioned me on MSN. Closet case!

Edit: by the way, have a great weekend, and keep the window closed

Well they're already pagans, and I won't let them near the church, so yes.

Yeah, but so far that has all been redeemable. Now, you are beyond salvation.

How dare you accuse me of subscribing to marriage.

How dare you lie to me?

Take it back you silly faggot! Or I'll tell everyone about how you got drunk and propositioned me on MSN. Closet case!

Edit: by the way, have a great weekend, and keep the window closed

There you go with the breeder lies again.

I'm going to a resort, so I shall try to.

I don't actually intend to as I see marriage as a ridiculous heterosexual, patriarchal sham that gay people shouldn't apply to themselves, since our relationships are better than that. However, it's nice that those who wish to stoop have the option to stoop.

Quoted for lolz.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=629253

The gist of the article: Next week the government is to put forward its investigation into gender neutral marriages and is going to propose that straight marriages and gay partnerships/civil unions be made one and the same as they basically already are except in name and the fact that the Church of Sweden (former state Church) has not been able to perform legally binding civil unions. Instead they have just been offering legally irrelevant "blessing ceremonies" that, again, were identical to church marriages except in name.

Today, the leadership of the Church has said that they are willing to perform gay marriages when those and straight ones are made the same in name as well, which is as I said expected towards the summer.

I do have to say that Swedish Lutherans have been making it harder and harder for me to find reasons to dislike them. Luckily I will always have their religiosity to mock. ;)

Oh, and finally! Partnerships and marriages have been legally identical for years now. The reform process certainly has been slow.

The Swedish Government rocks!

As does their version of the Lutheran Church.

The Swedish Government rocks!

Generally, it doesn't.

As does their version of the Lutheran Church.

CoS is not a state church. It used to be, but church and state are separate now.

This thread was worth the effort :p

Oh, and they're protestant. That has to count for something in terms of tolerance :p

Uh, not sure where you're from, but "Baptism" is protestant(And so were the Puritans), and there is no way that they can be considered "tolerant"(Or with baptists some sects).

Some protestant sects make Catholics look like puppy dogs in terms of tolerance.

Actually, the Catholic Church HAS changed a bit in recent years, and has taken some much needed strides, but meh.

As well, Lutheranism is more or less closely related to Catholicism than other protestants, so I don't know where the person you replied to got his notions from.

Generally, it doesn't.



CoS is not a state church. It used to be, but church and state are separate now.

It was an intelligent decision they made on this topic. I'm downright exuberant when any government decides to change a discrimanatory law/practise/ policy.

As well, Lutheranism is more or less closely related to Catholicism than other protestants, so I don't know where the person you replied to got his notions from.

Lutheranism is protestantism. They were the original wide spread "protestors" of the catholic church, although these days most protestants don't follow all of Luther's teachings. Except from the evangelical part, and the part about getting to Heaven through faith alone.

It is absurd to say that Lutheranism is related to the catholic church. It's teachings are almost completely opposite.

Woop-de-doo. Not all churches are as ass backwards as the ones in the US.

Woop-de-doo. Not all churches are as ass backwards as the ones in the US.

You mean you're not supposed to create a system of beliefs and then pick and choose which parts of the bible you follow based on those beliefs?

Does that also mean randomly inventing facts because you think they sound neat is a bad idea?

Who knew?

Woop-de-doo. Not all churches are as ass backwards as the ones in the US.

Surprise surprise. Please, enlighten me, oh mighty one, as to why all the churches are ass backwards in the US.

I'll tell you what, the Scandinavian nations are the modern example to the entire world of excellent governance, from the Welfare State and market socialism models that are so well implemented, the civilized and sophisticated culture that is so progressive and tolerant. Of course all I know about these countries are what I have read, but if I were to be any other nationality it would be one of the Scandinavian countries.

Plus, The Eagle is a great tv series.

Surprise surprise. Please, enlighten me, oh mighty one, as to why all the churches are ass backwards in the US.
Because I said so.

Its more just the very vocal ones. They seem to disregard the bible quite easily to keep the world in a way they are comfortable.

I'll tell you what, the Scandinavian nations are the modern example to the entire world of excellent governance, from the Welfare State and market socialism models that are so well implemented, the civilized and sophisticated culture that is so progressive and tolerant.

Haha.... oh, you crack me up.

Because I said so.

Yeah. Thanks for confirming your ignorance. Come again.

I'll tell you what, the Scandinavian nations are the modern example to the entire world of excellent governance, from the Welfare State and market socialism models that are so well implemented, the civilized and sophisticated culture that is so progressive and tolerant. Of course all I know about these countries are what I have read, but if I were to be any other nationality it would be one of the Scandinavian countries.

Plus, The Eagle is a great tv series.


Chizz... We got our share of problems here, though we're not hacking eachother to bits with machetes or starve... But there's always lots of things to improve.

Yeah. Thanks for confirming your ignorance. Come again.

I think you're missing the humour.

Its more just the very vocal ones. They seem to disregard the bible quite easily to keep the world in a way they are comfortable.


Just in case you missed it the first time.

Chizz... We got our share of problems here, though we're not hacking eachother to bits with machetes or starve... But there's always lots of things to improve.

Yes but I assume the 61% tax rate would be almost unrecognizable with the amount of social services and the like provided by the government.

Lutheranism is protestantism. They were the original wide spread "protestors" of the catholic church, although these days most protestants don't follow all of Luther's teachings. Except from the evangelical part, and the part about getting to Heaven through faith alone.

It is absurd to say that Lutheranism is related to the catholic church. It's teachings are almost completely opposite.

I meant as far as protestants go, Lutherans are somewhat more similar to Catholicism than other protestants sects are(Except, perhaps, the Anglicans). Compare it with Calvinism, or other protestant sects.

Not saying they are the same thing, mind you, just as far as other sects are concerned, it is more similar.

2% similarity is more similar than 1%, so to speak.

However, I really am not sure what point I was originally trying to provide, though. Honestly, some things I say tend to be random.

Its more just the very vocal ones. They seem to disregard the bible quite easily to keep the world in a way they are comfortable.
Nope they just use different parts of it. The fundamentalist Christians throw out all the stuff about tolerance and love and the liberal Christians trash the intolerant and wrathful God stuff.

They're both being a tad dishonest about their religion, but I admit that I favor the ones who don't want to stone me.

Nope they just use different parts of it. The fundamentalist Christians throw out all the stuff about tolerance and love and the liberal Christians trash the intolerant and wrathful God stuff.

They're both being a tad dishonest about their religion, but I admit that I favor the ones who don't want to stone me.

I'd be happy if they just had the stones to admit they pick and choose.

I think you're missing the humour.




Just in case you missed it the first time.

Look. If you make an inane statement, a broad generalization, without backing it up with any sort of opinion, I'm gonna treat you like a jerk, just like the rest of the generalites do. I don't care if you're trying to be sarcastic, funny, cute, whatever. That doesn't translate over the internet.

I didn't miss the explanation the first time. He edited it into his post. But thanks for trying to be oh so helpful.


Nope they just use different parts of it. The fundamentalist Christians throw out all the stuff about tolerance and love and the liberal Christians trash the intolerant and wrathful God stuff.

They're both being a tad dishonest about their religion, but I admit that I favor the ones who don't want to stone me.

Religion is a tricky subject, considering there are so many different branches. The variety of interpretations is fascinating, but I don't think they're all unfounded. I don't see it so much as picking and choosing...more like...seeing things a different way (although there is no doubt that some religious sects manipulate the bible to fit their agenda).

I'd be happy if they just had the stones to admit they pick and choose.Most the Abrahamites I know are quite open about not following their holy books, but rather the 'spirit' in which they were written.

Anyway, I had a question Fass. Do you still pay church tax in Sweden?

I think you're missing the humour.
I thought I was being serious. http://static.nexopia.com/smilies/err.gif

Don't you have a boyfriend, Fass? I forgot.

Well, I wish you luck in either marriage or dating. But I still don't like you. :D

Sounds good to me.

Anyway, I had a question Fass. Do you still pay church tax in Sweden?

Nope. Only, those who are members of the CoS (or other such congregation licensed to collect membership fees) pay a church tax. I've never been a member, so I don't know all that much about it.

Don't you have a boyfriend, Fass? I forgot.

Nothing monogamous or committed, no.

But I still don't like you. :D

I wouldn't have it any other way.

So the Church of Sweden is run by liberals?

I thought I was being serious. http://static.nexopia.com/smilies/err.gif

:confused:

I didn't think you meant the first statement to be literal.

Doesn't matter. It was a good enough reason for me.:D

Actually, I was trying to carefully phrase my retort because I didn't know if you were a him or a her. My intent might have gotten a bit lost.

Nope. Only, those who are members of the CoS (or other such congregation licensed to collect membership fees) pay a church tax. I've never been a member, so I don't know all that much about it.Thanks.

We will perform legally binding gay marriages.



IN THE BED!!!


Someone had to say it.

Look. If you make an inane statement, a broad generalization, without backing it up with any sort of opinion, I'm gonna treat you like a jerk, just like the rest of the generalites do. I don't care if you're trying to be sarcastic, funny, cute, whatever. That doesn't translate over the internet.

I didn't miss the explanation the first time. He edited it into his post. But thanks for trying to be oh so helpful.

Forgive me. It's my 1st day on t3h internets and I think my tubes are clogged.

I'll try sending an intarnet again tomorrow.

Forgive me. It's my 1st day on t3h internets and I think my tubes are clogged.

I'll try sending an intarnet again tomorrow.

Forgiven.

Forgiven.

Pie?
http://www.edining.ca/pictures/Something%20Special%20Apple-Cherry%20Pie.jpg

:confused:

I didn't think you meant the first statement to be literal.

Doesn't matter. It was a good enough reason for me.:D

Actually, I was trying to carefully phrase my retort because I didn't know if you were a him or a her. My intent might have gotten a bit lost.
It wasn't.


I am a boy. How is that so hard to figure out NS?

Pie?
http://www.edining.ca/pictures/Something%20Special%20Apple-Cherry%20Pie.jpg
If this your first day, you sure do learn fast.

If this your first day, you sure do learn fast.

:D

It wasn't.


I am a boy. How is that so hard to figure out NS?

Vagina. Your name sound like slang for Vagina.

Trilby63;12439109']Vagina. Your name sound like slang for Vagina.Have you ever met a girl that would call herself pussy? Try it out, and see how it goes.

Have you ever met a girl that would call herself pussy? Try it out, and see how it goes.

Wait, so it actually does sound like pussy? Looks like poe-zee to me. Is it an accent thing?

Wait, so it actually does sound like pussy? Looks like poe-zee to me. Is it an accent thing?
No, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posi

I'll tell you what, the Scandinavian nations are the modern example to the entire world of excellent governance, from the Welfare State and market socialism models that are so well implemented, the civilized and sophisticated culture that is so progressive and tolerant.
Right, progressive and tolerant. I suppose that explains the horrific drug laws and state alcohol monopoly. There's a lot good about Sweden, but there's a lot that's fucked up as well.

Have you ever met a girl that would call herself pussy? Try it out, and see how it goes.

Haven't you?

Anyway, it's probably more of a subconscious thing.. I reckon if I was to associate myself with lady bits by calling my self Titty McBigBreasted people would think I was a woman.. Or a really strange man..

I don't actually intend to as I see marriage as a ridiculous heterosexual, patriarchal sham that gay people shouldn't apply to themselves, since our relationships are better than that. However, it's nice that those who wish to stoop have the option to stoop.
All your opinions make you appear to be such a walking stereotype (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/pinko.htm). And I say this even as a person who is sympathetic to most of your political views.

All your opinions make you appear to be such a walking stereotype (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/pinko.htm).

At least I have opinions of my own, and mighty good opinions they all are, unlike certain people who need to resort to posting links to an old, old, old website that's been done to death and wasn't funny even when it once lived.

Fass, I have to hand it to the Swedes. You do Anglicanism better than we ever could. :)

Don't worry about Florida Oranges, he's just mad that American Exceptionalism is a myth. We program our children that the US is the best and freest nation on Earth, and when that is decisively proven otherwise people get mad.

I love my country, but I sometimes wonder about my fellow Amurr-icans.

Congratulations to Sweden for pushing the barrier of hate just a smidge further back.

;)

At least I have opinions of my own
That's what you think, but the combination of views like "I boycott Israel", "I dislike all Americans", "Christians should be persecuted", "marriage is patriarchal and heterosexist", "I am a vegan" is just too funny and exaggerated to be taken seriously.

That's what you think,

What I think has connection with reality, which as we shall see in just a few centimetres of screen real estate cannot be said about you:

but the combination of views like "I boycott Israel",

I boycott a number of countries to as far an extent as I can, Israel is just one of them. Why you would choose to single Israel out, though, only you can answer.

"I dislike all Americans",

Do not mistake your ilk for everyone in the Americas, or even everyone in the USA.

"Christians should be persecuted",

Something I have never said, but it's always fun to see people like you attack your own inventions.

"marriage is patriarchal and heterosexist",

It is patriarchal and heterosexist. You do understand what those words mean, don't you? Because you not knowing what they mean is probably the only way you'd be able to escape acknowledging that it is.

"I am a vegan" is just too funny to be taken seriously.

I am not a vegan (here again these inventions of yours - no connection to reality whatsoever), but that you are the kind of person that finds a stance that aims to end animal suffering in the world "funny" speaks volumes about you and no one else.

I am not a vegan (here again these inventions of yours - no connection to reality whatsoever), but that you are the kind of person that finds a stance that aims to end animal suffering in the world "funny" speaks volumes about you and no one else.
How can you be vegan? You openly admit your love of sausages.

How can you be vegan? You openly admit your love of sausages.

Huh? I haven't eaten a sausage in... well, actually I can't even recall the last time I ate a sausage. Where did you get the idea that I "love" or even like sausages?

Huh? I haven't eaten a sausage in... well, actually I can't even recall the last time I ate a sausage. Where did you get the idea that I "love" or even like sausages?
That was a gay joke.

That was a gay joke.

Next time recall that those tend to make sense and be funny.

Next time recall that those tend to make sense and be funny.
I'd make sense over here.

http://www.micechat.com/forums/images/smilies/blink.gif

Who asked you?

And give me my testicles back!

That was a gay joke.

Next time recall that those tend to make sense and be funny.

http://www.micechat.com/forums/images/smilies/blink.gif

It is patriarchal and heterosexist. You do understand what those words mean, don't you? Because you not knowing what they mean is probably the only way you'd be able to escape acknowledging that it is. What is wrong about patriarchy - something that seems to come naturally to every human society, misty-eyed myths notwithstanding - and why are today's neologisms so badly put together?

Who asked you?

Legless Pirates.
And give me my testicles back!

No, they're my tastey meatballs now.

What I think has connection with reality, which as we shall see in just a few centimetres of screen real estate cannot be said about you:
I made it very clear that I was not trying to refute any of your views (most of them are at least correct to some degree) but that I just found the combination of them in one person's mind to be so stereotypical, and thus funny.

I boycott a number of countries to as far an extent as I can, Israel is just one of them. Why you would choose to single Israel out, though, only you can answer.
There are good reasons to boycott Israel, but do you boycott China too? How about the USA? Pakistan? Britain? A lot of countries have shit on their human rights records.

Do not mistake your ilk for everyone in the Americas, or even everyone in the USA.
No, I'm not an American or a Republican supporter or anything like that. I'm referring to your numerous past statements that you dislike USian American people in general, their country and their culture.

Something I have never said, but it's always fun to see people like you attack your own inventions.
I admit that you never did say it. You merely think it's not really a problem (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12427429&postcount=53).

It is patriarchal and heterosexist. You do understand what those words mean, don't you? Because you not knowing what they mean is probably the only way you'd be able to escape acknowledging that it is.
I do not have an opinion on the matter, but again, your description of it, combined with your other opinions, makes you funny.

I am not a vegan (here again these inventions of yours - no connection to reality whatsoever),
You said so in this thread. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12434150&postcount=9)

but that you are the kind of person that finds a stance that aims to end animal suffering in the world "funny" speaks volumes about you and no one else.
That you thought the term "funny" applied to the vegan part, and not to the subject of the sentence (i.e. the combination) speaks volumes about your previously-stated brilliant English comprehension.

Keep it up Fass! :)

I made it very clear that I was not trying to refute any of your views (most of them are at least correct to some degree) but that I just found the combination of them in one person's mind to be so stereotypical, and thus funny.

And I thought I made it clear that this opinion you procured off an old, old, old unfunny website was inconsequential.

There are good reasons to boycott Israel, but do you boycott China too?

To as far an extent as I can.

How about the USA?

To as far an extent as I can.

Pakistan?

I've to my knowledge never had to deal with anything Pakistani as of yet, so I cannot boycott something which I do not encounter.

Britain?

Apart from Scotland, to a minor extent. The situation is similar to the Pakistani one - the rest of Britain I never really have anything to do with nowadays, and I'd never dream of holidaying there again.

A lot of countries have shit on their human rights records.

How quaint, you think my personal boycotts rest solely on a basis of human rights. Please, do not project your one-trackness on me.

No, I'm not an American or a Republican supporter or anything like that. I'm referring to your numerous past statements that you dislike USian American people in general,

Another invention of yours.

their country

Finally you have something be accurate. "Även en klocka som går fel visar rätt två gånger om dagen".

and their culture.

Don't be silly, I tend not to think they have a culture in the European sense.

I admit that you never did say it. You merely think it's not really a problem (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12427429&postcount=53).

I never wrote that it wasn't a problem, and as you should have been able to see, but apparently couldn't because you once again had to go inventing something inside your head instead of what was posted, I said that the persecution was wrong. That I have a hard time sympathising does not mean that I don't.

I do not have an opinion on the matter, but again, your description of it, combined with your other opinions, makes you funny.

Oh, noes. Woe is I.

You said so in this thread. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12434150&postcount=9)

There you go again, failing to read what was actually written and instead inventing something. "That's so un-vegan" was a reference to the clothing proposed. When asked how long I "had been vegan", I replied "When it comes to clothes, for a while now." (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12434167&postcount=16)

See how that ends up meaning that I don't wear pieces of animal carcasses as clothing and not that I am a vegan? Of course you don't...

That you thought the term "funny" applied to the vegan part, and not to the subject of the sentence (i.e. the combination) speaks volumes about your previously-stated brilliant English comprehension.

The only funny thing so far is that you in demonstrating this "combination of opinions" of "mine" have shown that most of these "opinions" are but your own invention. That, and failing to in any way demonstrate the point of this strange attempt of yours to somehow emulate some website into pegging me into something; you even admit yourself that it doesn't make my opinions any less valid. So, all it seems to boil down to is that you found an old unfunny clichéd site on the web and thought it funny. With these demonstrative skills, perhaps you'd feel more at home over at fark.com?

Keep it up Fass! :)

Perhaps you should start keeping anything up yourself? 'Cause you fail miserably so far.

Next time recall that those tend to make sense and be funny.

That one did. Think about this.


Also, Fass...could you please explain to me how gay marriage isn't patriachal?

:D

Please. Do tell.

That one did. Think about this.Not really, the three of us just have a lousy sense of humour.Also, Fass...could you please explain to me how gay marriage isn't patriachal?Why on Earth would you ask him that? I mean, the guy's been rather explicit about marriage being patriarchal.

... Makes about as much sense as asking you to justify me killing your kids or something.

... Makes about as much sense as asking you to justify me killing your kids or something.

ATTACK OF THE STRAW! EVERYBODY DUCK!


No, he was saying HETEROSEXUAL marriage is patriachal.

Also, Fass...could you please explain to me how gay marriage isn't patriachal?

Your question, not much unlike Posi's sad attempt at a joke, makes no sense. I said that marriage was patriarchal, not that it wasn't. You're asking me to explain something I did not say.

Your question, not much unlike Posi's sad attempt at a joke, makes no sense. I said that marriage was patriarchal, not that it wasn't. You're asking me to explain something I did not say.

Ah. I thought you said heterosexual marriage was patriachal, but not homosexual marriage. My mistake.

Also Posi's joke, sausage looks distinctly phallic.

Ah. I thought you said heterosexual marriage was patriachal, but not homosexual marriage. My mistake.

Not to worry, reading seems not to be strongly favoured tonight.

Also Posi's joke, sausage looks distinctly phallic. Sometimes a sausage is really a cock.

Then Posi and you should ask yourselves why you have cock more on your minds than I do.

Then Posi and you should ask yourselves why you have cock more on your minds than I do.

It's a fairly common innuedo in America, actually.

It's a fairly common innuedo in America, actually.

and in the UK.

and in the UK.

Really?


Of course, you guys also have the awesome stereotype of referring to sausages as "bangers". Which really makes the joke about ten times funnier. Even if you guys don't, it's hilarious.

ATTACK OF THE STRAW! EVERYBODY DUCK!


No, he was saying HETEROSEXUAL marriage is patriachal.I bet you're feeling silly now :p

It's a fairly common innuedo in America, actually.

The only American cocks I have handled have been Canadian (oh, Montréal, comme tu me manques...) and South American, but those have looked distinctly different from sausages. US cocks, well, you tell me...

The only American cocks I have handled have been Canadian (oh, Montréal, comme tu me manques...), but those have looked distinctly different from sausages. US cocks, well, you tell me...

I am going to be forced to laugh that you complain they don't look like the slang while at the same time using the word "cock."

Another country falls to sin.

I am going to be forced to laugh that you complain they don't look like the slang while at the same time using the word "cock."

Actually, the word is of Germanic origin which can be seen by the fact that in Swedish "kuk" also means "cock" but has nothing to do with male individuals of Gallus gallus.

Another country falls to sin.

We aren't falling, we're flying and soaring above you. Almost rapturous.

Actually, the word is of Germanic origin which can be seen by the fact that in Swedish "kuk" also means "cock" but has nothing to do with male individuals of Gallus gallus.

...

...

Wow...

I would call bullshit, but the sheer fact that you came up with that tells me you probably deserve to win this argument.

Really?


Of course, you guys also have the awesome stereotype of referring to sausages as "bangers". Which really makes the joke about ten times funnier. Even if you guys don't, it's hilarious.
That's what they're for alright.
:)

You know, I am torn by this. On one hand, I like the thought of providing equal rights for gays. However, I don't like the idea that the Church is advocating sin.
To me, its about the same as a bishop encouraging underage kids to drink, or a pastor saying its ok for the white members of the church to kill all the black members of the church. The church is to be a tool to reach out to the community and help people with out hope, or who are in need of something, not to advocate sin and make it seem ok, when its not.

I'm all for being tolerant and helping with the civil rights of homosexuals and partaking in equal rights, but I cannot accept the fact that the church will make it seem okay to sin.



Yes

You know, I am torn by this. On one hand, I like the thought of providing equal rights for gays. However, I don't like the idea that the Church is advocating sin.
To me, its about the same as a bishop encouraging underage kids to drink, or a pastor saying its ok for the white members of the church to kill all the black members of the church. The church is to be a tool to reach out to the community and help people with out hope, or who are in need of something, not to advocate sin and make it seem ok, when its not.

I'm all for being tolerant and helping with the civil rights of homosexuals and partaking in equal rights, but I cannot accept the fact that the church will make it seem okay to sin.

And without resorting to "but my god said so!" what exactly is sinful about it? Who does it harm? You will note that it is referenced only twice (biblical scholars correct me if I'm wrong about that one) in the OT - one of those instances in the same chapter that states it is a sin to cut your hair, eat pork, or wear a polly-cotton blend - and not at all in the NT.

And without resorting to "but my god said so!" what exactly is sinful about it? Who does it harm? You will note that it is referenced only twice (biblical scholars correct me if I'm wrong about that one) in the OT - one of those instances in the same chapter that states it is a sin to cut your hair, eat pork, or wear a polly-cotton blend - and not at all in the NT.

Romans 1.26-32:
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
28And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

Bible debate makes Ruffi sad. :(

You know, I am torn by this. On one hand, I like the thought of providing equal rights for gays. However, I don't like the idea that the Church is advocating sin.
To me, its about the same as a bishop encouraging underage kids to drink, or a pastor saying its ok for the white members of the church to kill all the black members of the church.
Yes

Fact: Religious maniacs are mentally unsound and divorced profoundly from reality and ethics.

Example: Condoning gay marriage is "about the same" as having half the people in the church kill the other half.

*jingles keys*
Oh! Gimme! *cheers up*
Let go have gay sex, and then go get married.

Now see, you're advocating sin. :rolleyes:
/sad attempt at humour. :(

*sadly nods*

*jingles keys*

Oh yay!!!

*snip*
You'd think an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being would have better things to do than complain about insignificant mortals indulging in their primal urges... :) Nevermind the fact that it indeed allegedly would've created these mortals to act in such a way (lest one wishes to discard of facts alongside reason).

Bible debate makes Ruffi sad. :(

*jingles keys*

Bible debate makes Ruffi sad. :(


Let go have gay sex, and then go get married.


/sad attempt at humour. :(

Romans 1.26-32:
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
28And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

Ok, you caught me on references in the NT. You found 1, which is even less than it was meantioned in the OT. Now can you also explain WITHOUT resorting to, as you just did, "because my god said so". Why it is sinful? I mean other sins, such as murder and theft, have logical reasons why they are wrong. Does homosexuality have any similar reasons?