• Sweden's news in English

One in five priests refuse to wed same-sex couples

TT/The Local · 7 Nov 2009, 10:57

Published: 07 Nov 2009 10:57 GMT+01:00

Facebook Twitter Google+ reddit

A survey by the Göteborgs-Posten newspaper questioned 147 priests in the local diocese on their willingness to wed gay couples. A total of 18 percent said they would not partake in marriage ceremonies.

Since November 1st, gay couples have been given the blessing to marry in church.

It following a decision by the Synod of the Church of Sweden in October, which also gave priests a right to refuse to partake in same-sex nuptials.

”When I was ordained I promised to preach as it is in the Holy Scriptures,” Ingemar Scott, a priest from the Landala parish, told GP.

”Because of that promise it is impossible for me to marry same-sex couples.”

Scott also believes there is a majority of priests who share his views outside the Gothenburg region and those that refuse to marry gay couples are subject to a discrimination label.

”The Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. If I have that opinion I am, by default, one of those who is discriminating against same-sex couples.” he adds.

Yet, that seven out of ten priests are willing to marry gay couples is enough according to priest Gunnar Bäckström, chair of the Ecumenical Group for Christian HBT People (EKHO).

What is most important, he says, is that the church has taken a step forward in HBT questions.

Story continues below…

”For those that choose not to, it’s a case of how democracy works,” he said.

TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se)

Facebook Twitter Google+ reddit

Your comments about this article

11:41 November 7, 2009 by voiceofreason
"For those that choose not to, it's a case of how democracy works,"

I didn't know that issues are now settled by the ballot in the church, definitely this is not model Christ left behind.

The Kingdom of God requires that the Word of theKing is law and cannot be changed by His subjects.

Albeit I see the same pattern of behavior as exhibited by the priest of Jeremiah's days, one thing is sure, the end of these priest is disgrace.
11:52 November 7, 2009 by Nemesis
What is the big deal.

So gay people want to spend as much money getting divorced as the rest of us, so what?

Regarding what is referred to as holy scriptures. People who believe fairly tales about a vengeful sky god written by groups of men wandering around in deserts with no women with them, really need to talk to a psychiatrist.

This is not Amerrica, speak english, not terminology. What does HBT mean?
12:37 November 7, 2009 by Dr. Dillner

You need a dose of tolerance and a lesson in why name-calling is not an adult position (on either side of the issue).
13:00 November 7, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Dr. Dillner,

Pot calling the kettle black.

I have noticed your comments on other stories. I noticed you did not address any comments to voiceofreason.
13:20 November 7, 2009 by Typical Whitey
God indeed has forbid same sex marriage. The purpose of marriage is procreation. Nature itself shows this simple and correct concept.

31 states in the USA have voted down same sex marriage when put to the people. Yes, democracy does work.
13:29 November 7, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Typical Whitley

The local is an online newspaper for Sweden in Europe. It is not an online newspaper for the United States of America.

If you look at a map of planet earth, you will see that Sweden is not part of the United States of America, but is in fact seperated from the United States of America by an Ocean. Sweden is actually in the continent of Europe.

Under Swedish law, two homosexuals can be married. That is a simple fact.

Why someone from the USA has a need to seek out offence in another continent, amazes me.

Your need to use one single religeoneous belief, out of the many thousands of different religeous belief systems points to you picking whichever religeon fits your personal bigoted beliefs.

If you have an issue with homosexuals, stay in America or move to its allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanisatan, and Kuwait, where the same ideas about homosexuals prevail and you will feel at home.
15:42 November 7, 2009 by thevasin
"When I was ordained I promised to preach as it is in the Holy Scriptures," Ingemar Scott, a priest from the Landala parish, told GP.

"Because of that promise it is impossible for me to marry same-sex couples."

I love your professional carrier.
16:26 November 7, 2009 by vladd777
God will get His message across one way or the other. He is no respector of persons and marriage is a sacred bond between Him and his Church.

According to the Scriptures practising homosexuality is a sin.

Marriage is between husband and wife..male and female.

.."Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior" (Ephesians 5:22-23).

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25).

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church" (Ephesians 5:28-29).

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Ephesians 5:31)...

But we have free will and so we may do as we like. It is all a matter of choice.

To accept or reject.

In Sweden it seems as if most priests/ministers go with the flow and a few go with God.

My prayers are with those who stay true to their calling.
18:49 November 7, 2009 by voiceofreason
I have observed that most people who support gay rights can stand the opposition and will resort to name-calling.

Rather than test their position at the ballots, they use money, intimidation and blackmail to push their position. They use the compromised political system (Legislatures) to circumvent the will of the people and pass laws.

I see beyond their motives, it is an agenda to make others like them (zero tolerance). Even if they had the rights to marry and adopt kid, they won't be satisfied. They often wish they can change human nature and will.

I say this concerning HBT, that they are a people who have lost total control of their sexual urge.
18:55 November 7, 2009 by glamshek
It seems Sweden has lost its moral character. Same sex marriage is so unnatural yet they want to keep a small fringe of lunatics happy. This is probably dictated by their love for democracy. But if democracy legalises same-sex marriages, then such a democracy should be abandoned.

Its the lowest point of Morality. Its rather crazy desire to marry with same sex. We hate it.
19:07 November 7, 2009 by krow
To be fair. if same sex wants to marry, go ahead who cares but please leave the church out of it.
19:30 November 7, 2009 by texasgubbar
"31 states in the USA have voted down same sex marriage when put to the people. Yes, democracy does work. "

That number of states used to be 50 so yes domocracy does work, sometimes slowly.
19:53 November 7, 2009 by karex
Why can't we just leave people alone and allow them to live the way which makes them most happy if they're not doing anyone else any harm?

Religious scriptures are not the word of God, it's the word of men CLAIMING that it is the word of God. But for those of you who love to quote from them, OK då.

How about taking a look at the part that talks about tolerance? Love thy neighbor? God loves ALL his children? etc., etc...
21:08 November 7, 2009 by vladd777
Tolerance is not the same as obedience.

I may tolerate, against my will but for the sake of harmony, things that I find offensive.

Out of obedience I do not do the things I am forced to tolerate.

...Tolerating the intolerant

Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance; illustrating that there are limits to tolerance.

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to this problem; whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant. He also addresses the related issue of whether or not the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated, within their society.

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this conclusion by insisting, like Popper, that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.[citation needed]

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi used tolerance to force the British out of India. He pioneered the use of tolerance which was used by many i.e. Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela...


Galatians 5:19-22 (New International Version)

..."19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,..."

There is no mention of tolerance.

If you want to know whether God is tolerant follow the link to 'Is Tolerance A Christian Virtue?':


So at the end of the day it all comes down to what we choose and what we reject.

To obey or not to obey, that is the question.
21:11 November 7, 2009 by izbz
Nemesis, straight or gay you may be....I think I'm liking you....Let's give these self rightous, self appointed judges the finger. I am a straight but I have great repect for gays who have the balls to come out of the closet. Have friends who are gays too, they respect me and i repect them. Agreed with karex : LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!!

Texasgubbar, this is not AMELICA ::::SWWEEDDAAAN! Want to learn about tolerance, Dalai Lama can teach you that. Sorry I don't condemn the bible, but I do not agree to those who uses that to condemn others. I too can quote the bible left, right and centre. Once upon a time I was working in a bible school, was a born again like i said before because of judgemental so call holier than thou christian, I was gone again. I don't condemn christianity on the whole or any other religions
21:46 November 7, 2009 by karex

The sad part is that you think you are obeying God, but in truth, you are obeying man...
22:21 November 7, 2009 by vladd777
Not 'think'..just 'know'!

I'll take my chances..
22:54 November 7, 2009 by karex
Fair enough, then is it too much to ask that you allow others the same?
23:14 November 7, 2009 by Nemesis
@ izbz

Actually this big assed bitch is 100% hetro. I will not attack the defenceless, however I will defend them. I am kind of weird that way.

I am annoyed that gay posters are not standing up for themselves, but then again I did have to stand up and help out in gay rights years ago where I grew up, when only a few gay people would stand up and got beat senseless for doing so.

I stood up as a straight, big assed girl who takes no nonsense. I would do so again, if need be and am proud to do so. I have had family members in WW2 die fighting nazi's, so I can at least use my mouth to fight idiots posting online.

Gay's have never done anyone any harm. I don't see the problem. If someone harms no one else, they should be free to iive life freely.

I do understand that some poeple, do not want them in there churches. That is fair enough, although i do think personally that is bizarre.

I consider all people to be equal, no matter who they are and what they are.

I have supported gypsy rights, transsexuals, womens rights, haemophrodites, gay rights and a few other groups. I have had a lot of crap for doing so, but have made really good friends in the process from those groups. I will keep doing so and am proud to do so.

If a man ever marries me, he will do so as an equal partner in a marriage. I expect him to be as liberal as me or as accepting of my beliefs. I also expect him to be a proud user of his brain.

My belief is this.

If a person does no harm to anyone else, let them live and enrich our culture.


For the record I am a capitalist.

I believe society should have a support such as in Sweden and am willing to may for it in my tax reciepts.

Tne weakest in society should be helped by the strongest. I am strong and am proud to help the weakest.

Kind regards

Andrea the big assed girl who is getting to old to breed (who is nemesis)

23:42 November 7, 2009 by Bisonex
Marriage is the union of a man with a woman. It is not the union of a man with a man, or a woman with a woman, or a man with a pelican or even a cactus with a blob of custard.

A church can perform whatever rituals it likes, but it can not make a marriage between a man and another man etc. The state can decree whatever it likes, but the institution of marriage is a cultural phenomenon, and not within its gift to confer on its citizens.

I have no problem with homosexuals having some kind of state recognition of their union, if they want that, and which enables them to enjoy some of the fiscal, legal and financial benefits of married couples. But a marriage is a very particular phenomenon - it is a union between a man and a woman, and no amount of social engineering or religious claptrap is going to change that.
00:21 November 8, 2009 by Bushido
What a silly article! A Priest can refuse to marry anyone, and they often do because the applicants do not attend the priest's own congregation, for example.

The statistics quoted by the reporter, if true, actually mean that 4 out of 5 agree to marry same-sex couples. If this is not progress, then I'm not sure what is. Why does everyone these days demand absolutes, where there are none?

If priests refuse to marry anyone, it's their prerogative, and their loss of revenue. If refused, simply go down the street to the next priest, unless, that is, you are Catholic, then there is little hope for a church that has shunned and orchestrated against reform for centuries.

Finally, it would be wise to remember that marriage by the church is just an ancient racket anyway. But, if people insist on being married by the church, they will inevitably face myriad reasons for refusal, based largely upon out-dated and out-moded ideals. It's been the same way since the beginning of organised religion.
00:36 November 8, 2009 by nevon
Oh my god! Gays are getting married! Let's all be stupid and make a huge deal out of nothing! QUICK! Let's also be irrational and pretend we own religion and marriage and everyone else has to acknowledge that, just because we think so!

I wish there was a tax on being stupid.
00:48 November 8, 2009 by lapua338
Nicely said Bushido!

@ Vladd777... your organised religion is dangerous because it gives people unshakable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others who are different. Beliefs based on faith, rather than on evidence are a delusion. The Bible is not the word of God but of men. Religion is a human construct that is used as a tool to control the ignorant masses, a totalitarian method of indoctrination, a cult closing people's minds to scientific truths, which implants fear and guilt into the mind and heart.
01:00 November 8, 2009 by secondthought
As a Muslim and believer of Jesusu christ peace be upon him and his mother,

i agree with VOICEOFREASON and VLADD77 with the TRUTH they shared with us.

These are not priests, they are hired to destroy the church from within.

Devout christians need to reclaim their religion, and you have my support as a muslim.
02:14 November 8, 2009 by nevon
Oh that's so cute. It's like a little support group for religious nuts from different religions who hate gays more than they hate each other.

Could you people be any more creepy and insincere if you tried?
07:04 November 8, 2009 by Gwrhyr
Nemesis, thank you for standing up for gay rights in these articles. As a gay person myself I try to respond, but often it's just too much to read all the horrible comments that people write.

I know they don't actually realize how stupid their words are or how much they needlessly hurt others, but that doesn't make it any easier to respond to them.

I think your posts are very much appreciated by many readers who just don't have the energy to respond to what feel like personal attacks against me and my boyfriend's right to live our lives peacefully and with equal rights.
09:15 November 8, 2009 by Makaveli
If people choose to be gay, it is their choice and life and they can do whatever they wish with it just as long as they don't harm anyone else. Everyone has their definition for what is morally right regarding this topic, and i believe no human has a right to judge another on this level.
09:30 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven
I have just watched the intelligence squared debate on the BBC.

The motion was " The catholic church is a force for good in the world"

For the motion The Archbishop of Nigeria and Ann Widdecome

Against the Motion Christopher Hitchens and Steven Fry

The question of homosexuality came up during the debate as Steven Fry is a well known homosexual.

Before the debate there where 678 people in favour of the motion 1102 against and 348 undecided.

The complete inability of the Bishop and Ann Widdecome to convince the audience that the preaching of the Church is the word of God changed the result to 230 for the motion 1864 against and 34 still undecided.

Those preaching against any homosexual relationship, failed miserably to convince even their own supporters of their case that 2/3 changed their minds.

Personally, I can not see why Gay/lesbian couples want to be married in a church that has a dogma so anti them, but if it makes them happy then why not
09:47 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Gwrhyr


They do actually realise how hurtful there words are. They are designed to be hurtful. That is there intention.

Judging by the ferocity of there comments, I do have the impression it is the same old problem. Denial. I worked in a bar at weekends years ago and slowly worked out for myself that the people who attack gays are actually gays in denial. I watched the people who always made derogatory comments about gays. They always secretly pick up gay prostitutes, then go home to there wives. Eventually there is always a bust up with the wife when she finds out.

In my experience the people who attack gays the most loudly and viciously, always turn out to be gay themselves.

I have stopped trying to reason with such backward, narrow minded and medievil mindset people. A lot of them spout hate for the sake of hateagainst everything Swedish. I no longer tolerate them attacking everything Swedish purely for the sake of attacking everything Swedish. The vehement hatred of some of the commentators on the local, I have tolerated it for to long and should not have done so.

I do understand those making comments about insane things like letting rapists or paedophiles go free. That is completely different and understandable.

In this I am referring to those who hate for the sake of hating.

Also recently those who have been attacking the Swedish liberal society, swedish business, swedish know how and have nothing good to say about Sweden, I give them the following information.

blocket.se to sell there belongings,

hemnet.se to sell there house or apartment,

flysas.com to find a flight to a different country.

As they want a narrow minded, backward medievil country to live in, I suggest moving to the USA, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan or somewhere with similar backward views. If they hate liberal society so much, they should not working Sweden, live in Sweden or even be commenting on a Swedish forum. They should leave Sweden.

I know Sweden is not perfect, far from it. However Sweden is a far better place to live than were I grew up in Northern Ireland.

The people are friendlier,

The hospitals are far better,

The public transport is significantly better,

There is definately more industry,

Long term planning is actually built into Swedish soceity, which is a welcome change for me,

The universitites are of a lot higher standard,

Women have a more equal place in society,

Science and engineering are repsected in Sweden,

It is easier to get free range food in sweden,

I can wander around the beautiful countryside wihtout being told to get of land or made unwelcome,

I could go on, but you get the point.

Moving to Sweden was a good thing for me and I do appreciate Sweden. I do not understand those who hate Sweden so much, being in Sweden. They should leave.
10:33 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Re-Horakhty

Your need to live in a society populated only by very masculine men is noted.
10:47 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Mike #1986

Would you be prepared to subject yourself to an indepth physcial and genetic exam to check for all defects?

Are you the perfect homo sapien?

Gay people are human and have every right to exist in society. Thankfully you do not have the right to impose your blinded by hatred, view on them.
10:51 November 8, 2009 by baychus
Researches have shown that been sexually attracted to same sex or the other is not what u learn its an in built stuff. Of course I wasn't thought to like women its there.

Am not against gay marriages when its done in courts or registry as the case may be. But getting married in churches is just too over the board. Religiously, its a sin and the Holy BIble or Koran condemns it.The government shudn't in anyway impose it on the church its totally wrong.And for the preachers or priest to not abide by the bible to defend what it stands for. Doing things contrary to the bible the foundation of christainity.

I sincerely they come back to their senses.

The bottom line we shudn't be against gay people as they don't infringe on other peoples' rights.But gettin married in churches is wrong...totally wrong
11:06 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Re-Horakhty

Again, you are completely and utterly wrong as usual. Someone who gets as much wrong as yourself, should really consider not voicing an opinion, as you are making a complete idiot of yourself.

This bitch is hetro.

Regarding the depraved bit, I have never quite got there. Maybe you can give me advice based on your lifestyle experiences on how to do so.

I don't work in the local in any capacity.

Actually all men who beat up homosexual men, nearly always turn out to be homosexuals in denial.

When I hear a man say derogatory things about homosexual people, I will not date him. Most likely he has a thing for picking up rent boys and I prefer a straight man for a relationship, not a homosexual man in denial.

Swedish people are not colourless. I can not see straight through them. There skin reflects ,light in a manner that makes them highly visible.

Your anti-native Swedish racism, is noted.

Can I take it that you saying good riddance means you are leaving Sweden.

Some helpful suggestions.

On the website blocket.se you can sell your belongings,

On the website hemnet.se you can sell your house or apartment,

Then goto flysas.com to find a flight to a different country.

Remember from your previous comment that you are against all things feminine and that you are looking for a country which is entirely masculine, ie no women. All you men who think the same, need to band together, in way which is not obviously homosexual.

I hope that helps.

11:29 November 8, 2009 by secondthought
Not that i am minnimizing the effort it needs to abondon the practice

of homosexuality.

Homosexuality in male specie is ADDICTIVE.

Like any other substance addiction it will require quite an effort

to quit it.

Good luck.
11:44 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ secondthought

Gwrhyr is not the lowest of the low.

Gwrhyr is a human being with the same right to live and exist as you and I.

Feminists are human beings.

Homosexuality is not an addiction.

Homosexuality is a natural part of human behaviour.

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, particularly amongst primates, therefore is natural. If it was unnatural it would only exist in one species, however it exists in a lot of primates and mammals.

I really would love to make some of the commentators on this subject perform an IQ test. The results would be interesting:)

it is obvious most of the commentators ar not physically in Sweden. If they were, there would have been a violent backlash against english speaking immigrants in Sweden, years ago.

If I ever find out where people who comment on the local are congregating in Sweden, I will let every Swedish friend I have, know the time and place of the venue.

Then the commentators can make there derogatory comments to the faces of Swedish people. I wonder if they would be so brave to there faces, instead of from a behind a keyboard.

I think not.
12:22 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ secondthought,

You are insulting Gwrhyr, no matter what way you dress it up.

Comparing humans with animal's is not stupidity. it is a good direct comparator.

Homo Sapiens are evolved from animals. A lot of primates are closely genetically related to humans, whom we homo sapiens evolved from.

I do have a mind. I don't need you to tell me what to do. In the 21st century it is not acceptable for a man to tell a woman what to do.

As for TV, I only found out on friday that I must damaged by cable connection when laying my new floor 2 months ago, when I went to watch a television program. I rarely watch television.

A suggestion, get yourself away from a television and start to think for yourself.
12:52 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ secondthought,

Homosexuality occurs in camels.

Regarding paedophilia a lot of religeous people went to jail in Ireland and the USA for that criminal offence.

I really don't want to know about your relationship with your mother

@ Mike #1986

So you now believe you are superior.

You are obviously require professional help if you believe you are perfect. In Sweden a local doctor can refer you to a psychiatrist. I hope you find that information useful.

Perfection is impossible to achieve.
13:20 November 8, 2009 by snaping
@ Nemesis

Homosexuality is not a part of human behavior, it can be easily learnt, u know animals act on instincts and v see not a single animal mating with the same sex. on the hand human has to be taught. So homosexuality is not by nature.

And those of you who don't believe in the word of GOD fine with me but please go and search wats burried in the bottom of the Black Sea. u will find a community of homos burried there. I guess that enough to Prove that scriptures do contain God's Word.
13:27 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ snaping

Your first post:)

Homosexuality occurs in nature, so is natural. Simple fact.

Regarding the Black Sea. It is mostly silt at the bottom of the Black Sea. There is no gay community there.

As for scriptures, they contain the words of men who spent way to much time out in the desert with other men.
13:35 November 8, 2009 by Random Guy
People you are making this too hard. It is simply about choice.

An alcoholic can CHOOSE to be a drunk or not ( a hard choice but non the less a choice)!

A gay person can CHOOSE to live that lifestyle or not. ( like an alcoholic, if he or she wants to make the God of the Bible happy - he or she will choose not to live a gay life ).

You would never force alcohol on someone. The same applies to the gay lifestyle, do not force it on anyone.
13:44 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Random Guy,

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. People are born that way. They do not choose there sexual orientation, htye simply are that way.

Your need to refer to the imaginary social construct known as god, who was invented by men wandering around deserts in the middle east is self defeating.

You are forcing your lifestyle choice onto homosexual people.

Your religeous belief system is a lifestyle choice in which you worship an imaginery social construct that is a vengeful and spiteful skygod.
14:07 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Re-Horakhty

Wrong, as usual.

I am hetro.

Next time I am at a scifi convention, I must ask what gay jedi mind tricks are. That is a new one to me.

Acorrding to your logic, that makes you a narrow minded bigoted racist nazi, who wants to kill all white people.

Your racism has been noted.

For the record, evolution is real. It is fact.

Regarding skin colour. Over about 40 generations or so, if a group moves from say Sweden to Somalia, they will eventually become black and vice versa. It is a natural response to living in that enviroment.

Skin colour is not genetic, it is enviromental.

Your irrationality on the subject of skin colour is noted.

If you have children, 40 or so generations later they will be white as a natural response to living at this latitude.

Just think, your distant descendants will be white if you stay in Sweden:)
14:09 November 8, 2009 by nevon
There is a old saying "You are what you defend"

So if I were to object to antisemitism, I would be Jewish? Or if I were to defend woman's rights, I would be a woman? Then obviously if I were to defend you, I'd be pretty damn stupid.

I don't know why you're so worked up about homosexuals and homosexuality. It's just two people loving each other and/or having sex. You don't witness it, it doesn't affect you, there is no reason for you care. Your unhealthy obsession over this is fascinating. Maybe there's some other reason for it? Maybe... you secretly want some hot man love, but are so ashamed about it that you lash out at homosexuals so no one will suspect your dark secret?

Maybe a little man-kiss would take the pressure off Re-Horakhty, care to indulge yourself? I'm sure someone would be willing to take out all that steam you've built up inside over nothing, by putting something else in you.

14:21 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ nevon,

Re-Horakhty, Random Guy, secondthought and Mike #1986 might get carried away.

They are very religeous, so probably don't use condoms. You need to be careful:)))
14:33 November 8, 2009 by nevon

What you mean to say is either;

"They are pretty religious, so they probably don't get any sex"


"They probably don't get any sex, so they are pretty religious"

Quite sad. But a little cute too. Hear me secondthought, you insipid little bigot? I think your desperate attempt to vent out your repressed desire for man-sex through rage-posts and hate speech is cute. Like a poodle barking out of a car window.

Very cute.

Don't worry. I'm sure no one suspects that the only reason you're so worked up about homosexuality is because sometimes it turns you on and you feel guilty.
14:44 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ nevon,

In my experience, the religeous tend to be a bunch of depraved perverts, who are sex mad.

I was taught by them at school. They are perverts.

I agree that those posters are screwed up, because they are not getting their man on man action.
14:56 November 8, 2009 by nevon

Black might absorb heat, and white might reflect it, but do you know what absorbs heat the best?

Hot, sweaty man-love. Yeah baby, I know you don't want to reflect THAT!

15:08 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Re-Horakhty,

If you could take a break from thinking about man on man sex for a second.

There is just as many black homosexuals as white homosexuals. What has skin colour got to do with homosexuality?

Also, if you hate white people so much, why are you in Sweden? It makes no sense you being in Sweden.
15:19 November 8, 2009 by Re-Horakhty

When you can't win a argument you just make up stuff huh "Nevon the depraved homosexual"?


@Nemesis said: Skin colour is not genetic, it is enviromental.


O my, we got a homosexual who is off his rocker.

I think u should have another look & double check ur sources.

White skin came about as a random mutation in the OCA2 gene and is indeed a variant of albinism. and both sperm & eggs are melanized.

Blue eye blonde hair whit skin come about through a random mutation in the OCA2 gene (6,000-10,000yrs ago) representing a variant of albinism- by definition, not assumption. White skin is not an adaptation because it is now agreed and understood that darker skin is better adapted for even cold climates. Albinism isnt just a birth defect, its a mutation

Wow, you guys are not only depraved but dumb!

Thats a sad way to get around in life.
15:33 November 8, 2009 by nevon

You just can't stop thinking and talking about muscular, chocolate flavored black men and their skin can you? I mean, you've single handedly spent more time talking about homosexuality than all of us combined. Maybe it's time to admit your real motivations? At least to yourself?

Come on. We're in Sweden. It's okay to admit to a little bit of man-lust ;)
16:03 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Horakhty

OCA2 does not cause white skin.

If you knew anything about genetics you would know that.

OCA2 is common in people with albinoism and is nothing to do with skin colour in people who are not albino.

Your ignorance and bigotry betray you and show you for what you really are.

The only person here who is depraved, is yourself.
16:10 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven
"In my experience, the religious tend to be a bunch of depraved perverts, who are sex mad.

I was taught by them at school. They are perverts."

Nemisis, absolutely right on the button

In the Intelligence squared debate, the point was made that the church is obsessed by sex. A bunch of men who are forbidden sexual contact. With supposedly no sexual experience, pontificating on the subject ad nauseum

You can see more on this in the link below

16:35 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Rick Methven

ood article. I personally think the church should be tried for genocide regarding the lies about condoms.
16:52 November 8, 2009 by hilt_m
HAHAHAHAHAHA like anyone ever follows everything it says in the bible, just not possible as it contradicts itself left and right. I've said it before I'll say it again, if god were soo opposed to the idea he would be out there smiting. God does not need us to fight his battles for him. Do not presume for him, we have not the right.
17:07 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex
Marriage is a very specific union between a man with a woman. There is an infinite number of other kinds of relationships between people. There are sibling relationships, love affairs, business partnerships and so on, but they are not marriages. Nor is it a marriage when to homosexuals decide to form some kind of permanent union.

Of course the state should legislate to allow homosexuals to enjoy some of the fiscal, legal and financial benefits of married couples, and even permit them having some kind of state recognition, but that doesn't make it a marriage.
17:26 November 8, 2009 by vladd777
Comment: @secondthought Thanks for the positive comments.

At the end of the day I need to express that whatever lifestyle a person chooses as an adult is essentially none of my business. Also I am a sinner just as most of us are.

However no matter how we bandy it about, whether it be in Swedish, English, Spanish, Arabic, whatever..anal sex, no matter how stimulating it is, is 'unclean' because of the E coli bacteria that are normal flora in the large intestine:

..."E. coli The term Escherichia coli (shortened to E. coli) refers to a group of bacteria found in the lower intestines of warm-blooded animals. They are essential to proper digestion and show up almost immediately after birth. In fact, the first E. coli will colonize the lower intestine of an infant as soon as he ingests foods. E. coli will remain present for the rest of his life. Once this bacteria leaves the body, it can only survive for a very short time.

- Causes

E. coli is present in your large intestine and can be found in your stool too. Therefore, there is almost always E. coli near your anus. At times those bacteria travel or are spread from your stool, your anus or intestines to your urethra. Your urethra is a small tube that connects to your bladder and provides an exit for your urine. This is often the opening through which E. coli is spread into your urinary system.

Once inside, if your immune system does not kill the bacteria, it attaches to your urinary lining. The E. coli reproduces and can work its way up your urinary system, affecting the urethra, the bladder and the kidneys. "


- Also, the anal sphincter allows the body to excrete faeces/stool which is the body's waste material:

..."Actions The action of this muscle is peculiar.

(1) It is, like other muscles, always in a state of tonic contraction, and having no antagonistic muscle it keeps the anal canal and orifice closed.

(2) It can be put into a condition of greater contraction under the influence of the will, so as more firmly to occlude the anal aperture, in expiratory efforts unconnected with defecation.


So..aside from all my 'religious hype and ranting' I know that anal sex as apposed to vaginal sex is not the norm in a healthy lifestyle. Those who practice it are putting their health in danger.

And yes..kicking the habit is hard but not impossible.

I hate the fact that innocent children are being indoctrinated into believing that it is not dangerous to practice it.

As has been pointed out..anal sex does not produce children unless one is very unlucky as sometimes sperms do reach the vaginal entrance.

Ha det så bra and may His Light shine on you all. What is unhealthy can never be 'blessed'.
17:52 November 8, 2009 by nevon

Just like marriage was between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman a few decades ago right? Times have changed, enjoy living in the last century.


Everything you said can be solved by using a condom and practicing good hygiene. It's only unhealthy/dangerous if you're uninformed, which thankfully children aren't anymore because they are being "indoctrinated", in your words, at school.
18:08 November 8, 2009 by JoeSwede
Priests are not paid by the Government. They follow a higher calling.

That calling has spectrum of ways that it manifests itself. Some have a heart for those suffering in our society like the gay community. Others, in seeking the will of God, see the gay lifestyle has against God's wishes.

I think letting faith play itself out is best. Better understanding from both sides would be best.

Personally I think Marriage is between a man and women who want to be married in a church. A civil union for everyone else.
18:18 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex

I'm not aware of marriage ever being a "whites only " phenomenon. If you are referring to mixed-race marriages, it is only the interference of the law which precluded that - the cultural institution of marriage has never done that.

If you look in any dictionary of any age, even ones a couple of centuries old, it says that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It won't mention the race.

If you call it "marriage" when two homosexuals get together, then when somebody says they want to marry their dog, who is to say they can't? Sound ridiculous? I recall a time not all that long ago when the notion of a man marrying a man would seem just as ludicrous. Times do change - sometimes they change for the worse. In issues such as this, we can reject such change and choose to retain an institution which is immensley special and unique and decide that its original features are left intact, and that it is not polluted.
18:32 November 8, 2009 by nevon

Yes sorry, back then blacks weren't actually counted as people so naturally they were excluded from marriage not because of their skin color but because they weren't really humans.

You can't marry a dog because dogs don't have the ability to enter legal contracts. To equate homosexuals with dogs as you just did is hugely offensive, since homosexuals are equal citizens with the same rights as you.

Homosexual marriage is not ridiculous, it's perfectly reasonable. Marriage isn't just special and unique for straight people, it's also special and unique for gay people. Just as it makes a straight woman happy to wear a wedding gown and walk down the aisle, it can also make a lesbian equally happy.

What basis or right do you have to deprive a fellow citizen of that happiness? How dare you exclude homosexual people of their religion, of their tradition and of the right to have their wedding where it will be most special and memorable for them?

Homosexuality and gay marriages aren't pollution. Implying that gay people are on par with dogs and that they are somehow not allowed to have a religion or to get married like everyone else because of who they love is pollution. It's disgusting.
18:46 November 8, 2009 by nevon
I just assumed that you were insane. I think that by yelling DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT CAMELS and claiming that I'm part of the international gay jewish zionist conspiracy, you've proven me right.

I still think you're cute though. Especially with all the pretentiousness and the dramatic little speeches and the "A-HA!"s. Very cute.

Although maybe you should consider getting a back-rub and maybe having a glass of milk? You sound very stressed over nothing!
18:50 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven
This whole thing about the bible being "the word of God" is so much CRAP.

I was brought up with the usual Christian indoctrination believing what I was told by the church. When I got old enough to think for myself, I started to question some of the churches dogma and the veracity of the Bible.

A young enthusiast priest tried to convince me that what the bible said was true and the word of God with this.

" In Genesis it says that because of the original sin of Adam and Eve, God said that women would henceforth suffer pain in childbirth. And they do! therefore the Bible is the word of God"

Anybody see the fallacy in that argument?



Salam Alykum

And in the words of the late Irish comedian Dave Allen May your God go with you wherever you are
18:53 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex

Blacks have always been classed as "people" in most European countries, and elsewhere. The fact that, in some nations, there were regarded as inherently inferior to white people does not mean they were denied being categorised as humans. Even slaves were allowed to marry.

You say "You can't marry a dog because dogs don't have the ability to enter legal contracts". Marriage isn't just a "contract" - it's a massively important and ancient cultural institution. Also, I did not equate homosexuals with dogs - please read what i say and respond accordingly rather than drawing implicatures that were neither intended, nor present in the texts I have written.

I disagree that marriage isn't just special and unique for straight people. The whole cultural ethod behind it is that it is a combination of opposites which produces something greater than the sum of its parts. The male/female contrast is the obvious one, but there are others, too. The "product" of a marriage is, in most cases, children, although we have a long established tradition of enabling infertile people to marry, too. I have no problem with homosexuals having some kind of ritual, wear whire dresses, having a form of recognised union and even enjoying all the material benefits which married people enjoy. And I am certainly not denying them the "happiness" about which you talk. I do have a problem with them aping heterosexuals by stealing our marital lexicon. Two homosexuals in a union are not married - what they are in may be something which shares some of the features of a marriage, but not the crucial element, namely that the participants are members of the opposite sex.

As a PROPER married person, I regard the vocabulary of marriage to be something which is exclusive to the unique and ancient cultural institution to which I subscribed more than three decades ago. I resent homosexuals trying to muscle in to that institution by pretending that their formalised union is identical to mine. It isn't and never can be.
19:05 November 8, 2009 by secondthought

Did i hear you reduce the whole marriage institution into a girl

being "happy with a wedding dress", and thus,such happiness

shall never be denied to the so called lesbians ??


You are indeed a trivial person.

Am i wasting my time reasoning with you??
19:06 November 8, 2009 by nevon

Yeah, black were allowed to marry. Just not marry white people. Same way gays are allowed to marry the opposite sex, just not their own sex. In both cases, it was not allowed because it was not part of the tradition. Times change.

Yes, you did equate homosexuals with dogs. You asked why someone can't marry their dog if they can marry someone of their own sex. That is equation. Shame on you.

And who made you spokesperson of all heterosexuals? I'm heterosexual, and I don't think homosexuals are "aping marriage", I think they're entitled to it and deserve to have it. It's not "your" marital lexicon, it belongs to all of humanity regardless of sexual orientation.

Saying that they can have white dresses and ceremonies but it shouldn't be marriage is ridiculous. It echoes mid 19th century racial segregation. Blacks can have their own toilets and their own waiting rooms and everything, just don't mix them up with the white folk. "Separate but equal" right? Wrong. It didn't work back then and it's not working now.

Homosexuals are entitled to every bit of marriage; not just the gown and the aisle but the actual concept too, on the grounds that they are HUMAN BEINGS. If you don't think that is PROPER then too bad. You're the same as the white folk who didn't think it was proper for a white woman to marry a black man.

You have this unhealthy illusion that you somehow own marriage, or that you are a spokesperson for heterosexuals or that gays aren't equal to you. You are wrong on all counts; marriage is an institution that belongs to humanity, not to a select few nit-picking bigots who think that marriage is only as valuable as the number of "different" people they can exclude from it. It's truly disgusting for you to think that marriage is somehow worth less because gays can get married too. I thought marriage was valued by things like loyalty, trust, love and family. It seems that the only true way to value marriage is by keeping out the gays whose love is inferior to the PROPER people. Right?

19:10 November 8, 2009 by secondthought

You are invited to see my Camels in the desert of Kenya,

even if you are an international Zionist.

Who knows, desert can inspire you into Godly ways.

After all, it is where heavenly religions are born, free from

the pollution of civillisations.

And no, i don't get back ackes from owning camels,

they are not cows, they are proud independent creatures.

Of course i have help who tend to them.
19:14 November 8, 2009 by nevon
I think that reducing marriage to things like happiness and love makes a damn lot more sense than reducing marriage into a mathematical combination of the PROPER genital organs, no?
19:17 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven
However much some people may believe that Homosexuals can not enter into a traditional "marriage", it is clear that some gay/lesbian couples have a religious faith that makes them want to have a religious blessing on their partnership in exactly the same way that heterosexual couples do.

There have been homosexuals since time immemorial and there will continue to be for all time to come because sexual orientation is a factor of birth. People do not choose their sexual orientation they are BORN WITH IT.

The God of Jews, Christians and Muslims has yet to strike down dead the homosexuals that the holy books of these religions so deplore, so maybe God likes them.

By the way Bisonex ,

I am very thankful , as an infertile heterosexual married man that "we have a tradition of enabling infertile people to marry, too"

Who should I send my cheque to?

Oh and please tell me was it O.K. for this infertile WHITE married couple to adopt a non white child??

Forgive them lord for they know not of what they speak
19:21 November 8, 2009 by snaping
useless to comment
19:24 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex

The institution of marriage has never precluded black people from marrying white people. Some laws in some countries did for a certain period, but marriage is first and foremost a cultural institution, and a legal one second. I have already said that I have no problem with homosexuals enjoying the legal benefits of marriage.

Your claim that I equated homosexuals with dogs reveals your inability to conceptualise. I was drawing an analogy between the notions of men marrying men with those of men marrying dogs - both defy the normally understood requirements of who or what a man can marry. A man marries a woman, not a man, or a child, or a dog, or a ship or a Persian rug. Now you'll claim that I'm comparing homosexuals to Persian rugs!!!

I have no problem with the "separate but equal" idea - in fact, I'm all for it. There is a danger with it in that it can be used as an excuse for treating one of the segregated groups as inherently inferior, but that is not an inevitability. If homosexuals want to have a union - fine - let them have the same legal, fiscal and other rights of married couples, but let them assign their own volabulary to that union so that everyone understands it is a union between two people of teh same sex rathert than of the opposite sex. If people thereafter choose to believe it is a lesser institution, or even a greater institution, than heterosexual marriage, that's up to them in a free country. I am fiercely opposed to the Newspeak idea whereby politically correct ideology is imposed upon the populace by state agencies for their own purposes of social engineering.

All I am denying homosexuals is their demand to use the terminology associated with the kind of union to which I belong with something which I consider to be essentially, semantically, culturally and even biologically different.
19:35 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven
Nevon, Nemesis and other voices of considered reason.

I believe that the only way to repond to the rabid fanatics posting here is by sarcasm and scorn. Because they have no reason, they will never listen to reason.

The other day there was a new poster FirstCrusade who was posting here. a dose of sarcasm and scorn seems to have worked on him.
19:37 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex
@Rick Methven

"I am very thankful , as an infertile heterosexual married man that "we have a tradition of enabling infertile people to marry, too" Who should I send my cheque to?"

That question is oxymoronic and therefore contrary to logic. If something is a longstanding "tradition", how could you send a cheque to the person who began it?

"Oh and please tell me was it O.K. for this infertile WHITE married couple to adopt a non white child??"

What the crap does that have to do with this issue? You can adopt an adolescent dalek for all I care. "Forgive them lord for they know not of what they speak" What "lord" would that be, then? Peter Mandelson perhaps?
19:39 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven
Hej Bisonex

I'm waiting for your response to my post #83

I've got the cheque (check) who do I make it out to and for how much?
19:47 November 8, 2009 by nevon

The institution of marriage has never precluded black people from marrying white people? Really? Are you... serious?

You are equating a human being with an animal. You could also equate a human being with a inanimate object like a rug, it makes it no less offensive. In your opinion, when it comes to homosexuals marrying, it's not longer a question of WHO you're getting married to, but WHAT you're getting married to, which makes it analogous to getting married with a dog or a rug. This relegates gays to a category that is not human, at best linguistically, and at worse in your mind. I think it's the latter. Understand now?

You might not have a problem with the "separate but equal" idea, but everyone else does. It's ridiculous. Sexual orientation doesn't make you less of a human being, it doesn't make you less capable of love, less capable of bringing up a child, less capable of having a meaningful romantic relationship or less capable of trusting and being affectionate. If this is so, why should homosexuals be excluded from an institution that is culturally and traditionally defined by love, loyalty, trust and family?

It's practically an intellectual crime to define marriage by whether the two genital organs involved are the "right" ones. You're talking about spending the rest of your life with another human being, building a family, an enduring relationship, trust and love, and all you can think of when it comes to the VALUE of your marriage is whether the two people are of the opposite sex. That's just sad. I'm sure your partner would be thrilled to know how you valuate your marriage.

Your view is one that makes marriage seem trivial and ceremonial. If you think that marriage is more than a trivial ceremony based on gender, then your view is one that puts homosexuals in a sub-human category because it assumes that they are unable to love/build/form relationships or families like every other human being, due to their sexual orientation.

Either way, you're wrong.
19:56 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven

You said quote "although WE have a long established tradition"

'WE' implies personal involvement. That is that YOU and others together, established the tradition that allowed ME an infertile man to get married. The implication being from the rest of your post,

That because the institution of marriage is for procreation, that infertile people who can not procreate should really not be allowed to be married - but heck as long as they are not queers we'll ALLOW them to get married.

This displays a little Freudian slip on your part. I seems that You want to reserve the institution of marriage to proven fertile heterosexual couples, but because you are really GOD posting on The Local, you have made the magnanimous decision to all heterosexual couples to marry.

Come on Bisonex S**t or get off the Pot
20:07 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ secondthought

Actually technically for once in your life, you are correct. I am technically Ulster-Scots.

Do not patronise Irish people. Your stereotype does not exist anymore. The Irish have moved on. The Irish no longer blindly follow the priests.

If you own camels most likely you are male.

If you want to know how beer is distilled, buy a book on the subject from Amazon.

There is no international zionist conspiracy. Your anti-semitism has been noted.

@ Re-Horakhty

Your anti-white racism and homophobia are noted.

Also I do not have a boyfriend, but thanks for realisign that I am heterosexual.

@ vladd777

Enjoy your diseases.
20:18 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex
@Rick Methven

"You said quote "although WE have a long established tradition" "

Yes, I said that, but you seem to be having trouble understanding the many usages of the first person singular pronoun. One such usage occurs when the speaker/writer is relating a permanent or longstanding situation which persists long after its inception. So if I say "we" have a tradition, I am not suggesting that the inception of that tradition has occurred withing living memory, or that the person originating it is known or still living. In fact, the usual presupposition involved in mentioning "tradition" is that its originator is long dead. Of course, you know that; you are just playing a game of semantics. Did I mention that I reach semantics at university?

"That because the institution of marriage is for procreation, that infertile people who can not procreate should really not be allowed to be married..."

The primary or, to be more accurate, primeval, reason for marriage is procreation. Marriage began at a time when people did not normally live beyond the age at which they could rteproduce. Its purpose was to ensure the survival of the genes of the participants, not just by reproducing, but also by ensuring children were supported and proptected. People started living beyond reproductive age probably in certain societies in the Bronze Age, but there was no way of establishing whether they could, or could not, reproduce. So the tradition of there being no requirement for the potential to reproduce died out.

"You want to reserve the institution of marriage to proven fertile heterosexual couples, but because you are really GOD posting on The Local, you have made the magnanimous decision to all heterosexual couples to marry."

Thanks for suggesting that i am God, but modesty precludes me from accepting that accolade. On the assumption that you were trying to be ironic, I suggest that you try to get your head around my reasoning for determining that the very particular concept, and associated lexicon, of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples, instead of throwing cheap sarcastic soundbites around. They add nothing to the debate.
20:18 November 8, 2009 by secondthought

Who "noted" my anti semitism dear??

I am a SEMITE myself.

I can trace myself through family, clan, tribe,and all the way to nation

to ISMAEL my greatest grand father.

Are you saying the Ashkaniziz have "noted" my anti semitism??

You are accusatory in nature Nemisis.

I praised the Irrrish for being a Godly folks.

And no , i am not a male, i inherreted the Camels, and kept them.
20:33 November 8, 2009 by izbz
Wow ! all you tough macho guys up against Nemesis, Must be damn bloody proud of yourselves. Your gods must have really spoken to you to do that. This hetro asian man hate those who those who like to put others down. You all are like a group of uncondensed cow giving out sour milk.

By the way Rick Methven, did your god ordained you to ALLOW marriages? Queers? Bravo, At least now we can witness a great man of god branding gays as queers, which book in your holy bible teach you the word queer? And verse?
20:41 November 8, 2009 by nevon
@pilgrim & stranger

You said; "let's stop the name-calling and get back to the historical standard for ratioonal human behavior, the Bible."

I'm not sure what's more funny. The hilarity of the statement in itself or the fact that you managed to misspell "rational" while trying to make it.
20:55 November 8, 2009 by sebwojo
what have the black people have to do with this acticle?me i always say and will go on to tell the people who suport homo this you dont like you country.its sad that one day the so called blac people your abusing wil come one day and take over you landsince in africa its ok to make offspringsfor yuo your thinking of marrying same sex so that no people from your race is added

i repeat let us wait after 200 year
21:00 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven

Did I mention that I reach semantics at university?"

How do you reach semantics?

If you mean read, rather than reach, they di not teach you spelling then!

You write a lot of gobbledegook to avoid the question.

You write a lot about Bronze age - ( more bad spelling by the way)

"Marriage began at a time when people did not normally live beyond the age at which they could rteproduce. Its purpose was to ensure the survival of the genes of the participants, not just by reproducing, but also by ensuring children were supported and proptected. People started living beyond reproductive age probably in certain societies in the Bronze Age, but there was no way of establishing whether they could, or could not, reproduce. So the tradition of there being no requirement for the potential to reproduce died out."


I ask you again:

As an infertile man, who knew that he was infertile before he got married, Should I, be allowed to get married and then adopt a child?

As your view is that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation, Am I a sinner for having a loving, caring, sexual relation with my wife?

Cut the claptrap, Gobbledegook, and newspeak

Give your answer YES or NO.

I need to know if I am about to be struck by the bolt of lightening that you are about to get YOUR GOD to kill me.
21:00 November 8, 2009 by Gwrhyr
If you don't want to get married to a person of the same sex then don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to. Those that hate gay people luckily don't own the concept of marriage. It is owned by all of humanity and humanity includes gay people, like myself. Also, not all denominations of Christianity or Islam or Judaism or whatever religion are against gay marriage, either, so it is perfectly fine for gay people to get married in a church if they so wish. Nobody is forcing anyone to become gay or to marry someone of their same gender if they don't want to. Nobody is even forcing you to value their marriage. But it is still marriage, no matter how much you like to think of gay people as second-class citizens.

Secondthought, who taught you that it is every man's duty to reproduce for his race? Obviously I don't agree with that, but I think it's pointless to argue with it, I don't think minds are changed from heated internet comment-exchanges. I'm more curious from a sociological and anthropological standpoint where that idea came into your head. All in all, this is not a very interesting discussion.

Gay people deserve equal rights and society has been slowly but surely marching forward in granting them equal rights and eliminating their second-class citizen status. This is a really great thing and I'm proud to live in a country that recognizes this.
21:13 November 8, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Gwrhyr,

Well put.
21:15 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven

well said:

My earlier point

"The God of Jews, Christians and Muslims has yet to strike down dead the homosexuals that the holy books of these religions so deplore, so maybe God likes them."

We should all be allowed to choose our own path without being demonised by the bigots.

Love will overcome all adversity, whether it be between man and woman, man and man or woman and woman
21:19 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex
@Rick Methven

"How do you reach semantics? If you mean read, rather than reach, they di not teach you spelling then!"

Firstly, you can't even spell the word "did", so you're in no position to tell me about spelling. Secondly, you know perfectly well that people making typos, as you have done. If you have to focus on those, you obviously realise you are outgunned on the arguments and so you are getting pretty desperate.

You say I "write a lot about Bronze Age". Wrong. So far as I know, I have never mentioned the Bronze Age on this site before.

"As an infertile man, who knew that he was infertile before he got married, Should I, be allowed to get married and then adopt a child?"

I already answered that by saying that we have an ancient tradition of accepting male/female marriages regardless of the fertility of the participants. If that isn't explicit enough for you, I'll make it simpler. YES. Is that clear enough now?

"As your view is that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation, Am I a sinner for having a loving, caring, sexual relation with my wife?"

I said that the original purpose of marriage was procreation, which it was. I recognise that procreation is not always practically possible or desired within marriage, but that doesn't change its original purpose. I do not recognise the concept of "sinner".

"I need to know if I am about to be struck by the bolt of lightening that you are about to get YOUR GOD to kill me."

We atheists don't have a "God" - that's what makes us atheists.

In sum, you attack me for a typo (pathetic), then make one yourself (LOL). You accuse me of going on about the Bronze Age, when I had never mentioned it previously, then you ask me, an atheist, about "sin" and my "God". If I were you, I'd steer clear of serious debate, because you're clearly not up to it.
21:27 November 8, 2009 by vladd777
Comment: "One person practicing homesexuality is something, calling an entire society to accept homosexuality as a norm and teaching it to kids at school is another. With that......... You can kiss the western christian civillisation good bye."

My thoughts exactly and I can tell you that the things small boys and girls say at school are soul shattering. I have said before that I'm glad I'm old and don't have grandchildren. As adults we have the great responsibility of preserving their innocent minds and we will have to give account for our corrupting influences. Our Creator will not be mocked and so dark days lie ahead. I could put out another citation but it will fall on deaf ears.

As for enjoying 'my diseases' at least aids won't be one of them 'cos I don't dig blood transfusions.

@secondthought: Conversion is out cos I couldn't give up music + tv 'n such and sharia law is scary. Also I look bad in a head scarf. But your well researched input and backup is much appreciated.

@pilgrim & stranger: Yup..ol'Lucifer is enjoying his time while he has it.
21:28 November 8, 2009 by Gwrhyr
Sebwojo, you seem to impy that in Africa it is okay to have children but in Sweden it is not okay to have children. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that because Sweden allows gay people to marry that all Swedes will stop having children? Do you honestly think that if society accepts homosexuality all people will become gay and stop having children?

Please use your brain and common sense.
21:30 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven
So You - an atheist are determining who should be married in the church of a God that you do not believe in?

Either there is no god or God is the atheist Bisonex

Thank-you for the ride.

This is when I go get me a large single malt
22:04 November 8, 2009 by karex
@izbiz You're right, what a show of "macho". That's why I'm not a feminist: what self-respecting woman would wish to be like men and knowingly take several steps backwards in evolution? I certainly don't!

All this is really pointless. You can't argue with fanatics - "they know everything!". Right, they know all the ignorance the world has to offer.

If someone took the time to study history a bit more it would be possible to realize that "marriage" as well as "adultery" (among others) were concepts regulated by laws because of PROPERTY, that is, to determine inheritance, peoples' rights within society, benefits, etc. Nothing to do with religion. The concept at some point was kidnapped by religion, mostly because religion and law in those days were decided by the same people.

To create a more even ground for a greater part of society is exactly what the Swedish government has done through recognition of gay marriage. Unfortunatley, it took a few thousand years to see the light. But hey, traditionally most governments have been run by men until fairly recently, so it should not be surprising that it took this long...

And Sweden is one country where the male sector of society is evolving at a faster pace. There is still a lot of catching up to do, but they are FAR ahead of many societies.
22:12 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex
Rick Methven

"So You - an atheist are determining who should be married in the church of a God that you do not believe in?"

You didn't read my very first post in this thread, did you? I said in that post that the churches could perform any rituals they liked, but marriage is a cultural institution more than it is a religious one. It is not for individual churches to re-define a major, universal social institution.

"Either there is no god or God is the atheist Bisonex"

Drink your whiskey - you might make more sense after imbibing the stuff than you do now.
22:16 November 8, 2009 by nevon

Yeah, individual churches can't re-define major, universal social institutions. Only Bisonex can do that. Him or someone else from the handful of bigots who insist on trying to spit against the tidal wave that is the future.
22:27 November 8, 2009 by Rick Methven

Your statement

"A church can perform whatever rituals it likes, but it can not make a marriage between a man and another man etc. The state can decree whatever it likes, but the institution of marriage is a cultural phenomenon, and not within its gift to confer on its citizens"

Is dictating to the church what it can or can not do.

The church believes that is doing Gods will, therefore oh great master of semantics Bisonex, You must either believe that you are god or the Christian God Reports to the higher God Bisonex.

By god ( that's my god) that whisky did me a power of good!

Just admit. You are just a petty dictator who is homophobic. Live with your pain

On the other hand……your pseudonym Bi-Son-Ex could be Bisexual!

Actually you could be a closet homosexual who's afraid to come out of the closet
22:44 November 8, 2009 by Iraniboy
Such a waste of time after reading these comments full of hatred, personal insults,...

Why people try to discuss if homosexuality is good/bad/natural/unnatural,...Let it be what it is! Can't we just keep our views for ourselves? IMHO, refusing to marry same-sex couples in churches is understandable, this is basically against what churches are for. Why don't they marry outside churches? This is like forcing German football's fans to support England in a football match!
22:45 November 8, 2009 by Bisonex

Calling someone who disagrees with you a "bigot" after twisting what they have said is really pathetic. It betrays either a lack of intellect or a lack of integrity. In your case, I suspect the former.

@Rick Methven

"Is dictating to the church what it can or can not do."

Read what I said again, as you quoted. It comprises declarative sentences, not imperatives. In simple terms, I was stating facts, not "dictating" anything.

As for whether the particular church we are talking about (a very small church, as it happens, and out of step with the major world churches in this respect) believes it is doing God's work or not is a matter of conjecture. I would speculate that they are simply trying to make themselves a bit more trendy in an effort to shore up their pathetic levels of church attendance rather than applying theological principles.

"On the other hand……your pseudonym Bi-Son-Ex could be Bisexual!

Actually you could be a closet homosexual who's afraid to come out of the closet"

You have had your ass kicked in a debate and, after coming unstuck by attacking me for a typo (then making one yourself), and making a wrong assumption about my religious beliefs, you finally resort to trying to wind me up my impugning my sexuality. Keep typing, old chap. With each stroke on your keyboard, you just make an even bigger dick of yourself.
00:04 November 9, 2009 by uunbeliever
Wow, after reading all of the childish back-an-forths I had an epiphany, how does anyones sex life affect anyone elses. Why do you care? How do some gay guys or girls affect my life? Should I not be more worried that we are all destroying the planet? That there is suffering in the world? Why are most westerners accepting of the amount of violence today but sex is bad? Are lesbians blowing up people to get rights?

God/ Allah/ Buddha/ Gaia/ Rasta/ Jehova/ must be sad.

PS. I hate all fanatics.
00:50 November 9, 2009 by Uncle
Gwrhyr - may I ask, why the gay people, mostly very liberal society (abortion issue, animal rights, equality, environment etc.) all of a sudden becomes traditional zealot when talking about marriage? I agree - gay marriage must allow gays to be legally equal. However, why does it have to be religious equality?

Why am I, benig poor do not sue the local country club for discrimination? WHY do I have to have the money to get in?

Why little children do not sue the rollercoaster owners for discrimination??? The children are not guilty that they are not tall enough for the ride...

Why do women do not sue male football clubs for not accepting women?

The church is a PRIVATE club. One has to adhere to certain requirements in order to get the club's services. It stopped being a public club from when one could refuse paying taxes to church.

Gay people (mostly not religious) are mocking the church and the swedish church bends over.

The church does not demand from gays to become religious... It does not demand from gays to accept the word of God or whatever other profanity it believes in... It does not press on gays and does not touch gays. So why gays DEMAND something from the church???

If I am an agnostic or an atheist, should I demand from the church to take off the roofs the offensive crosses because I feel equal only if there are no signs of religion in my sight, leave alone the impact of the view of a man, hanging on a torture device on my children???

I am not religious, but in my opinion, church must not run after the latest trends. Like it or not, but as there a right for gays to express themselves, there is a right for all people to accept or NOT accept gay way of life and marriage. Most of the traditional people do NOT do it and church is losing its credibility with these people, whereas gaining some sort of a fake equality feeling with 6%-10% of the population, most of which despise this institution anyways.

Read the posts for God's sake. Those who are FOR gay marriage are whether against the church as an institution, or against the Bible or against religious people and their "bull".

THERE IS NO LIBERAL who would actually be happy that the church has finally accepted its long lost child back into its loving hands, or whatever the religious are saying... No, no. They are happy that the religious bigots got served and shoved to and the dumb, ancient institution was forced to accept the reality... It is embarrassing and frightening, like seeing an old man kicked around by a bunch of 15 year old, after he gave them some bread..
04:27 November 9, 2009 by Moshe
"One in five priests refuse to wed same-sex couples"......The other four out of five are probaly gay themselves. At least one in five priests are practising the Christian faith.

Any priest who performs a "Gay" marriage is just going through the motions and is not performing a Christian marriage. Maybe, the government of Sweden recognises Gay marriages but under the Christian faith and teachings, it is not recognized.

It is not enough for Gays to have sex with a same sex person but they want to make others (Christians) to believe it is no different from traditional marriages. It is not a Christian marriage but a humanistic marriage.

It doesn't make a difference if the other so called priests perform the marriages because they are acting contrary to the Christian faith. Once they perform the rite, they excommunicated themselves from the church. It is the priests who have sinned against the Church.
06:59 November 9, 2009 by Gwrhyr
Uncle, unfortunately you seem to assume that all religious Christians are against gay marriage. You assume that all gay people want to get married in a church regardless of how devout they are in Christianity. You also seem to assume that theology always stays the same and never changes over time in the Christian church. All three of those assumptions are false blanket statements.

There are many straight and gay people who are devout Christians and who do not think that the Bible condemns loving, monogamous gay couples.

The church has changed many times before and that is precisely why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, 7th Day Adventists, Mormonism, Baptists, Born-Again Christians, etc., etc. all exist due to differences of theological opinion over time.

Why do you assume that all gay people are the same? That all gay people hate the church? And why do you assume all straight church members are against gay marriage?

We're seeing today yet another issue where devout Christians are wondering how to apply the scripture in today's world, and just like the many past reforms and changes that the Christian church has gone through, this is causing tension both within and between denominations, and in some cases is causing church schisms as people who just won't accept gays no matter what exercise their right to splinter off from the main church and revel in their exclusive ways. I think a lot of people here misunderstand the Church of Sweden's decision. You honestly cannot believe that a majority of devout Christians in this Church believe that the Bible is not anti-gay. 7 out of 10 priests are willing to wed gay couples. This decision has not just come from outside the Church, it has come equally from within.

Uncle, who gives you the right to rule over churches and decide what changes they make to theology? Do you think that all churches except the 7th Day Adventists are hated by God for celebrating the sabbath on the wrong day, Biblically speaking? Do you think only people who receive Eastern Orthodox communion are going to heaven, whilst the rest will be smote by God as idolators?

What gives you the right to decide who can get married and not in all Christian churches as opposed to the actual Churches themselves?
12:51 November 9, 2009 by secondthought

Even if i validate your point, even if procreation is taken out of the debate,

still my dear, there is going to be massive errors with the issue of homosexuality.

I am not exagerating if i tell you that, if 10 men are in one place,and,5 of

those are homosexuals, i can pick 3 out of the 5 as homosexuals easily.

With a trained eye, perhaps 5 out of the 5 can be identified.

Most of the easilly identified,are those Passive homosexuals, or the ones

that play the female roles.

WHY IS THAT? You find the answers, yourself.

This world is created with ballance by it's created.

In nature , you will find couples of each.

The proponents of homosexuality are tilting that ballance.

The western civillisation is on dangerous track, even in the fields of

science and technology.

All it asks is, is it doable. It only asks HOW and not WHY.

Homosexuality had been shunned by all the nations before us

the so called modern man with exception of the few that paid the price

of embracing it.

WHY, should be the question we are asking.

Why do we need to teach kids at school of how to become one,

and that it is cool??.

I personally have no problem with an individual homosexual, i do not

condone it, but that in itself is not a danger to the society as a whole.

But to promote homosexuality at societal level, with huge powers

behind it is a call for disaster.
18:10 November 9, 2009 by Lairor
I'm against gay marriage that's why I have made the controversial decision not to get married to a gay person.

I also really like traditional marriage. You know, where divorce is illegal and the husband legally owns his wife.

My goal is to have two wives like Jacob and also have kids by my wife's servants. And then maybe I can be just like Lot and have children with my daughters.
18:40 November 9, 2009 by Princess P
I don't really get this argument.

Surely whether or not a gay couple (or any other couple) are allowed to get married in any particular church or not is down to the church in question. Bear in mind that a church is a group of people that meet together with a common belief, not the pretty building they meet in.

If your views or beliefs are in conflict with a particular group of people, why on earth would you want anything to do with them on your special day?

I can understand the dream of the big, traditional wedding. But if 4 out of 5 churches are happy to do it, why would you choose the 1 that doesn't want to.

And what this has to do with a bunch of posters on the local who would probably burst into flames if they ever set foot in church, I'll never know. ;)

PS I don't know anything about camels and their sexual preferences, I didn't see that many growing up on a council estate in Liverpool, but we did have a great big ginger tom who would have a go at anything if it stayed still for long enough. We eventually had his 2 veg cut off because of what he kept doing with his mother.
19:12 November 9, 2009 by secondthought
Your username is Princess P and you had a ginger tom,

that is so gay ;).

You made a point here " But if 4 out of 5 churches are happy to do it,why would they choose the one that doesn't want to"?

That is the whole issue here. Why would they!!

Because it is not about rights of homosexuals, it is about subjugating

the rest and coercing them into total obedience of the concept of homsexuality.

Why would posters would care?

Every body should care, particularly those parents who live in Scandanavia,

where in sweden now schools are being taught homosexuality and they

unashamedly, weilding sheer power ,recently anounced that it will be made

illegal for parents to prevent their kids from taking that homosexuality encouraging course.

Getting married is not enough, now they are saying give up your kids to

be brain washed into homosexual life style.

Sweden is a trend setter for the rest of Scandic countries, it is a matter

of time before the rest follows.

About "churches", there none.

In case you haven't noticed, churches are dead already, long gone

no one cares "to put them into flames" as you suggested.
19:36 November 9, 2009 by izbz
karex, Gwthyr ,Nemesis, After all these hundred over comments, one can see clearly that all these have nothing to do with religion but clearly prejudice against the gays. All these self proclaimed, self ordained preacher wannabes throwing around verses after verses of the bible. I wonder if they use the scriptures only if it suits them. But simple me only know two verses very clearly: 'Love thy neighbours' and Jesus said' those who are sinless cast the first stone' Well! maybe all of them are sinless....

To all the gays in Swedan: If you think you are happy marrying in church, go do that and we can tell all these people who disagree to shaft it . Can I hear an AMEN!

Lairor, When a man marry a woman, he do not own her, neither do a woman own a man! What make you think you can OWN someone.
20:59 November 9, 2009 by Nemesis
@ Izbz,


It is bigotry for trhe sake of bigotry.

@ Lairor,

You are in the wrong country to own a woman. That is illegal in all European countries.

Women in Europe are free to self determine for themselves who and what they want to be, as it should be.

Moving to the middle east might suit you better, than living in a socially advanced ocuntry like Sweden.
19:27 November 10, 2009 by izbz
Uncle, since you like to be address as uncle, you must be from the old testament. I still believe JC would have say to all Christian even if gays hate religion, Christian should not hate them. Anyway I really don't blame you for saying that since you are getting old and senile. So don't even blame shift to ALL CHRISTIAN. Not all Christian are like you. Still one word sum it all up : PREJUDICE
20:37 November 10, 2009 by Uncle
izbz - for your info - I know a 4 y/o uncle, you, open minded and liberal progressive youth....

Who said "hate"? Your reading ability is a bit overestimated, although you are young and strong.

Who said that I am christian, when I specifically wrote that I am an atheist? I was never baptized or anything of that sort. I have been in church as much as in synagogues - out of architectural interest. But it is good that you do not assume a thing and clean of prejudice....

One word to sum it up: PATHETIC.
13:34 November 12, 2009 by Random Guy
....again, like and alcoholic, people with gay tendencies should seek help to stop their destructive life course. They have a choice to live a right or wrong life.

And yes, you can prove for yourself the Bible is the word of God. Just yelling in a blog it is not does not make your rant true.

It is all about choice - it is up to you reader what your conscience is telling you ( you can hear it telling you what is right and wrong! ).
Today's headlines
Hundreds protest Swedish asylum laws
Around 1,000 people protested in Stockholm. Photo: Fredrik Persson/ TT

Hundreds of people on Saturday demonstrated in Stockholm and in many other parts of the country to protest Sweden’s tough new laws on asylum-seekers.

Dylan removes Nobel-mention from website
The American musician has more or less responded to the news with silence. Photo: Per Wahlberg

American singer-song writer Bob Dylan has removed any mention of him being named one of this year’s Nobel Prize laureates on his official website.

Refugee crisis
Asylum requests in Sweden down by 70 percent
Sweden's migration minister Morgan Johansson. Photo: Christine Olsson/TT

Sweden received 70 percent fewer requests for asylum in the period between January and September 2016 than it did during the same time last year, the country’s justice and migration minister Morgan Johansson has revealed.

The unique story of Stockholm's floating libraries
The Stockholm archipelago book boat. Photo: Roger Hill.

Writer Roger Hill details his journeys on the boats that carry books over Stockholm's waterways and to its most remote places.

Refugee crisis
Second Stockholm asylum centre fire in a week
The new incident follows a similar fire in Fagersjö last week (pictured). Photo: Johan Nilsson/TT

Police suspect arson in the blaze, as well as a similar incident which occurred last Sunday.

More misery for Ericsson as losses pile up
Ericsson interim CEO Jan Frykhammar presenting its third quarter results. Photo: Claudio Bresciani/TT

The bad news just keeps coming from the Swedish telecoms giant.

Facebook 'sorry' for removing Swedish cancer video
A computer displaying Facebook's landing page. Photo: Christine Olsson/TT

The social media giant had censored a video explaining how women should check for suspicious lumps in their breasts.

Watch this amazing footage of Sweden’s landscapes
A still from the aerial footage of Sweden. Photo: Nate Summer-Cook

The spectacular drone footage captures both Sweden's south and the opposite extreme, thousands of kilometres north.

Sweden could be allowed to keep border controls: EU
Police ID checks at Hyllie station in southern Sweden. Photo: Stig-Åke Jönsson/TT

Sweden could be allowed to keep ID controls on its border with Denmark beyond the current end date of November, following discussions among EU leaders in Brussels last night.

Why women in Sweden will work for free by November
File photo of a woman working in a Swedish office. Photo: Anders Willund/TT

A new study into the gender pay gap suggests Sweden still has some work to do.

Sponsored Article
This is Malmö: Football capital of Sweden
Fury at plans that 'threaten the IB's survival' in Sweden
Sponsored Article
Where is the Swedish music industry heading?
Here's where it could snow in central Sweden this weekend
Analysis & Opinion
Are we just going to let half the country die?
Blog updates

6 October

10 useful hjälpverb (The Swedish Teacher) »

"Hej! I think the so-called “hjalpverb” (auxiliary verbs in English) are a good way to get…" READ »


8 July

Editor’s blog, July 8th (The Local Sweden) »

"Hej readers, It has, as always, been a bizarre, serious and hilarious week in Sweden. You…" READ »

Sponsored Article
7 reasons you should join Sweden's 'a-kassa'
Angry elk chases Swede up a lamp post
Sponsored Article
Why you should 'grab a chair' on Stockholm's tech scene
The Local Voices
'Alienation in Sweden feels better: I find myself a stranger among scores of aliens'
People-watching: October 20th
The Local Voices
A layover at Qatar airport brought this Swedish-Kenyan couple together - now they're heading for marriage
Sponsored Article
Stockholm: creating solutions to global challenges
Swede punches clown that scared his grandmother
Sponsored Article
Swedish for programmers: 'It changed my life'
Fans throw flares and enter pitch in Swedish football riot
Could Swedish blood test solve 'Making a Murderer'?
Sponsored Article
Top 7 tips to help you learn Swedish
Property of the week: Linnéstaden, Gothenburg
Sponsored Article
How to vote absentee from abroad in the US elections
Swedish school to build gender neutral changing room
People-watching: October 14th-16th
Sponsored Article
'There was no future for me in Turkey'
Man in Sweden assaulted by clowns with broken bottle
Sponsored Article
‘Extremism can't be defeated on the battlefield alone’
Nobel Prize 2016: Literature
Sponsored Article
Stockholm: creating solutions to global challenges
Watch the man who discovered Bob Dylan react to his Nobel Prize win
Sponsored Article
Why you should 'grab a chair' on Stockholm's tech scene
Record numbers emigrating from Sweden
Sponsored Article
'There was no future for me in Turkey'
People-watching: October 12th
Sponsored Article
Where is the Swedish music industry heading?
The Local Voices
'Swedish startups should embrace newcomers' talents - there's nothing to fear'
Sponsored Article
Last chance to vote absentee in the US elections
How far right are the Sweden Democrats?
Property of the week: Triangeln, Malmö
Sweden unveils Europe's first elk hut
People-watching: October 7th-9th
The Local Voices
Syria's White Helmets: The Nobel Peace Prize would have meant a lot, but pulling a child from rubble is the greatest reward
Missing rune stone turns up in Sweden
Nobel Prize 2016: Chemistry
jobs available