Iceland permits homosexual marriage

[Hedgerider]

...

[The Lawspeaker]

Another stupid pc decision. And that's all I have to say about it.

[Hedgerider]

Another stupid pc decision. And that's all I have to say about it.

What is exactly "stupid" about it?

[Pallantides]

Viking love! ...:eek:

[SilverKnight]

Good that more and more countries are doing this, another win for rationality and freedom to be with that person as any other heterosexual Merriage :)

[The Lawspeaker]

What is exactly "stupid" about it?
Homosexual is IMO unnatural and can be corrected with a hormonal treatment. For the sake of freedom it would be good enough to accept civil unions but marriage is something that is reserved for a man and a woman for the sake of posterity.

[SilverKnight]

Homosexual is IMO unnatural and can be correctedwith a hormonal treatment. For the sake of freedom it would be good to accept civil unions but marriage is something that is reserved for a man and a woman for the sake of posterity.

Oh yeaa?! we humans are not the only ones buddy animals do it as well, check this out

7RlTAyNI8WE

homosexuality is normal in all the animal kingdom.

[The Lawspeaker]

Showing some freaks of nature does not automatically mean that it is "normal behavior". I don't buy the pc claptrap any more.

[Hedgerider]

Showing some freaks of nature does not automatically mean that it is "normal behavior". I don't buy the pc claptrap any more.

Homosexuality proper, or "real" homosexuality, is part of the grand design of nature, and generally occurs most frequently among animals that live in groups. Much as roughly half of all children born are male, and half female, it occurs mathematically in some percentage between 2-5% of each population, and helps that population by creating individuals who are not sexually competitive. They thus gain in lieu of raising families a massive amount of time and energy they devote to the civilization around them, usually among humans in the form of art or cultural work. In other species, they tend to aid in childbearing. It's like surrogate parenting for all of humanity.

Some would argue that natures uses homosexuality to nullify some who have unworkable genetic combinations, perhaps including things like congenital organ defects, and this may be true, in some of the cases. But in others, it's like getting a brother and sister at once, and if you've ever been in a large family, you can imagine how helpful it is to have someone around to help everyone else instead of spending its time on its own offspring. This is a smart design.

[The Lawspeaker]

That would immediately give people a good reason to get rid of gay marriage and adoption by gay people. After all: if it is a sign of nature that they are not to have children why provide them with the means of legally doing so ?

[Hedgerider]

That would immediately give people a good reason to get rid of gay marriage and adoption by gay people. After all: if it is a sign of nature that they are not to have children why provide them with the means of legally doing so ?

I agree on the adoption, but "the marriage" is another matter IMO. While minority groups are paying money to certain institutions, those same institutions have no right to exclude them from their service.

[Beorn]

homosexuality is normal in all the animal kingdom.

No it isn't. 'Normal' would be adhering to the average.

Using your definition of 'normal', then it is normal for an individual to have sexual relations with a corpse, sexual relations with a child or inbreed.

People are always very keen to compare Humans to the animal kingdom for acceptance, but yet never willing to take the comparison to its logical conclusion.

"Oh, homosexuality is normal because Bonobos have been reported to have same sex relations."

That's fine. What about:

"Oh, paedophilia is normal because Baboons have been reported to abduct smaller Baboons and rape them."

Or perhaps:

"Oh, necrophilia is normal because Ducks have been reported to having had sex with deceased Ducks."

So what is 'Normal'?

[Murphy]

That volcano obviously wasn't violent enough.

[The Ripper]

That volcano obviously wasn't violent enough.

God hates Iceland? :D

[Murphy]

God hates Iceland? :D

Hell yeah! Westboro Baptists FTW!

[Äike]

Viking love! ...:eek:

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/268/4/1/Too_big_for_Denmark_by_humon.jpg

;)

[Lars]

Great, and a sane choice too.

[Loddfafner]

Religious marriage is a matter of community self-determination: shouldn't Unitarians have as much right to perform gay marriages as Catholics have to refuse them?

Civil marriage should be a matter of contractual freedom between free individuals. The state should be as neutral as is feasible.


That would immediately give people a good reason to get rid of gay marriage and adoption by gay people. After all: if it is a sign of nature that they are not to have children why provide them with the means of legally doing so ?

I take this as a serious argument. Arguments for homosexuality as a natural and benign phenomenon in the larger scheme of things assume that gay relationships are qualitatively distinct from those between males and females and that distinction carries positive functions for human communities. If gays get the legal right to marry, and if social pressures on gays to marry follow soon after, then those positive functions may be lost.

One counterargument is that at present, a major positive function of homosexuality is the extent to which gay have reclaimed historic urban cores from the period of postwar decay. Gay marriage, and more particularly the economic effects of the marriage industry, probably accelerate this process.

I suppose it would be helpful to distinguish between those biological functions that account for the very existence of homosexuality and the economic ones that account for the present historical moment.

[jerney]

Congrats to them. No reason two consenting adults who love each other shouldn't be able to get married.

[jerney]

Homosexual is IMO unnatural and can be correctedwith a hormonal treatment.

http://i47.tinypic.com/xp338z.jpg

[RoyBatty]

Whitney Houston off her tree on crack again :D

[Turkophagos]

Congrats to them. No reason two consenting adults who love each other shouldn't be able to get married.

Marriage= Reproducing. Fags=/=Reproducing. Fags shouldn't get married.


It's simple maths.

[jerney]

Marriage= Reproducing. Fags=/=Reproducing. Fags shouldn't get married.


It's simple maths.

Plenty of people who get married don't reproduce, it's simple logic.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2nkt27d.jpg

[Turkophagos]

http://i45.tinypic.com/2nkt27d.jpg

http://www.transadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pink_naziconcen1.jpg

[Eldritch]

It was also decided to end the country’s system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples, meaning marriage will become their only option – as was always the case for opposite-sex couples

I think this is absurd. What kind of reasoning was behind this particular decision?

[Monolith]

Civil marriage became so degenerated in the last several decades that it lost much, if not most, of its former value. I wouldn't be surprised if some day it became legally possible to marry an animal or something. It's quite irrelevant what they call it, it's not real marriage and the fact that is't called that way doesn't make it one. I say let it rot until it finally dies a slow and painful death.

[Great Dane]

We have gay marriage in Iowa. It came about because the Iowa Supreme Court decided there was a constitutional right to gay marriage. Most people oppose gay marriage but the the opposition to it is disorganized. Most of the gay marriages have taken place in Des Moines and in Iowa City, location of the state university.

[RoyBatty]

I've seen enough "tolerance" to last me a couple of lifetimes. "Tolerance" just doesn't work. It simply encourages more deviants to crawl out of the woodwork whilst demanding (and receiving) more rights whilst the rights of the majority are stripped away.

The sooner intolerance and discrimination (against fags, vocal and radical minorities, radicals, liberals etc) is brought back the better.

The best solution of all would be to create "degenerate" zones where all the junkies, homos, radical ethnics, liberals etc who "want to be free" can live together in their Rainbow Paradise.


PS
Not all gay people or "non-whites" are necessarily a burden or negative influence on society. I'm referring to the radical agitators and the degenerates amongst them.

[The Lawspeaker]

^ Ship the whole lot to San Fransisco.

[Hedgerider]

I've seen enough "tolerance" to last me a couple of lifetimes. "Tolerance" just doesn't work. It simply encourages more deviants to crawl out of the woodwork whilst demanding (and receiving) more rights whilst the rights of the majority are stripped away.

The sooner intolerance and discrimination (against fags, vocal and radical minorities, radicals, liberals etc) is brought back the better.


Oh yes all those deviants. If you look at natural selection and the idea of the ancient "ideal human society", it is obvious that this majority you mention can be seen as Sudras. Tolerance might "just not work". But why should a healthy society tolerate you, above all those you call "deviants"? Because you are blessed with above average intelligence, superior strength, beauty, moral character and merit? Or are you just another average, beer gulping, pissed off, internet guy?


The best solution of all would be to create "degenerate" zones where all the junkies, homos, radical ethnics, liberals etc who "want to be free" can live together in their Rainbow Paradise.

Assuming you are one of the elites that do not belong to a "degenerate zone", but what if alcoholism and homosexuality are inborn genetic deviations that can appear within every class and environment?

[The Lawspeaker]

Just a question: are you a homosexual by any chance?
Because it feels like some militant queer is trying to ram it in our throats.

[hajduk]

http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/cox.jpg

:D :D :D

[Óttar]

Just a question: are you a homosexual by any chance?
Because it feels like some militant queer is trying to ram it in our throats.

:confused: If standing up for someone's right to be able to love who they love in the face of comments like, "homosexuality is unnatural and can be corrected with a hormonal treatment." is "militant queer" then perhaps you should rethink your rhetoric.

People have tried to treat homosexuality with medical treatments including electro-shock. People need to stop trying to change other people's sexuality. If someone is born with a foot fetish, no amount of medical treatment is going to change that, nor would in most cases, the foot fetishist want to be changed, and yet foot fetishism is technically an abnormality (although a relatively common one), yet you don't see people getting up in the air about foot fetishists.

The ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality, it has been present in all ages and all cultures. When my mother first explained to me what "gay" meant when I was 7 and the term was being bandied about at school, she told me what it meant, and it never even occurred to me to think it terribly strange that two people of the same gender may be attracted to one another.

[Hedgerider]

Just a question: are you a homosexual by any chance?
Because it feels like some militant queer is trying to ram it in our throats.

Oh of course, lol ..great logic:


"Look guys.. he's defending the heretics, he must be one of them...GET HIM!!"

No Im not a "queer" and Im not trying to ram anything down your throat, I thought this was an open internet forum for general discussion about European society, culture, etc.

[Eldritch]

I'd still like to understand this thing about discontinuing registered partneship. What about gays who don't want to get married in a church (you know, 'cause they don't believe in God 'n' shit)?

[The Ripper]

I'd still like to understand this thing about discontinuing registered partneship. What about gays who don't want to get married in a church (you know, 'cause they don't believe in God 'n' shit)?

What does the Lutheran Church got to do with God these days? I thought its main mission today was, among other things, to provide a setting for fairy-tale princess weddings for fudge packers and be generally "accepting" of everything. :rolleyes2:

[Eldritch]

What does the Lutheran Church got to do with God these days? I thought its main mission today was, among other things, to provide a setting for fairy-tale princess weddings for fudge packers and be generally "accepting" of everything. :rolleyes2:

All the more reason not to want a church wedding then.

[The Ripper]

All the more reason not to want a church wedding then.

For gays? Why not? Pretty churches and flowers and may be even a lesbian priest to go through the meaningless but no doubt romantic ritual. I declare you man and man. You may kiss the husband.

http://www.nsd.se/helgbilagan/artikel.aspx?articleid=4255792

Or why not a bishop..

http://www.metro.se/2009/11/05/12363/vigsel-av-lesbisk-biskop-bojkottas/

[antonio]

My poor English prevents me from arguing my stand against Icelandic decision. But resizing it down (really?) I would say that States are not constituted to implement and support every single concept that yields from Human nature...as homosexual marriage or love triangles (the fact they're ever more unusual than homosexuality does negate the fact they must be equally recognized). Other thing is that homosexual marriage charges an additional heavy burden on our fragile like cristal wellfare system, so it's a favour we concede on them, not a innerent right of themselves. Spanish Socialists just dont get it when promoted Homosexual marriage with no referendum from sovereign people as the first thing they did after victory: six years after, with Spanish state at the gates of debt default, it sounds like a crazy joke.

BTW poligamy is a more natural concept that homosexuality, so, at this case, must be legislated earlier...if not were for the infamous Homosexual lobby which Im getting progressively sick on it: Europe has more important things to do that institutionalize their instincts. At least they must have change the name: "Matrimonio" is a Latin-derived word coming from Mater/madre/mother...homosexual union is a fairer syntagma, more "clean".

[Loddfafner]

The two drinking horns in the original picture suggest a more interesting context than a Lutheran church.

[Cato]

Oh yeaa?! we humans are not the only ones buddy animals do it as well, check this out

7RlTAyNI8WE

homosexuality is normal in all the animal kingdom.

Humans are not animals.

[Jägerstaffel]

Humans are not animals.

Yes we are.

[Cato]

Yes we are.

Why not live like one then?

[Jägerstaffel]

Why not live like one then?

I do.

One foot on the moon and one foot in the cave.

[Cato]

I do.

One foot on the moon and one foot in the cave.

So, how does it feel to be a man-beast then? :)

[Cato]

Yes we are.

Oh, and if we're all animals, then you'd best not criticize nigs and whatnot in the future for acting like animals, since that's what we all are. :thumb001:

[Hedgerider]

Humans are not animals.

a15KgyXBX24

[Cato]

a15KgyXBX24

http://rjosephhoffmann.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hands_of_god_and_adam-400.jpg

Sorry, I've got higher hopes for at least myself than being compared to chimps and Hitler.

[Beorn]

http://www.childrensgiftideas.com/shop/gifts-for-girls/childrens-craft-kits---flower-pressing-kit-by-4m-great-gizmos-%7C1207/library/images/flower-pressing-kit-2600-gg-childrens-gifts.jpg

[Ulf]

qVE60zwXx1k

Here's a video of a chimpanzee raping a frog. It's natural to do this because animals do it.

Who cares what animals do? Yes, we are animals. We're all made up of DNA and meat and what not, just like the animals. I think gay marriage should be legal because I value freedom. If I was gay I'd be pissed and protesting too.

But let's not use a dumb argument like 'animals do it, it's natural' to support it.

I don't think any gov't should have fuckall to do with who I choose to devote myself to. Ban marriage, civil unions for all!

[Loddfafner]

I have a button that says, "marriage is a great institution... if you like living in institutions."

[Beorn]

I have a button that says, "marriage is a great institution... if you like living in institutions."

Does this institution prevent my children from having lessons on how to use condoms at the tender age of 8?

[Aemma]

I have a button that says, "marriage is a great institution... if you like living in institutions."

Note to my dear friend Lodd: we don't all feel like we're "living in institutions" ya know. ;)

But semantics, semantics, semantics...marriage, civil union, handfasting-- when it comes down to brass tacks, what's in a name really?

[RoyBatty]

Oh yes all those deviants. If you look at natural selection and the idea of the ancient "ideal human society", it is obvious that this majority you mention can be seen as Sudras. Tolerance might "just not work".


WTF are you on about. Western society worked just fine until about 40 years ago when liberal policies started getting implemented.


But why should a healthy society tolerate you, above all those you call "deviants"? Because you are blessed with above average intelligence, superior strength, beauty, moral character and merit? Or are you just another average, beer gulping, pissed off, internet guy?


Because I'm average. Average is not equal to militant queer, junkie, feminazi, ethnic minority, humanist & human rights agitator & liberal. Those are all attributes of a fucked up society gone mad.

I understand that minorities like you want this but that doesn't mean I should now does it?


Assuming you are one of the elites that do not belong to a "degenerate zone", but what if alcoholism and homosexuality are inborn genetic deviations that can appear within every class and environment?

Whether it's inborn or acquired makes little difference. People with problems need to deal with them or be forced to deal with them if they refuse to do it themselves, particularly when those problems start affecting their families and eventually society who has to pay for it.

As for homosexuals, what they get up to at home isn't my concern. My concern is when they start flaunting their sexuality and shove it down my throat at every opportunity, demand "equal rights", behave militantly, engage in threatening media campaigns, institute homo indoctrination programs at schools and the media etc.

Neither I nor most "straight" people care what homos do at home. Keep it in the closet and all is well. In plain English, they don't need to be booted out.

You feel free to join your tolerant pedo / homo / liberal / junky / multikulti Rainbowland Paradise. I'm not the deviant so why should I be forced to fit in with your Soros Society agendas? Keep your social experiments, thanks. :cool: :thumb001:

Tolerance = Weakness.

When one shows weakness to deviants they will seize on the opportunity to impose themselves on the majority.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Oh yeaa?! we humans are not the only ones buddy animals do it as well, check this out

7RlTAyNI8WE

homosexuality is normal in all the animal kingdom.

That is the problem with this video and the fool who discusses it.

Animals don't do homosexuality,get that through your head.
What they do is not getting in some other buddies arse.
It is a sign of Alpha.
The animal body is not made for homo sex,they can not penetrate anal openings.
This video serves to acknowledge it is ok.
I get uptight with brainwashing that way.
Nature has made the animal's entrances exactly that way.

Damn it man, go into the bush and OBSERVE,even observe the video.

Only a man will fok a dog, donkey,cat,......are you.

[Hedgerider]

<snip>

[Tony]

Homosexuals , even those who appear normal , are innately alienated because , since society works on an heterosexual bluprint , it doesn't mirrors
the homosexual condition and values.
So this condition of perpetual minority put them so under stress that they , in order to alleviate it will start to ask for almost anything the society , starting with anti-homophoby laws , followed by marriage rights , then the right to adopt and in the future who knows , maybe gay quotas in movies , parties and jobs...

when someone is sick , until you remove the root of that sickness , he will ask more and more , for ever...

For the record I don't care a fig what 2 dudes or ladies do in their bedroom but all this ongoing normalization has gone too far , especially on the issue of adoption (or artificial insemination) I can't stand chlidren being raised by two freaks.

The old system seems to me to have worked better , gays and lesbians married the opposite sex and then had hidden homo stories.
Gays knew they were odd but also that society allowed 'em to have a gay life without much annoyance if they kept it privately , there wasn't public scandal nor progroms.

But seriosly how can one allow two men to raise a toddler??it's a violence.


^ Ship the whole lot to San Fransisco.
No , Frisco is too beautiful and scenic.

[Monolith]

As for homosexuals, what they get up to at home isn't my concern. My concern is when they start flaunting their sexuality and shove it down my throat at every opportunity, demand "equal rights", behave militantly, engage in threatening media campaigns, institute homo indoctrination programs at schools and the media etc.
I subscribe to this and I think they would experience much less animosity today if they chose to keep their sexuality to themselves in the first place. What people do in their bedrooms is no one's business.

You live in a dominating humanist liberal democracy and increasingly atheist world, and you want discrmininate against liberals and humanists ....and I am the minority?
I, for one, am always glad to be called a minority because the majority is well .... plainly stupid.

In today's world, liberals and humanists are still a minority. It is true that the mainstream accepts their values without question, but no ideology is forever. The masses (i.e. the majority) were always quick to accept whatever they saw, read or heard in the media, as they were always so easily misled and so stunningly stupid that one may freely doubt their reasoning.

[RoyBatty]

So liberal democracy has only been developing for about 40 years? You live in a dominating humanist liberal democracy and increasingly atheist world, and you want discrmininate against liberals and humanists ....and I am the minority?



Yes I know, if you were a Nazi supporter living in a Nazi country (for example today's Israel or pre-WW2 Germany) and I argued against Nazism you'd rationalise how "correct" you were because after all, the country is "increasingly Nazist" and of course that makes it "right" because "everybody is doing it".

In a Nazi Utopia it would be wrong not to worship the Fuehrer and to oppose the Fuehrer and his associates social conditioning.

In a Liberal Humanist Utopia it is just as wrong for me to disagree with the likes of you or slimy Soros.


Humanism = a disease.

Democracy = system beloved by morons.

Atheism = one of the tools of the New World order to promote their "humanist" and "democratic" and "equal rights" dystopia where society loses and slimy creeps receive special favours and treatment. Thanks but no thanks. Not interested in your wares.


The raison d'etre for forums such as this one (while they have no influence on events in the real world) was to create a platform from which to:

- discriminate, (celebrating and preserving European culture vs world culture)

- implement a type of apartheid where people can be amongst similar folk without being forced to "celebrate diversity" (members are mostly European descent)

and

- selection (shared European culture and values).

I sincerely hope that I speak for the majority when I say that our general value system (of course there will be some variations amongst individual members as to what their particular preferences are) is not based on "New European Values" of:

- tolerance
- liberalism
- multiculturalism (where it concerns non-European culture)
- feminazism
- radical gay rights movements
- radical religious movements (INCLUDING ATHEISTS who feel the need to shove their "atheism" down everybody's throats)
- radical cultural minorities
- "humanism" bs

Just because all this crap is being implemented doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it just because many apathetic idiots do.

[Sahson]

Homosexual is IMO unnatural and can be corrected with a hormonal treatment. For the sake of freedom it would be good enough to accept civil unions but marriage is something that is reserved for a man and a woman for the sake of posterity.

Homosexuality happened in the roman times, except it was open, and people found it to be fine. However Romans also use to rape villages which they invaded in Gaul.

[The Lawspeaker]

So because the Romans did so should we?

[RoyBatty]

Romans also fed slaves and other less fortunate people to the lions. Shall we feed a couple of liberals to the lions? :D

[The Lawspeaker]

Good Lord... the WWF and Greenpeace would MURDER us.
Those poor lions.. having to eat Liberals. :wink

[Pallantides]

Bring back gladiatorial matches!

[Sahson]

and the right to rape women :D

[Cato]

I sincerely hope that I speak for the majority when I say that our general value system (of course there will be some variations amongst individual members as to what their particular preferences are) is not based on "New European Values" of:

- tolerance
- liberalism
- multiculturalism (where it concerns non-European culture)
- feminazism
- radical gay rights movements
- radical religious movements (INCLUDING ATHEISTS who feel the need to shove their "atheism" down everybody's throats)
- radical cultural minorities
- "humanism" bs

Zoroastrianism classifies such as followers of the druj ("lie", the disorderly, destructive, and disruptive- or the "social progressives" I'd say, but some of Zoroaster's greatest enemies were also the karapans, "mumbler priests"), who oppose Ahuramazda's asha ("truth", choosing to follow the truth of God/the folk/etc. and being seeing as a bit of a bumpkin in consequence). Or, as Jesus would say: the blind leading the blind. Yes I do believe that the Creator intended for marriage to be as the tales tell: one man, one woman, and end of story.

I've got nothing against gays at all, but gay "marriage" is a hoax and a joke- just another deviant union like polygamy or pederastic marriage.

[RoyBatty]

and the right to rape women :D

Be careful what you wish for...... :rolleyes:

[Ulf]

It's foolish to say because X does something so should we. It's building on shoddy foundations. Proper evaluation and weighing of risks vs. benefits needs to be done. What are the benefits of homosexual marriage and what are the risks? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? If yes, then let them marry.

[Loddfafner]

It's foolish to say because X does something so should we.

Seagulls have gay marriages so we should fly and lay eggs.

African politicians severely punish gay marriages so therefore we should accept bribes and shoot each other.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Homosexuality happened in the roman times, except it was open, and people found it to be fine. However Romans also use to rape villages which they invaded in Gaul.

And what were the consequences to modern Italy??????????

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Good Lord... the WWF and Greenpeace would MURDER us.
Those poor lions.. having to eat Liberals. :wink

And choke on it

[Lulletje Rozewater]

and the right to rape women :D

Roman women were not raped. The men always asked:"Posso cazzo :)(may I fok you)
and the women say:Il mio seno è la tua gioia :p( My womb is your delight)
Hell I hope it is right:wink

[Aemma]

and the right to rape women :D

http://i46.tinypic.com/20iju6t.jpg

[SilverKnight]

Humans are not animals.

I'm so deeply sorry they didn't teach you this in your school.

but it is true that humans differ from other animals in terms of intelligence. However, from a biological perspective humans are classified as animals. Why does this bother people?, and why do people take great measures to prove that they are not animals? If you think about it, it is only a classification system anyway. It is a biological classification system designed to classify any living organism it encounters into groups according to the organism's characteristics. Therefore, biologically we are members of the Animalia Kingdom; we are animals. period.

Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary:
animal:
1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animal like nutrition modes.

[Sahson]

Roman women were not raped. The men always asked:"Posso cazzo :)(may I fok you)
and the women say:Il mio seno è la tua gioia :p( My womb is your delight)
Hell I hope it is right:wink

They raped Gaulish women though... back before, and during the roman civil war. Either way public sex, and what not should be just like that. :D

PS - I am just joshing about it, in case there are anyone out there that might be gullible. Light hearted humor ;)

[Psychonaut]

It's foolish to say because X does something so should we. It's building on shoddy foundations. Proper evaluation and weighing of risks vs. benefits needs to be done. What are the benefits of homosexual marriage and what are the risks? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? If yes, then let them marry.

Definitely. This is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent).

Most of the posters in this thread are also guilty of one of the following as well:

Conjunction fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy)
Naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)
Package-deal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy)


Discussions like this really make me wish that people were taught how to think in schools, not what to think.

[Majar]

Gay marriage* goes against the traditional values of the Norse. They looked down on "bottoms" but not so much on "tops," and as long as the men involved were married to women and producing children it wasn't seen as a big deal. It seems like they accepted that some people are just like that, and as long as they acted normal and didn't flaunt it, it wasn't a problem. Seems the ancient Norse had a wise understanding of this, more wise than we are today.

Back then there wasn't such a thing as gay relationships as we know them today. This idea of gay relationships being completely identical to heterosexual relationships is a very modern invention of the gay movement, yet some people seem to think it is rooted in Western "free" values when it is not. The gay movement is another type of globalism, most likely funded by the same people who support those color-coded revolutions. Just a few decades ago gays were proud of their "outcast" status, the gay identity was built around this as they established their own neighborhoods, clubs and pubs. Now it is all about equality and how gays are equivalent to heteros, when most people's gut instinct says that they are not.

*I'm not even talking about lesbians because it isn't as much an issue, really. The relationship dynamic between two women is completely different than the one between two men, so much so that gays and lesbians really shouldn't be grouped together in the same category.

[Nodens]

'Homosexual activity' and 'homosexual identity' are entirely separate concepts that must be independently addressed.

[Jarl]

'Homosexual activity' and 'homosexual identity' are entirely separate concepts that must be independently addressed.

Indeed... through burning at a stake... and impaling.

[Óttar]

Atheism = one of the tools of the New World order to promote their "humanist" and "democratic" and "equal rights" dystopia where society loses and slimy creeps receive special favours and treatment.

:rolleyes2: What the Hell are you on about? Give me Atheism any day over Christianity and Islam. I'm more likely to vote for an atheist because they don't have supernatural deluded thinking to cloud their judgment.

[RoyBatty]

:rolleyes2: What the Hell are you on about? Give me Atheism any day over Christianity and Islam. I'm more likely to vote for an atheist because they don't have supernatural deluded thinking to cloud their judgment.

Things are different here in the UK to what you're used to in the US. The atheists here rival and sometimes surpass the Islamos when it comes to religious (or as they claim it "atheist") agitation. I'm tired of these fools telling me how I should live and I'm tired of their publicity stunts and aggressive behaviour.

They can all fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned.

PS, don't confuse my dislike for cranks like Richard Dawkins with a "hatred of atheism". I couldn't care less if somebody prays to Jah, Jehovah, Allah, his pet rock or to nothing at all. When any of these monkeys (religious or "atheist") start shoving their agendas down our throats it becomes irksome.

Labelling one's self as being religious or "not religious" is in itself no guarantee of sanity or being free from delusions. The UK self-proclaimed and promoting "atheists", particularly the ones from the British Humanist Association are a collective of disturbed yet well-connected and funded fanatics.

You see, the amusing thing is that they've created their own religious cult based around the worship of "atheism". It's quite an amusing paradox.

Therefore thanks but no thanks to their ideas and beliefs. In a hypothetical situation where one had to choose I'd rather take my chances with the friends of Allah than with them.

[Tony]

Roman women were not raped. The men always asked:"Posso cazzo :)(may I fok you)
and the women say:Il mio seno è la tua gioia :p( My womb is your delight)
Hell I hope it is right:wink
Posso cazzo means literally Can I dick/cock? , womb is better translated with petto , since seno is the word used for breast , womb has a more conceptual meaning while brest/seno has a more material meaning.


So because the Romans did so should we?
Moreover neither the Greeks nor the Romans accepted gay marriages or gay adoptions , this is a totally new liberal thing.

[Cato]

Moreover neither the Greeks nor the Romans accepted gay marriages or gay adoptions , this is a totally new liberal thing.

I've never read any historical antecdotes about homosexuality in the lower classes of Greek or Roman society- only in the upper crust did the practice exist. The Romans initially considered homosexuality to be a womanish Greek affectation and I'd daresay that the earliest Romans were like the earliest [proto]Germanics, who buried homosexuals in bogs and swamps, to hide their crimes from heaven or somesuch. Not that I condone a practice like this, of course (and say that I believe one sin should be punished via another, greater, sin, you might say- although I don't regard homosexuality as any greater a sin than, say, smoking or drinking [certainly not as great as murder]- my experiences with gay people have never been negative and I've got a couple as friends) but the point is clear enough if you read behind the lines (i.e. not everyone accepts homosexuality/same-sex practices as a societal norm whereas others do).

But sexual deviants can be hetero as well, as I often remind myself. I know a gay guy at work and he's never tried to bugger or sodomize me. We sometimes chat about movies and whatnot, decent enough fellow, likes Coors like I do, and I've learned to pretty much tune out his uncommon remarks about men- usually to say that he thinks they're all hopeless or why he likes being a single gay guy (he gets to hang out with lots of hot girls so I've noticed :grumpy:).

[Bloodeagle]

Germanics, who buried homosexuals in bogs and swamps, to hide their crimes from heaven or somesuch.

Ancient Germans and many other ancient peoples have often regarded the homosexual as something of a freak, thus divine!


According to Tacitus, ergi males were drowned in mudholes and marshes - this has been popularly misinterpreted as the fate of anyone who was 'queer' in Germanic culture. Folke Strom however, points out that the male corpses found in peat bogs appear to have been hanged first. A theory suggested by P.V Glob suggests that the bog corpses are possibly sacrificial deposits, made by worshippers of an early Earth Mother. Glob gives the example of the 'Tollund Man' found with a skillfully plaited noose about his neck, which Glob says indicates to be a replicate of a twisted neck ring, an mark of honour of the goddess. There is no complete answer to this problem. Within the worship of Freyja, ergi priests appear to have been respected rather than considered criminals. Ergi males found in bogs may well have been considered fitting sacrifices to their goddess. However, ergi males were being drowned, burned and tortured by the 10th Century.A.D due to the incursion of Christianity. A practitioner of seidr, Eyvinder Kelda was drowned along with other seidrmen on the orders of King Olaf Tryggvason, a christian fanatic, in 998 CE.

During the persecution of seidrmen by the Christians, they became labelled as 'heathens'. This is an interesting choice of word, as 'heathen' is etymologically linked to Heidr or Heidi, one of the titles of Freya. Heidr is linked to Germanic word heide or 'heath'. According to Diana L. Paxon, the 'heath' is the wilderness outside the Garth, into which the seidr practitioners retired to work their magic. Gundarsson describes the utangards (wilderness) as "the realm of disorder, ...the uncanny and unknown." A wilderness populated by not only outlaws, but also ghosts, trolls and elves.

Margaret C. Ross notes that the Jardarmen rite of blood brotherhood had as its prime symbol the Brisingamen torque of Freyja. It has been suggested that torques were used to strangle male sacrifices to the goddess. The torque came to symbolise argr behaviour - the gesture of forming the hands into a ring suggested one had the power to cause another male to submit to intercourse. Ross says that Odin once directed this gesture at Thor, boasting that he could have him whenever he liked. Ross concludes that the Jardarmen rite, as a ceremony of blood brotherhood, may have involved ritualised intercourse between young males and elders to mark entry into a adult male society.

This latter point is interesting in the light of the ergi-werewolf link, and the existence of warrior-bands such as the Vargr, or wolf-warrior. Some Germanic scholars think it highly probable that initiation into wolf-warrior bands involved initiatory homosexuality. The image of the werewolf has many resonances with initiatory homosexuality - such as the Wolf (Erastes) - Lamb (Eromenes) initiatory relationship in some areas of Greece; the initiatory trial of "living like a werewolf" in ancient Sparta, and the unrestrained sexual behaviour of the lupari - the wolf priests of the Roman Lupercalia. There may be a hidden hint regarding this in the tale of Sinfjotli and Gundmundr. Sinfjotli. is known to have been a member of a wolf warrior band, whilst Gundmundr is portrayed as a 'female' wolf who has given birth to nine children, of which Sinfjotli is the father. It is possible, even, as Randy Conner (author of Blossom of Bone) points out, that Gundmundr was a practitioner of Seidr.

I also feel that they are freaks but I am not so inclined to homo worship.:D

[RoyBatty]

But sexual deviants can be hetero as well, as I often remind myself. I know a gay guy at work and he's never tried to bugger or sodomize me. We sometimes chat about movies and whatnot, decent enough fellow, likes Coors like I do, and I've learned to pretty much tune out his uncommon remarks about men- usually to say that he thinks they're all hopeless or why he likes being a single gay guy (he gets to hang out with lots of hot girls so I've noticed :grumpy:).

Oh well who's perfect anyway. He sounds like one of the best kinds of friends / associates to have. :thumb001: :D

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Posso cazzo means literally Can I dick/cock? , womb is better translated with petto , since seno is the word used for breast , womb has a more conceptual meaning while brest/seno has a more material meaning.:D thanks,now I know why my friends call me a dick-head:)

[Cato]

Oh well who's perfect anyway. He sounds like one of the best kinds of friends / associates to have. :thumb001: :D

That's the only perk of being a gay man methinks, since you're gay, all of the ladies think that you're not interested in them like that, so you'll have lots of hot ladyfriends to hang out with. :eek:

[Loddfafner]

That's the only perk of being a gay man methinks, since you're gay, all of the ladies think that you're not interested in them like that, so you'll have lots of hot ladyfriends to hang out with. :eek:

I know one guy who comes across as so stereotypically gay that one worries he might burst into flames at any moment. As the hot girls crowd around him, and his face is surrounded by boobs, he takes full advantage of the situation.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Marriage is an extremely pointless affair anyhow.

[Sally]

For all people (Christians and non-Christians alike), marriage is essentially ordered to procreation. While I think homosexuals are perfectly capable (duh!) of having deep, meaningful relationships, I wouldn't be inclined to label these relationships as marriages, no matter what type of civil contract they may possess.

[Cato]

Marriage is an extremely pointless affair anyhow.

According to....?

[Puddle of Mudd]

According to....?

Someone who hates your religion.

[Jarlsson]

To all you ga[e]ysirs on Iceland!
Listen to this guy! :p (watch whole)
jA1SjCa1sQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA1SjCa1sQs&feature
Possibly the first "light" i've seen from Africa :D For the rest, all I have to say for you is... "Eat da poo poo".

[antonio]

I'm more likely to vote for an atheist because they don't have supernatural deluded thinking to cloud their judgment.

I dont know how American religious people behave. But trasposing your picture to the average (fanatics and jerks belong to a different cathegory) SouthEuropean Catholic into being betrayed, fooled or misguided at everyday life by his innermost beliefs is simply laughable. If you're generalizing that way I guess you're just declaring one of the infamous Atheist dogmas...and, frankly, Im progressively getting sick on all that propagandistic paraphrenalia....at pre-Internet era I always thank on Atheism as a serious matter...nowadays it's for me a clear symptom of freakish behaviour. Anycase, Im not talking directly about you,just generalizing (the same way you did) from your comment.

[Hedgerider]

To all you ga[e]ysirs on Iceland!
Listen to this guy! :p (watch whole)
jA1SjCa1sQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA1SjCa1sQs&feature
Possibly the first "light" i've seen from Africa :D For the rest, all I have to say for you is... "Eat da poo poo".

Oh ok so corpohagia, rimming and fistfucking are the cornerstones for homosexuality?? And yes heterosexuals do of course not pratice corpohagia, fistfucking, BDSM, rimming, urinate on one another, bukkake and what ever...

Lol the strong logical ability here is astonishing, thank goodness a New World Order will take over this place soon.


TMQLLqiKaas
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/lucifer2.jpg

[Monolith]

And yes heterosexuals do of course not pratice corpohagia, fistfucking, BDSM, rimming, urinate on one another, bukkake and what ever...
I believe I should consider myself lucky not to know what all this means. :D

[Aramis]

I believe I should consider myself lucky not to know what all this means. :D

You never were a participant of a bukkake? :embarrassed

[Monolith]

You never were a participant of a bukkake? :embarrassed
You made me google it. You evil, evil man.

[The Ripper]

I believe I should consider myself lucky not to know what all this means. :D

Allow me to lead you on the path...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salò,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom

[Cato]

Someone who hates your religion.

Taking a stab and hoping you hit the target or jusy saying?

FYI, my religion is nonexistent. :)

[The Ripper]

You never were a participant of a bukkake? :embarrassed

http://www.funny-games.biz/cartoon/bukkake.html

[Aramis]

http://www.funny-games.biz/cartoon/bukkake.html

... no wonder they lost the war.

[Óttar]

I dont know how American religious people behave. But trasposing your picture to the average (fanatics and jerks belong to a different cathegory) SouthEuropean Catholic into being betrayed, fooled or misguided at everyday life by his innermost beliefs is simply laughable.

This doesn't change my opinion. If someone proclaims, "There is no God", who are you to contradict him? No one can really claim to know about God unless it is a matter of #1 personal experience, which is for the most part, only meaningful to that person, or #2 metaphysical speculation, in which case, see #1.

[Cato]

A digression:

Something that just about every atheist doesn't even come close to grasping is that, from the Biblical perspective, God reveals himself to whom he wills and that he does play favorites. God clearly favored Moses, whom he talked to "face to face" and he clearly favored Jesus ("But now you [the Jews] seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you, which I have heard from God." John 8:40), who is commonly called the "son of God." God's unwillingness to have anything to do with scorners is in keeping with the his Biblically-derived characteristics (see the 3rd of the so-called Ten Commandments, about taking God's name in vain). The Bible constantly talks about scorners and people who say "Where is God?" yet it also says that God doesn't regard their empty words and vain utterances since they don't regard him at all (except as an object of mockery)- such people want to define God on their own terms rather than to, for lack of a better term, take God at God's own word.

[antonio]

This doesn't change my opinion. If someone proclaims, "There is no God", who are you to contradict him? No one can really claim to know about God unless it is a matter of #1 personal experience, which is for the most part, only meaningful to that person, or #2 metaphysical speculation, in which case, see #1.

Obviously this last comment is utterly correct. But how it relates with previous one?

[Psychonaut]

A digression:

Something that just about every atheist doesn't even come close to grasping is that, from the Biblical perspective, God reveals himself to whom he wills and that he does play favorites. God clearly favored Moses, whom he talked to "face to face" and he clearly favored Jesus ("But now you [the Jews] seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you, which I have heard from God." John 8:40), who is commonly called the "son of God." God's unwillingness to have anything to do with scorners is in keeping with the his Biblically-derived characteristics (see the 3rd of the so-called Ten Commandments, about taking God's name in vain). The Bible constantly talks about scorners and people who say "Where is God?" yet it also says that God doesn't regard their empty words and vain utterances since they don't regard him at all (except as an object of mockery)- such people want to define God on their own terms rather than to, for lack of a better term, take God at God's own word.

Waitaminit...

So, we should believe in him because the Bible says he refuses to appear before those who display critical thinking skills?

Sorry, but no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy) thanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).

[Óttar]

A digression:

Something that just about every atheist doesn't even come close to grasping is that, from the Biblical perspective, God reveals himself to whom he wills and that he does play favorites. God clearly favored Moses, whom he talked to "face to face" and he clearly favored Jesus ("But now you [the Jews] seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you, which I have heard from God." John 8:40), who is commonly called the "son of God." God's unwillingness to have anything to do with scorners is in keeping with the his Biblically-derived characteristics (see the 3rd of the so-called Ten Commandments, about taking God's name in vain). The Bible constantly talks about scorners and people who say "Where is God?" yet it also says that God doesn't regard their empty words and vain utterances since they don't regard him at all (except as an object of mockery)- such people want to define God on their own terms rather than to, for lack of a better term, take God at God's own word.

Wait a minute... Are you an Abrahamite?! :confused:

[Nodens]

Wait a minute... Are you an Abrahamite?! :confused:

Benefit of the doubt would suggest that it's more a commentary about the futility of arguing with entirely incompatible worldviews.

[Cato]

Waitaminit...

So, we should believe in him because the Bible says he refuses to appear before those who display critical thinking skills?

Sorry, but no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy) thanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).

Believe in Jehovah because he says so (or damnation results) or believe that Odin hung from the World Tree to gain the runes, which is it mate? :) Either way, you believe in something.

[Cato]

Wait a minute... Are you an Abrahamite?! :confused:

Again, point not well understood.

Query: How many EX-CHRISTIANS are on this forum who actually know anything about Christian theology? Yes, I actually paid attention in church when I went (I was once a rather devout Christ-follower). And, these days, I largely dismiss Biblical theology as lacking in many areas and mostly worthy of being scorned as an old and worn-out superstition (just as I regard atheism as an intellectual superstition). This belief still has power to empower, however, so shouldn't be dismissed outright.

The Biblical views of the divine, however, are no less superstitious and cult-ridden than those of the old (or neo) heathens, or of the new (or old) atheists, however, so what can someone say who's dabbled in all three existential areas except a large HAH? One group says that the divine is one (or three-in-one); another says that the divine is a pantheon; yet another says that the divine doesn't exist at all.

So, well, who's to be believed? A discerning man would be aware of the ideas of this triad of belief systems rather than, say, saying he follows one over the other (which I don't).

[Cato]

P.S.

Not intending to be disrespectful to anyone, of course. My previous understanding of the Bible and its related beliefs gives me more than a bit of insight into the inner workings of the beliefs associated with it. This often makes me seem to be a "believer," which I'm most certainly not.

[Psychonaut]

Believe in Jehovah because he says so (or damnation results) or believe that Odin hung from the World Tree to gain the runes, which is it mate? :) Either way, you believe in something.

Phrasing theology in terms of doxa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa) rather than praxis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/praxis) is a distinctly Middle Eastern concept. Personally I don't adhere to, nor do I advocate, theological epistemologies phrased in dyadic truth values. I find the inherent pluralism that polytheism embodies to be more consistent with an epistemological plurality.

Also, the whole either/or proposition is, in this case, a bit of a logical stretch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)...

[Cato]

Phrasing theology in terms of doxa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa) rather than praxis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/praxis) is a distinctly Middle Eastern concept. Personally I don't adhere to, nor do I advocate, theological epistemologies phrased in dyadic truth values. I find the inherent pluralism that polytheism embodies to be more consistent with an epistemological plurality.

Also, the whole either/or proposition is, in this case, a bit of a logical stretch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)...

Thales' position was that the world is full of Gods, yet the simple fact is is that the polytheists are about as in the right as the monotheists are in the wrong. On group views the divine as a plurality and one group views the divine as a unity. Still other groups say that plurality and unity are the same thing and that the one is the all and that the all are one.

In the case of the Bible, it's the creator and created. Being the creator, Jehovah knows what's best for the creatures he gave life to because he created humans in an especial manner- whereas, in the heathen story, Odin and his brothers created Ask and Embla in a way that didn't put as much importance on the place and power of humans in the world (i.e. the Gods found the pair as they were walking on the beach, I believe).

In Jehovah's creation, man is the crown jewel of creation, and so has a higher calling in the Biblical belief system, which is basically to be like Jehovah and hate evil, do good deeds, believe in the divine unity and so forth- the nefesh, breath/soul, that Jehovah breathed into Adam is Jehovah's own essence. From this point of view, to be an idolator is to go against man's own divine origin and worship empty vessels (empty in that they aren't truly divine like man [partially] or Jehovah [fully]). Then there's the moralistic aspect of idol-worshipping that I've seen some comments on (i.e. the filthy and loathsome practices of many of the old cults such as the Molech-worship in Canaan or the orgiastic cavorting of the Bacchantes). Some Jewish commentators I've read indicate that the Canaanites were snuffed out not for being pagans but for having abominable religious practices.


Heathenry doesn't place man in the center of things; the creation of Ask and Embla is, as in most polytheistic stories, a sort of by-product from the initial creation. Odin and his brothers give the pair the gift of body, mind, and soul (as Jehovah does), but places no moral commands on them, basically saying "You're on your own, make your own world." So, humans can't blame the Gods, but nor can they really fall back on the Gods if they really screw things up.

Jehovah provides concretized commands, a structure to be followed. Man has free will, yet free will seems, at times, a secondary component in the world. Basically, what good is free will, free choice, if your deity knows what's going to happen? Or similiar questions about/arguments against omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Some people like this view of the divine.

Odin et al. provide no commands and let humans figure things out for themselves without fear of divine punishment. These deities aren't all-powerful or all-seeing (at least if they aren't Odin, who is all-seeing). No worries, just the usual anti-polytheistic arguments about lack of unity amongst the divine corpus and so forth. As above, some people like this view of the divine.

[Cato]

P.S.

Not intending to be disrespectful to anyone, of course. My previous understanding of the Bible and its related beliefs gives me more than a bit of insight into the inner workings of the beliefs associated with it. This often makes me seem to be a "believer," which I'm most certainly not.

I'm as much a believer as this man was, who was also once a Christian and knew very much about them (and the Jews):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Waitaminit...

So, we should believe in him because the Bible says he refuses to appear before those who display critical thinking skills?

Sorry, but no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy) thanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).

That in itself is favoritism

[Aemma]

Query: How many EX-CHRISTIANS are on this forum who actually know anything about Christian theology? Yes, I actually paid attention in church when I went (I was once a rather devout Christ-follower). And, these days, I largely dismiss Biblical theology as lacking in many areas and mostly worthy of being scorned as an old and worn-out superstition (just as I regard atheism as an intellectual superstition). This belief still has power to empower, however, so shouldn't be dismissed outright.

I would hazard to say more than you perhaps realise, especially depending on one's former Christian denomination. I don't think it prudent to make the assumption that a person who's taken a new spiritual direction does not know anything from whence he or she came. If experience has taught me anything, and it has, most who choose a spiritual direction which is different and/or new from that which they were born into or raised in indeed not only solidly know the basic theological gist of the Christian denomination from which they come but many could also rhyme off a few theological canons and the like without batting an eye. I wouldn't make those kinds of assumptions Pallamedes. :) Some of us have more than just listened at Church ya know. ;)



The Biblical views of the divine, however, are no less superstitious and cult-ridden than those of the old (or neo) heathens, or of the new (or old) atheists, however, so what can someone say who's dabbled in all three existential areas except a large HAH? One group says that the divine is one (or three-in-one); another says that the divine is a pantheon; yet another says that the divine doesn't exist at all.

So, well, who's to be believed? A discerning man would be aware of the ideas of this triad of belief systems rather than, say, saying he follows one over the other (which I don't).

Who's to be believed? Well all and none perhaps, depending on who you are and what your own spiritual truths are. But in the end, I think we're much too hung up on the whole Judeo-Christian concept of "belief" in the first place. Not all spiritual expressions have, nor even require, the notion of "belief."

[Cato]

Who's to be believed? Well all and none perhaps, depending on who you are and what your own spiritual truths are. But in the end, I think we're much too hung up on the whole Judeo-Christian concept of "belief" in the first place. Not all spiritual expressions have, nor even require, the notion of "belief."

In which case such spiritual expressions are formless, empty rituals or a belief in fairy tale stories of the divine. What use is a deity if one has no belief in it?

[Austin]

It hurts the family. It hence hurts the West as that is where these moronic same-sex policies exist primarily. Anyone who is pro-gay marriage hurts possible future generations of your countrymen/women.

It is anti-human. It hurts naive young people who are impressionable and suckered into a false lifestyle that hurts their people and ends their culture.

[Psychonaut]

In which case such spiritual expressions are formless, empty rituals or a belief in fairy tale stories of the divine. What use is a deity if one has no belief in it?

What precisely makes you think that ritual is necessarily empty? It has always been my experience that praxis is a more sure route to gnosis than is doxa.

[Cato]

What precisely makes you think that ritual is necessarily empty? It has always been my experience that praxis is a more sure route to gnosis than is doxa.

From the good old KJ, where the Deity shows itself to be a bit cantankerous in regards to ritual that're performed without the proper attitude:

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. Isaiah 1:11

I hate, I reject your festivals, Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Amos 5:21

And Samuel said, hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 1 Samuel 15:22

Some might find that word "obey" in the passage from 1 Samuel to be hard to swallow, but the consistent strain throughout the Bible is that: 1) The Deity hates show-offs when it comes to rituals; 2) The Deity hates empty sacrifices; 3) The Deity won't accept offerings given to with a sullen spirit (i.e. Cain was rejected because he gave like a miser); 4) The Deity wants to be obeyed only in regards to how people treat each other; 5) Ritual and sacrifice are a bit of a divine condescension, for our benefit (i.e. humans need ritualism and whatnot, so God allows it as a part of worship even though he derives nothing from it).

[seismic]

All i know is that more gay men, more straight women for me :D

[Thorum]

Good that more and more countries are doing this, another win for rationality and freedom to be with that person as any other heterosexual Merriage :)

My thoughts also...

It is not my or anyone elses business who someone marries...provided they are old enough.

[Monolith]

It is not my or anyone elses business who someone marries...provided they are old enough.
It's more a matter of principle than anything else. I find the people who succumb to an aggressive lobby somewhat apathetic and weak-willed to say the least.

Also, heterosexual union between two consenting adults and a homosexual one are different by default, and yet the homosexual lobby is presenting them as equal. It's quite similar to multiculturalism, really: "All cultures are equal". No, they aren't, they're just different. Some are acceptable and some are unacceptable.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

My thoughts also...

It is not my or anyone elses business who someone marries...provided they are old enough.

It is not the business of any one to be with some-one.
It is however sacrilegious to call a same-sex bond a marriage.
Two males/females may have an intense "friendship" relation with each other,heck you see this in society every time,but to allow the law of marriage to be raped for a few is not humanism, it is friendship of the highest order not marriage.
When the gay society demands equal rights for something so un-equal---as a minority-commonsense leaves by the backdoor.

[Crossbow]

It seems rather strange to me to stand up for gay marriage and the like, in a forum dedicated to the cultural and ethnic preservation of Europe. Do we really want this, and let those couple adopt Third World children? I think we have had enough feminization already.

[BiałaZemsta]

Gay couples are not something that I enjoy seeing, yet I don't see any harm in them. No, being gay is not normal, but there will always be gay people in every generation. Really, what's the harm in them grouping up? It will just make them less scattered. I am against gays but only because it is not natural. Me being straight make it impossible for me to understand.

[Crossbow]

Gay couples are not something that I enjoy seeing, yet I don't see any harm in them. No, being gay is not normal, but there will always be gay people in every generation. Really, what's the harm in them grouping up? It will just make them less scattered. I am against gays but only because it is not natural. Me being straight make it impossible for me to understand.

Probably there will always be gays. But the homosexual nature shouldn't be accepted as a standard in society. I mean politicians who make decisions which are clearly inspired by their homosexual inclination, isn't really something I would be pleased with.

[BiałaZemsta]

I mean politicians who make decisions which are clearly inspired by their homosexual inclination, isn't really something I would be pleased with.

I agree because gays are a minority and therefore should not represent the majority.

[Eldritch]

I mean politicians who make decisions which are clearly inspired by their homosexual inclination, isn't really something I would be pleased with.

In that case you should not vote for them. ;)

[Invictus_88]

(...)

Also, heterosexual union between two consenting adults and a homosexual one are different by default, and yet the homosexual lobby is presenting them as equal. It's quite similar to multiculturalism, really: "All cultures are equal". No, they aren't, they're just different. Some are acceptable and some are unacceptable.

Why?

[Laudanum]

I don't really care much about the ''Homosexual marriage'' subject. If they want to marry, go ahead. I don't give a damn.

[Monolith]

Why?
Isn't that too obvious? Are men and women different?

[Praamžius]

Homosexuality must be accepted , but it shouldn't be so public.

[Crossbow]

In that case you should not vote for them. ;)

Doesn't matter: being gay is almost an advantage in today's society, they're promoting it. You cannot ignore them. Gays are everywhere now, they are ascending in all parts. My vote wouldn't make any difference I'm afraid.

[NSFreja]

My vote wouldn't make any difference I'm afraid.
No wonder society looks like it do if everyone thinks like you...no matter what country you live in, it is the same every where..."why vote? My vote wont make any difference anyway"...jeez

And about gay ppl...hah, i will NOT tell what i think...not here anyway...lol

[Crossbow]

No wonder society looks like it do if everyone thinks like you...no matter what country you live in, it is the same every where..."why vote? My vote wont make any difference anyway"...jeez

And about gay ppl...hah, i will NOT tell what i think...not here anyway...lol

Well I should add this: in the current politically correct system. That's what I meant, really. And exactly there you can find the political parties sustaining matters like this. You don't change this system by voting.

[BiałaZemsta]

You don't change this system by voting.

Also, the candidates that you have the choice of voting for are usually all bad anyways.

[NSFreja]

You don't change this system by voting.
That is why Sverige Demokraterna (Swedish Democrats) are on their way in to our parliament in our next election (in september 2010), right? Becasue we can't change the system by voting...

If you are unhappy with the choices on candidates you got for your election, why not start a your own party?

[Arrow Cross]

If you are unhappy with the choices on candidates you got for your election, why not start a your own party?

The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do - Josef Stalin

[NSFreja]

yeah, that was last election here...where political correct people didn't count the votes properly...but this time...hehe...if they do the same, it wont be fun for them...

[Crossbow]

If you are unhappy with the choices on candidates you got for your election, why not start a your own party?

I don't know whether my views are apt for the general public or not, but surely you have a point here: Try to change something.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I agree because gays are a minority and therefore should not represent the majority.

What I find ridiculous is that not one of the gay couples I have spoken to, wish to have a sex change. The lesbian prefers a dildo love and booby-traps,the homosexual prefers a prick fight.
In my book that is mentally corrupt.

[Invictus_88]

Isn't that too obvious? Are men and women different?

So are extroverts and introverts. What's so important about those dividing lines?

[Monolith]

So are extroverts and introverts.
So, f.e. introverted men and introverted women are the same?

What's so important about those dividing lines
What's so important? Sexual dimorphism is the most basic difference between individuals known to us. This set of biological distinctions, coupled with inherent sociocultural factors only strengthens those dividing lines.

[Invictus_88]

It still has no relevance to state marriage.

[Monolith]

It still has no relevance to state marriage.
Obviously, I was not talking about state marriage (I really can't care less about it) but about relationships between humans.

[~°2012°~]

Thing is that Icelanders tend to be quite tolerant towards male-homosexuality as long it is practiced within certain bounds.. "its ok but be discreet about it and still behave like a man".. it has been like that for centuries, but some highly vocal and visible queer fringe that publicly celebrates extreme promiscuity, sadomasochism, transvestitism, transsexuality and flamboyant effeminacy has suddenly become more and more visible in recent years, fact is that foreign "international" groups have been encouraging Icelandic homosexuals to be more vocal and open and are pushing more and more feminist and degenerate values into the Icelandic male "gay" community, go see this hilarious gay-pride parade in Iceland and you notice that the majority of participants are *foreigners*.

I know few homos, most of them don't care about marriage in a church and some are even against it. This "homosexual marriage in a church" (I say "in a church" because we have certain pagan ceremonies for these kind of things and they have always accepted it) is a part of some global political agenda.

[Óttar]

just another deviant union like polygamy
How is polygamy deviant? :confused: If it takes a village to raise a child...

[Argyll]

I was happy when I read that Iceland accepted homosexual marriage. Vikings!!!! Ahem...anyway, homosexuality is, of course, natural. I would like to know why people want to think of it as anything but. I guess it has to do with a bit of christianity.

[Argyll]

I agree too, that it doesn't matter if the christian world accepts me and hating the whole fem-boy thing. Though I don't really see a problem with being open about it, though as long as they aren't going around saying "I'm gay" all the time. I hope Icelanders don't like interracial nastiness.

[Gregorios]

I was happy when I read that Iceland accepted homosexual marriage. Vikings!!!! Ahem...anyway, homosexuality is, of course, natural. I would like to know why people want to think of it as anything but. I guess it has to do with a bit of christianity.

Homosexuality is a sin.
The likes of you are destined to damnation for your way of thinking.
God doesn't approve your way of thinking. Neo-Pagans like you are just teenager attention whores who don't have anything better to do and think that 'it's cool".
Then guess what - It's not cool. It's retarded and sinful.

Bottom line, Homosexuality is a sin, and should be forbidden.

[Argyll]

I am not a neo-pagan. Homosexuality is not a sin in my religion. End of story.

[Gregorios]

I am not a neo-pagan.
Yes you are.
True Pagans died out 900 years ago. They are gone. Extinct.
Your Gods are false. You are a blasphemer.
There is only one God, and he will send you to hell for being an infidel.

Homosexuality is not a sin in my religion.
Then you religion is corrupted.

End of story.
Beginning of story.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/73/20110128203738!Trollface.png

[Eldritch]

Yes you are.

...


You're not in any position to override anyone's self-identification.

Let me reiterate what I said in another thread:


Gregorios, the OP has stated he is interested in intelligent discussion. If you cannot provide that, fine, but in that case please refrain from any other sort of contributions.

I hope this will be sufficient.

[Argyll]

That would immediately give people a good reason to get rid of gay marriage and adoption by gay people. After all: if it is a sign of nature that they are not to have children why provide them with the means of legally doing so ?

My best friend, Brigit, has two homosexual fathers. She is at the tops of her class, honor roll, a flute/piccolo/piano geneous, and great artist. She is taken very well care of by her fathers.

Also, there were/are homosexual penguins at some zoo who were given an egg and they took great care of it. It hatched and they acted as parents to it.

[Gregorios]

Homosexuality should be banned everywhere, and gays should be sent to rehabilitation, period.
I am a honest man, and don't hide my feelings: I want an all-Christian USA. Yes. I am one of those who are against freedom of religion.
A religiously homogeneous society is much more stable than a multireligious one. This is one of the many reasons I oppose Multiculturalism.
I view homosexuality as a disease (to the mind) which should be exterminated at all costs. It acts like natural sterilization. No thanks. We need more reproduction than ever, Whites need to reproduce more than ever.

That's my opinion.

[Monolith]

Also, there were/are homosexual penguins at some zoo who were given an egg and they took great care of it. It hatched and they acted as parents to it.
They were some freaks of nature then.

Homosexuality should be banned everywhere, and gays should be sent to rehabilitation, period.
I'm not sure they can be rehabilitated.

[Gregorios]

They were some freak penguins then.

They were mentally handicapped penguins.
Unfit for parenthood.



I'm not sure they can be rehabilitated.

They can be, trust me on that.
Just like Multiculturalism, Gay People are one of the Frankenstein-esque products of Left-wing Judeo-Liberalism. As simple as that. Can be fixed, no big deal.

[Argyll]

I pitty you for your twisted ideas. You are a terrible christian, christianity is a blight to all white culture. The world is over populated anyway. This is the last time I'm asking you nicely to please refrain from posting any comments on my posts, Gregorios.

[Raikaswinþs]

Homosexuality should be banned everywhere, and gays should be sent to rehabilitation, period.
I am a honest man, and don't hide my feelings: I want an all-Christian USA. Yes. I am one of those who are against freedom of religion.
A religiously homogeneous society is much more stable than a multireligious one. This is one of the many reasons I oppose Multiculturalism.
I view homosexuality as a disease (to the mind) which should be exterminated at all costs. It acts like natural sterilization. No thanks. We need more reproduction than ever, Whites need to reproduce more than ever.

That's my opinion.

Yeah , me and me family support ya

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zMxMhGTLxG8/TUlQM1mHm2I/AAAAAAAABKk/BwOgFLXZuXE/s1600/redneck+family.jpg

[Monolith]

You're not in any position to override anyone's self-identification.

You're also going to Hell. :D

I pitty you for your twisted ideas. You are a terrible christian, christianity is a blight to all white culture. The world is over populated anyway. This is the last time I'm asking you nicely to please refrain from posting any comments on my posts, Gregorios.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Secular humanism is a blight, not Catholicism. We'll burn you all at the stake eventually.

[Gregorios]

Secular humanism is a blight, not Catholicism. We'll burn you all at the stake eventually.

Finally a sane person :)

[Argyll]

You're also going to Hell. :D

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Secular humanism is a blight, not Catholicism. We'll burn you all at the stake eventually.

Christianity IS a blight. And it's an Asian religion that has dominated Europe. Yeah.....definately pro-Europe, not to mention the fact that you are all supposed to be a bout universal love (yuck!). So you're a hypocrite AND a liberal. Don't worry, if you try to burn us, we'll sacrifice you all on bloody altars :) (no threat, just saying....)

[Monolith]

Cool story, bro.

[Argyll]

:)

[Monolith]

While you're at it, you should also stop using some nasty Asian stuff like writing system, agriculture etc.

[Argyll]

Asians didn't invent that themselves. Note the Druidic codex, the Greek and Roman alphabet, etc. Hmmm, yes....definately asian.

[Monolith]

Asians didn't invent that themselves. Note the Druidic codex, the Greek and Roman alphabet, etc. Hmmm, yes....definately asian.
Both Roman and Greek alphabets descend from the Phoenician one.

[The Lawspeaker]

Both Roman and Greek alphabets descend from the Phoenician one.
The Phoenician Alphabet: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Phoenician_alphabet.svg

[Óttar]

Christianity IS a blight. And it's an Asian religion that has dominated Europe.
I have resentment toward Christianity and indeed all Abrahamic monotheistic religion, but I have never condemned it on account of its geographical origins. I condemn it because it hates the flesh, promotes asceticism, and does not tolerate other religious beliefs. I doubt the cult of Isis, a Hellenistic Egyptian religion, or the cult of Mithras, a Perso-Roman mystery religion, had they survived, would have promoted such asceticism and stupidity. Cults travel around and unfortunately the crappiest one won out, and was well on its way to becoming the Roman state religion by 396 CE. :(

O Julian, had you survived, we might today be living in paradise. :tsk:

[Monolith]

I have resentment toward Christianity and indeed all Abrahamic monotheistic religion, but I have never condemned it on account of its geographical origins. I condemn it because it hates the flesh, promotes asceticism, and does not tolerate other religious beliefs. I doubt the cult of Isis, a Hellenistic Egyptian religion, or the cult of Mithras, a Perso-Roman mystery religion, had they survived, would have promoted such asceticism and stupidity. Cults travel around and unfortunately the crappiest one won out, and was well on its way to becoming the Roman state religion by 396 CE. :(

O Julian, had you survived, we might today be living in paradise. :tsk:
You speak as if you value philosophy more than the Truth. To be a true Christian, you don't have to be acquainted with Thomas Aquinas' axioms, nor with the teachings of saint Augustine etc. Most common people can't be bothered with that.

In a nutshell, a true Christian is one who tries to live his life like Jesus did. I don't think Jesus did something 'stupid', ever.

[Óttar]

You speak as if you value philosophy more than the Truth. [...]

In a nutshell, a true Christian is one who tries to live his life like Jesus did. I don't think Jesus did something 'stupid', ever.

What is this "Truth" you speak of? And how can we be sure that Jesus was the repository of this "Truth" ?

If you believe like Bertrand Russel did, that to be a Christian means that you must accept that Jesus was the highest moral example of any human being who ever walked the face of the Earth, I wonder just what makes an Aramaic carpenter the epitome of morality? Could we not perhaps choose a better human example for a moral compass?

Beyond merely having Jesus as a moral example, Christianity also comes with baggage like Heaven and Hell, the Last Judgment in which people will lie interred until they rise from the dead, and other things which have helped to justify burning, torturing and wiping out dissenters.

Abrahamic religion is the source more or less of religious intolerance.

God against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism (http://www.amazon.com/God-Against-Gods-Monotheism-Polytheism/dp/0142196339/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314130402&sr=1-1) by Jonathan Kirsch.

[Pallantides]

Northern Europe would do well to throw away the chains of Christianity, as long as we don't start dressing up in furry costumes while having sex with each other... some level of moral and decency must remain:D

[_______]

^ lol at the sex in furry costumes :D

[Johnston]

Oh come on. Who forgets the Stoic influence on monastic asceticism, mentioned by Paul himself? Christianity, or Christendom, is the combined influences of the very same peoples mentioned in each Epistle by Paul. Romans, Celts, Greeks, and Hebrews, all had a hand in founding Christianity. This means they each brought something to the Altar/Table of the Lord, and there is no reason why they should necessarily adopt the non-Christian heritages of the others in Christ, but only partake in the meeting of souls in ecumenism. Paul wrote and preached against matters of the body overtaking the mind, just as Plato did ("Platonic"). Mind over matter is essential to every homo sapien (wise man, philosopher). Jews still have Jewish names if they become Christian (John, James), just as the Greeks remain (George, Stephen), the Romans and Celts also continuing in their own traditions. The corruptions of the body need not be red herrings for the perfections of the soul. Anybody who doesn't know this does not know European cultural inheritance from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the greatest of them all, Alexander the Great! It was he who transformed Persian/Aryan culture into the model for Caesar and Augustus, and that which was inherited by Charlemagne, etc. Be careful what you condemn. You may be self-hating!

[Monolith]

What is this "Truth" you speak of?
There is only one universal Truth and, ultimately, only one religion is correct. I'm a Catholic and this is what I believe is the Truth: Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_us e#Latin_Rite).

Anyway, what I meant was you seem more interested in a religion's structure (i.e. its philosophical overlay) than its content (what I call the Truth).


And how can we be sure that Jesus was the repository of this "Truth" ?
We can't be sure of anything. Hence we believe.


If you believe like Bertrand Russel did, that to be a Christian means that you must accept that Jesus was the highest moral example of any human being who ever walked the face of the Earth, I wonder just what makes an Aramaic carpenter the epitome of morality?
His sinless, righteous and honourable life. Christians believe Jesus was able to live a perfect life because he is the Son of God.


Beyond merely having Jesus as a moral example, Christianity also comes with baggage like Heaven and Hell, the Last Judgment in which people will lie interred until they rise from the dead, and other things which have helped to justify burning, torturing and wiping out dissenters. Abrahamic religion is the source more or less of religious intolerance.
I can't recall reading anything about having to destroy those who don't believe in Christian theology. I've noticed it's a common practice nowadays to equate a religion with its followers.

[Argyll]

Christianity should be banned.

[Edelmann]

Homosexuality proper, or "real" homosexuality, is part of the grand design of nature, and generally occurs most frequently among animals that live in groups. Much as roughly half of all children born are male, and half female, it occurs mathematically in some percentage between 2-5% of each population, and helps that population by creating individuals who are not sexually competitive.

Right there is exactly why I'm not applauding this liberalism in European populations. Homosexuality is natural, but it's not rational for a population to encourage it, especially when that population is having reproductive difficulties as is. In times such as these, homosexuals should be discouraged, not because what they do is unnatural, but because they are dead-weight from a preservation perspective as long as they remain exclusively homosexual.

It does society no good to allow gays to marry, the only positive effect is for gays by allowing them to settle down into a useless, barren existence that ends when they die.

Don't bother moralizing me. This isn't about morality or tolerance, it's about group survival, and doing all that's necessary to ensure group survival. If that means killing all the dead weight (as well as the moralists who defend dead weight on principle), then so be it.

[billErobreren]

Um...k? well congrants I guess

[The Lawspeaker]

Christianity should be banned.
This might help you out:

http://www.theaterzumfuerchten.at/ProduktionenFOTO/bent.jpg

http://www.joerg-hutter.de/images/Schwul/rosa_winkel.JPG
Maybe you should be send to a kind of labour camp after all along with you fellow militant queers and militant progressives in order... to get rehabilitated.
Work sets free, you know.

„Ich freue mich, daß heute alles so wunderbar im Takt geht, auch wenn es hier und da noch so etliche Querpfeifer gibt. Da machen wir wenig Federlesens. Die kommen für ihre weitere Ausbildung in ein Konzertlager, wo man ihnen so lange die Flötentöne beibringt, bis sie sich an eine taktvolle Mitarbeit gewöhnt haben.“

[Turkey]

This is evidently a bad thing for european preservation:confused: