Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
People are fucking amazing sometimes.
but it's HIS OPINION
he's allowed HIS OPINION
waaaagh waaaagh waaaaagh
fucking hate anyone that advances the idea that having AN OPINION means i can't call you out for being a fucking moronic bigoted prick
that people think that freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to disagree. It's a shame that these people have thoughtless, blind hyperbole on their side.
probably a wise move, with the Tories facing annihilation at next election and all.
And if the answer is 'no one', then why bring it up?
I still don't see anywhere where anyone says you can't call this UKIP bloke a prick if you like.
You've trolled me.
I'm sure if God was truly that pissed off He'd do more than total a few flatscreens and give a few people in Burton Fleming a nasty case of damp.
he must be running out of mana points?
A One God Universe Lyrics William S. Burroughs
Consider the impasse of a one God universe.
He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since He is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition.
His universe is irrevocably thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So, He has to create friction: War, Fear, Sickness, Death.... To keep his dying show on the road.
Sooner or later, "Look boss we don't have enough energy left to fry an elderly woman in a flea bag hotel bar."
"Well, we'll have to start faking it."
Joe looks after him sourly and mixes a bicarbonated soda. "Sure, start faking it. Sure, and leave the details to Joe."
Now look, from a real disaster you get a pig of energy: Sacrifice, Heroism, Grief, Separation, Fear and Violent Death, and remember one violent death yields more energy than a cancer ward.
So, from a energy surplus you can underwrite the next one. So, from a energy surplus you can underwrite the next one. But the first one's a fake, you can't underwrite a shithouse!
Trying to explain to God Almighty where His one God universe is going. The asshole doesn't know what buttons to push or what happens when you push them! Abandon ship, god damn it every man for himself!
Recollect Pope John XXIII saying, "Like a little soldier, I stand at attention in the presence of my captains." The old army game from here to eternity: Get there firstest with the brownest nose.
He doesn't seem to know how the world works, scary.
So I'm afraid I think these floods were on me. Unfortunately that means that David Silvester has born false witness here, so Henley on Thames will probably now suffer seven years of drought. And of bread there shall be none.
I can imagine a hasty defence where he says
"I'm not homophobic. By my own logic, I respect that *some* LGBT rights are necessary for irrigation and suchforth."
but frighteningly accurate. GCC's been called the Gay Tim Mafia for a long time.
Gonna find it funny instead.
What a complete fud!!
Whatever you think of their key policies, they've had a pretty good track record lately of dealing with their lunatic fringe.
that it wasn't so long ago that the Labour leader used his Christian faith partly as justification for the war in Iraq.
are a "lunatic fringe" in UKIP
'High levels of immigration and being an EU member state are hurting the country'
'Gays cause floods'
But hey, SWIVEL EYED LOONIES LEL right?
Implies that the position they're best known for (the former) is just as lunatic as what Silvester said (the latter).
This person not being part of a lunatic fringe does not mean that everyone in the party is a lunatic, merely that it is not an insignificant minority. You are the one who linked two separate positions.
for it not to be seen as a lunatic fringe, but if you've got any evidence to the contrary, let's have it.
I think the fact that Farage is showing intent to be taken seriously in getting rid of characters such as Silvester and Bloom is immensely threatening to some people.
the initial response from the central office was a tacit defence of, if not what he said, at least of his right to say it.
has managed to perfect the art of washing his clothes.
And damned if they don't, then?
are always going to find a much higher than average number of their members also happen to be homophobes, sexists, bigots etc.
That only stifles debate and will drive people into backing the party.
is scare-mongering, largely fictitious, reports about immigration and the EU in the worst examples of our national press.
We're not exactly swamped with pro-UKIP rhetoric in the mainstream press. The right-wing media is more in the Tories' pockets who would see UKIP as a threat.
not pro-UKIP. UKIP as a party are roundly mocked in the media.
(usually when they're exposed as being full of homophobes, sexists, xenophobes, racists etc), but the rhetoric is entirely along the lines of UKIP opinion.
UKIP wouldn't have even a quarter of the support it does now were it not for the anti-immigration, anti-EU, anti-Westminster agenda of the likes of the Sun, Mail, Express, Times and Telegraph.
That it's OK for a Tory to say something yet a UKIP member would be pilloried for saying the same thing. Case in point the Question Time a couple of weeks ago, where anything Peter Nuttall said regarding immigration was met with hoots of derision whereas Nadine Dorries roundly agreeing with him attracted little more than a few stroked chins, and Susan Boniface playing the R-card with no prompt whatsoever from Nuttall.
I'm including left wing publications like The Guardian in with that by the way, whose political commentary carries a lot more weight than that of most of the adult comics you mention.
and I say that as a Christian who disagrees with gay marriage. I still maintain that Farage is arguably the most on-the-ball politician out of the current crop in terms of sorting out the finances of the UK though, which is a depressing enough thought in itself.
who have decided that the Lord should witness and bless their commitment to one another in terms of procreation and mutual support - procreation is physically impossible between two people of the same sex.
I wholeheartedly support the idea of same-sex couples committing to one another, but it doesn't qualify as marriage in the Christian sense - that may sound bigoted, but hear me out - I wouldn't expect to waltz into a synagogue to make a Mitzvah out of nowhere, so I don't see why any so-and-so should expect to be taken up the aisle for the sake of a 'big day' (this applies to everybody, regardless of their sexual preference). There are already protocols in place which ensure that committed homosexual couples enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
Christianity seems to be an easy target unfortunately, very few people seem to want to mess with the traditions of other religions.
But when you've learnt the difference, we'd be truly honoured to hear your considered musings on the matter.
The relevant information is freely available. If you're unwilling to retrieve it just be honest and say so.
"The sacrament of marriage is about the coming together of a man and a woman who have decided that the Lord should witness and bless their commitment to one another in terms of procreation and mutual support"
Ehh, no it's not.
Regardless, I have never understood why folk in your religion focus on this one supposed "sin" above most others listed in the book:
Blasphemy = fine.
Eating prawns = fine.
Women not wearing a hat while praying = fine.
Gay marriage = unforgivable!
Go home, didyousayhand, you're drunk.
1) I've quite clearly outlined what the sacrament of marriage means to Christians, yet as a non-Christian you're disagreeing with me. Read The Bible, then come back at me, bro.
2) I've made my opinions on same-sex relationships quite clear (they're great). There's near enough no mention of sexuality in the good book anyway.
The last refuge of the desperately dreadful debater.
that a reluctance to read The Bible is the act of a dreadfully liberal bigot.
But to do so would be completely pointless.
Because I wasn't questioning the act of reading it (or even referencing passages within it).
reading The Bible is "the last refuge of a truly awful debater" then.
Because I've not said it is.
You're really flailing now, aren't you? A few lines of rehearsed daftness got things going, but anything more than that is a real struggle, huh?
1) Yes, but marriage is not about Christians. Not sure that most Christians would see an ability to procreate as a precursor to marriage anyway.
2) No, you've made it clear you are using religion as an excuse for your bigoted views.
I look forward to your explanation of why this sin is more a focus for you than the others I listed
I'm nearly there...
good to know you have no explanations though, thought as much
and it's the last thing anyone should do here, "the sacrament of marriage" (specifically Catholic) isn't the same thing as "marriage" (multi-faith & civil).
With that said, quite why the redefinition of civil-marriage would bother anyone concerned with the sacrament of marriage (not redefined - indeed specifically protected) is a mystery to me.
The sacrament of marriage is entirely different from the legal act of marriage. JE is a twerp and a troll.
as long as it's not in my Church.
Also, procreation is physically impossible due to infertility. Numbnuts.
Here we go.
homosexuality with disability there?
I don't wrestle with needy chimney sweeps.
You're already a glistening, sweaty, soot-covered mess. And it's giving me a lob on.
i commend you on your persuasive debating skills, jameater
to find out about how their marriages aren't really marriages because of how marriage is an exclusively christian institution. it's good that you're around to clear that up, though!
As I said in an earlier post, I wouldn't expect to waltz into a synagogue to make a Mitzvah out of nowhere.
It's just not the same. Not dissimilar to gay marriage in some respects.
Even if the contents are identical?
How pathetically shallow.
One more for the bigot bingo card.
in the same sense that marriage is an exclusively christian institution, and hence non-christians should not expect to waltz into a church or other marriage-offering locale and get a marriage out of nowhere. that's precisely why it was such a damn fine analogy!
expect to waltz into a Church and get a marriage out of nowhere. That would be absolutely ridiculous.
(pssst i really hate to be the one to break it to you, but sometimes nonbelievers go into churches. sometimes they even get married in them. sometimes - it's crazy, i know - but sometimes christians get married to non-christians. and sometimes - it's stomach-churning, i know - but sometimes gay people are christians. i'm just here to equip you with the full range of knowledge you might need to continue fighting the good fight against this madness.)
getting married, or at least objected with the same anger as they've responded to the proposition of gay marriage? Not that you're the spokesperson for all Christians or anything. I was just wondering.
"I don't see why any so-and-so should expect to be taken up the aisle for the sake of a 'big day' (this applies to everybody, regardless of their sexual preference)."
that you're opposed to atheist marriage?
i'm with you brother, this is some revolutionary free-thinking in action
in that the Christian God would not recognise it.
so muslim marriage is off the table as well then, obviously. what about mormon marriage? because i mean technically they're christians so does that mean the christian god recognises polygamy?
Church of England is a den of iniquity (lest we remember Henry VIII who married six times, and beheaded a couple of his wives). Mormonism is a money-making racket.
got it. so what i'm getting is that the christian god only recognises the specific form of marriage practised by the specific sect of christianity to which drownedinsound user jameater adheres, and since the actual definition of the term and institution 'marriage' is limited to that which is recognised by the specific version of the christian god that jameater believes in, the vast majority of partnerships that have been called 'marriage' across human culture and history are not, in fact, marriages at all, but rather committed non-marital partnerships that have been erroneously designated marriages by people who haven't read their bible properly. and, despite the fact that this travesty of misnaming has been going on for millenia across the globe, we still wouldn't want the gays to pile on and make it even worse than it already is.
i really feel like we've all learned something today.
to the point that they'll actually marry two people who are clearly atheists in a church. You just have to attend a few church services and pretend you're a Christian when you're there and that's it.
Going on that logic, I should be able to dress up as a woman and marry my boyfriend in a church, right? The vicar will turn a blind eye, just as he does with straight atheist couples, right?
Not a proper Christian.
nice aggressive reply to a genuine, politely phrased question.
But it didn't actually answer my question. Okay, I understand your statement and agree with it- I think marriage is pretty pointless and arbitrary, it has particular significance within the Christian religion, but outside of that it's just something that people do when they feel it's time to settle down.
However, I dunno if you've noticed, but over the last few years the worldwide Christian community has actively campaigned against gay marriage. Surely, going on your argument, non-Christians marrying is equally as bad as same sex marriage, right? So why don't Christian campaigners also focus on opposing non-Christian marriage?
Cos to be honest, the exclusive focus on same sex marriage makes some Christians appear a bit.. y'know. Homophobic.
So don't expect to get married in my Church. It's as simple as that.
This has nothing to do with my beliefs.
If Christians think that atheists marrying is bad for exactly the same reasons as gay people getting married, why don't Christian communities focus on opposing atheist marriage too? I dunno how I can put this more simply. Because at the moment it looks like Christians are using this "it's not real marriage" argument as an excuse to be homophobic. If they went around also saying that atheists getting married isn't real marriage, and that atheists should be banned from getting married under any circumstances and instead have civil partnerships, then their views would be more consistent and Christians would appear less homophobic.
doing with the concept of wedding two blokes then?
is that for some reason i always get you confused with incandenza (i think it's him? maybe there's another one as well?) and i can never clearly remember which one of you is the shit one, so in my mind poor incandenza gets conflated with your shitness. soz incandenza. now that i've written this post i'll remember though.
correct? (you moron)
Why do you need churches and commandments and angry gods killing children? Just be nice to eachother for crying out loud.
how is a couple expected to be aware of any fertility problems if they've yet to consummate their marriage?
and not just trolling.
How about another example.
Should couples who don't want kids be "allowed" to marry?
well SOMETHING is causing it
Strange how I've been called out for my views on gay marriage (which affects approximately 1% of people at most), yet nobody has challenged my opinion on the economy (which affects 100% of people).
Sleep tight, liberal bigots x
the best trolling is trolling with a good plot twist at the end
"I still maintain that Farage is arguably the most on-the-ball politician out of the current crop in terms of sorting out the finances of the UK though"
within 3 years. And we'll all be hoarding tinned pineapple and eating spam
It can't have, not in 2014.
Remember those progressive days when the trolls (troll) actually used to pretend to be gay to legitimise their trolling?
At least his insistence and consistency in capitalising words like Faith always made me laugh.
The replies are still not nesting properly.
DAMN YOU SEAN
thought "nah, total waste. No way he's going to get any bites at this time on a Sunday evening".
Hats off to him tbh
everyone knows it's that old woman with all the cats who lives in the forest.
It is not even like people are offended or angry about it, they are too busy laughing to give a shit.
i have to say stringly to agreewith U-Kip on this matter. thanks biggots
He just gets a buzz out of annoying you lot.
He seems to add some sort of authenticity by adding that he thinks the CoE is not proper.....so I guess he is claiming to be RC??
But he obviously isnt as he revels in looking down on others, and that REALLY isnt what Jesus wants people to do......therefore he is not a christian......ta dah......logic is brilliant if you just harness it to your purposes :D
my turn to have an argument with the ridiculous JamEater/argument construct
seems to represent christianity as I thought Jesus might approve, i.e. they are not filled with hate for people who are different and are not oppressors, in fact they do a good job, with murals on boards outside the church showing their stance on things such as 'protests against unscrupulous banking' or sames*x marriage (in a positive good kind comapssionate (all the adjectives people tend to talk about in the context of jesus) way)
If it werent for things like this church, people like me might be led to believe that the institution of christianity is hate filled with phobic bigots.
So big up to St Johns, who have the chutzpah to put up a mural with 2 men exchanging rings
does anyone else ever get the impression that, as much as they enjoy the wind-up by taking contrary positions, that they wouldn't be able to do it with such commitment if they didn't actually deep down believe it? i get that impression
only shucks is allowed to reference that
I believe in the Mighty Mighty Bosstones.
I knew in_limbo was a member of the CG-coat-tail-holding-brigade, but he's gone full UKIP! Hats off, I guess.
meant to mean a derogatory term?
Although, it would of course not be very accurate, as Stephen Fry pointed out, that he never had his chimney swept, not does he sweep them.
Whereas Frank 'Straight' Skinner likes sweeping womens chimneys
wrestling with pigs.
He's pretty much burned it out though, the guy despo needs some new material...
Stopping Christians blocking the rights of others is not oppression.
If you're beating someone with a stick, and I take your stick away, you are not being oppressed.
Do a better job trolling next time too, you acne-scarred 14 year old shithead.
good old UKIP