Åke Green freed

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyhete...737722,00.html
yeah, swedish link again, sorry!

Anyway, Åke Green was the topic some time ago, he more or less preached hatred against homosexuals in his church and went to trial for it.
Amongst the things he said he said that homosexuals are like a cancer to the society that needed to be thrown out of the country. And so on and so forth.

Well, he was now freed and can go back to preach his hatred.

Now on one hand, he is everything I hate about religion and I do wish he will be struck with lightning in a very ironic twist.
On the other hand everyone should be able to say what they want.

I guess atleast in Sweden, with Åke Green freed, we might see more religius nutcases preaches hatred against homosexuals and other such things.

Well, to my understanding he preached against homosexuals so he'd get attention from the press, It's better to let him preach what he want's than it is to have the state decide what you can and cannot say
If nutcases are the price to pay for that then it's not too bad

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Well, to my understanding he preached against homosexuals so he'd get attention from the press, It's better to let him preach what he want's than it is to have the state decide what you can and cannot say
If nutcases are the price to pay for that then it's not too bad

Agreed

Hopefully the people of sweden will understand on their own that Åke Green is an idiot.

I'm sure they do already.
BTW how's the weather back in Sweden, have you got any snow yet?

yeah, snow all over the place here in Halmstad and the western coast.
(sorry for the off-topic people)

I miss snow...
Back to topic:
It would be unconstitutional to convict him, he didn't specifically preach violence, just removal.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

BTW how's the weather back in Sweden, have you got any snow yet?

Perennial snow, two hours of daylight, winter storms, short, dreary, wet summers, billions of mosquitos, insane prices for alchohol, incomprehensible languages - these are but few of the many ways by which the Lord scourges those Godless Northmen.

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Perennial snow, two hours of daylight, winter storms, short, dreary, wet summers, billions of mosquitos, insane prices for alchohol, incomprehensible languages - these are but few of the many ways by which the Lord scourges those Godless Northmen.

Such an accurate description, have you by any chance been to Sweden?

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Such an accurate description, have you by any chance been to Sweden?

Twice!

The good roads and fine collection of lakes and forests make it a pleasant place to drive through when on your way to the scenic splendour of Norway...

*waves his fist in an angry manner at Luis* Bloody Frog!
Sure, during winter we get little sunlight, but during summer we get little darkness!
And us northerners are almost resistant to cold by now.
Maybe I should start a topic about sweden and its weather

Back to topic: Well sure he didnt preach open violance against homosexuals but how are you going to Remove homosexuals from sweden without violance!? heh, sort of impossible

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Twice!

The good roads and fine collection of lakes and forests make it a pleasant place to drive through when on your way to the scenic splendour of Norway...

You're avare that Norway suffers from

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Perennial snow, two hours of daylight, winter storms, short, dreary, wet summers, billions of mosquitos, insane prices for alchohol, incomprehensible languages - these are but few of the many ways by which the Lord scourges those Godless Northmen.

to?

And what do you mean that we suffers from short summers!? I mean, up here 2/3:s of the summer last one day.

On a slightly more serious note. A lot of snow came today . Hopefully it won't melt before Christmas. Been a few years in a row were the first snow that stayed on the ground all winter came very late.

Originally Posted by Lazul

Åke Green

Way I figure it he'll get his in due course anyway, I'm assuming the church hasn't made him a saint in which case the halo over his name's, gonna be pretttty hard to explain away at the pearly gates.

Originally Posted by Prodigal

Way I figure it he'll get his in due course anyway, I'm assuming the church hasn't made him a saint in which case the halo over his name's, gonna be pretttty hard to explain away at the pearly gates.

well he isnt part of the major "Svenska Kyrkan". He is part of the "filadelfia kyrkan" where I am guessing his views are popular, so im guessing he is free to preach his sick (in my eyes) views.

we need more international posts, so no problem.

Originally Posted by Snowhobbit

Well, to my understanding he preached against homosexuals so he'd get attention from the press, It's better to let him preach what he want's than it is to have the state decide what you can and cannot say
If nutcases are the price to pay for that then it's not too bad

Don't they see ? Repression of homosexuals is all that keeps them into the genepool. If they were all open about, they wouldn't produce any children anymore, so after a few generations, there wouldn't be any homosexuals left.

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Don't they see ? Repression of homosexuals is all that keeps them into the genepool. If they were all open about, they wouldn't produce any children anymore, so after a few generations, there wouldn't be any homosexuals left.

Interesting. It`s still a debate whether homosexuality follow DNA or whether it is connected to the enviroment you grow up in. Homosexuality does not produce children if lived out, so evolution should remove it because of it`s counterproductivness(sp?).

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Don't they see ? Repression of homosexuals is all that keeps them into the genepool. If they were all open about, they wouldn't produce any children anymore, so after a few generations, there wouldn't be any homosexuals left.

That's a simplification. When homosexuals have been oppressed in history they've produced children and carried on their sexuality that way, leading to an increase in homosexuality, because they aren't, which is natural, removed by evolution by not having children. If they can be open about it however, they produce no children and there is an evolutionary force trying to decrease them in numbers. However they don't go away because they reappear through new mutations fairly easily. This fact proves that for the flocks of humans, new mutations of homosexuality wasn't a problem big enough to hurt the flock, perhaps homosexuals were even good for the flock, as they could help in hunting etc. without being an extra part in the competition for the opposite sex. I.e. an individual with genes such that his children easily get a mutation to homosexuality isn't a bad thing for the flock, and so in the long term sensitivity to mutations causing homosexuality haven't been removed because flocks without homosexuality weren't more survival-strong than other flocks. (please tell me if this was incomprehensible and I can try to explain it in detail step by step)

Therefore, no matter what your view on homosexuality is, it's soundest to be against oppression and defaming of homosexuals, without, as is sometimes done in pretty disgusting festivals, going too extreme into the other direction by encouraging homosexuality and homosexual exhibitionism or unvoluntarily making bystanders voyeurs. Normally we're not tolerating exhibitionism if a heterosexual does it, but apparently homosexual and bisexual people are allowed to have exhibitionistic festivals. This extremism in the other direction is something that gives those who want oppression of homosexuals arguments for their cause, which is bad.

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

This fact proves that for the flocks of humans, new mutations of homosexuality wasn't a problem big enough to hurt the flock, perhaps homosexuals were even good for the flock, as they could help in hunting etc

The extra food gain that extra homosexual member of the flock would be minmal as that member requires food too. Actually it`s a bad thing since they eat without producing children. Children is everything for a species survival, and the more widespread and more numberfull(to a certain extent) a specie is, the better. The homosexual member had a great chance of being killed by other flock members because of its sexuality, anyway.

Originally Posted by Viking

The extra food gain that extra homosexual member of the flock would be minmal as that member requires food too. Actually it`s a bad thing since they eat without producing children.

Many animals have homosexuality but it seems it doesn't hurt their flocks unless the homosexual individuals force their sexuality upon someone who is heterosexual. I don't know the exact explanation why homosexuality exists, but in many other cases humans have developed genes pretty insensitive to mutations which lead to a, not by the majority used, behavior. So it seems if homosexuality would hurt the flocks much, it would have been removed by evolution.

Originally Posted by Viking

Children is everything for a species survival, and the more widespread and more numberfull(to a certain extent) a specie is, the better.

Many species have birth control regulation to keep their numbers down, which is also important for survival. You can for instance see this clearly in species which are near extinct, they still don't breed like maniacs because their regulation mechanisms are still there. Actually most mammals have fairly good regulation, unlike fish and reptiles etc. It's likely that sex was even introduced by evolution for it's ability to regulate number of births, and also control who mates with who. There's also the need for genetical variety, where most males and females share the work of reproduction. However, if just a small number of individuals in a flock don't reproduce it won't hurt the flock, it is barely possible to recognize the difference, as normally flocks of monkeys are quite large. However it seems likely that species with very small flocks don't have that many homosexual individuals. Judging from our closest monkey relatives, a human flock was around 200-800 individuals large before civilization begun.

Originally Posted by Viking

The homosexual member had a great chance of being killed by other flock members because of its sexuality, anyway.

If it forced it's sexuality upon a heterosexual, yes. Then he/she would be a real threat, and a flock getting rid of the threat would be stronger. But not otherwise, as nature suggests.

Originally Posted by Viking

The extra food gain that extra homosexual member of the flock would be minmal as that member requires food too. Actually it`s a bad thing since they eat without producing children. Children is everything for a species survival, and the more widespread and more numberfull(to a certain extent) a specie is, the better. The homosexual member had a great chance of being killed by other flock members because of its sexuality, anyway.

Less people means more food to go around, this is visible even on micro level. Certain hungerstricken areas of Africa would have been far better off with a lower population, even though they live in comparatively sparsely settled lands they're still incapable of producing an adequate amount of food without emergency aid. Indeed, if a larger percentage of their population had been homosexuals, the outlook for their future would've been brighter.

But these things are irrelevant, the homosexuals don't want to be homosexuals so they can be "useful" in lowering the birth rate. Same goes for heterosexuals, unless you usually tell your girlfriend you're dating her for the survival of our race.

Originally Posted by Viking

The extra food gain that extra homosexual member of the flock would be minmal as that member requires food too. Actually it`s a bad thing since they eat without producing children. Children is everything for a species survival, and the more widespread and more numberfull(to a certain extent) a specie is, the better. The homosexual member had a great chance of being killed by other flock members because of its sexuality, anyway.

um...

yeah, except that we operate in flocks, families and clans, rather than as individuals... gay people contribute to society by gathering resources, and as these are shared in society they help the average heterosexual. To say those who cannot directly reporduce contribute nothing to the survival of the species seems bizarre.

What about homosexuals who are doctors, scientists, who contribute to species survival.

To talk about reproduction as the be-all and end-all is simplistic and unrealistic.

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Many species have birth control regulation to keep their numbers down, which is also important for survival. You can for instance see this clearly in species which are near extinct, they still don't breed like maniacs because their regulation mechanisms are still there. Actually most mammals have fairly good regulation, unlike fish and reptiles etc. It's likely that sex was even introduced by evolution for it's ability to regulate number of births, and also control who mates with who. There's also the need for genetical variety, where most males and females share the work of reproduction. However, if just a small number of individuals in a flock don't reproduce it won't hurt the flock, it is barely possible to recognize the difference, as normally flocks of monkeys are quite large. However it seems likely that species with very small flocks don't have that many homosexual individuals. Judging from our closest monkey relatives, a human flock was around 200-800 individuals large before civilization begun.

We are not safe on this planet, and if we hadn`t had such big population as today, we`d probably not looked that much into space for survival as we do today. And if the tools are not ready to deflect an asteroid, protect from disappearance of magnetic field etc, we`ll end up as the dinosaurs. I imagine big birth rates and civilization is the reason we ended up with todays society. I am not sure, but I imagine that we are not much more intelligent now than our ancestors in the stone age; more co-operation and change of living style was what there was required.
There might be a bigger image; discovery of extra terrestrial intelligent life would confirm that.

If it forced it's sexuality upon a heterosexual, yes. Then he/she would be a real threat, and a flock getting rid of the threat would be stronger. But not otherwise, as nature suggests.

Well, I read about a couple from the stone age that was killed most likely because of their (homo)sexuality.
Why do you think there has been such oppression of homosexuals through the times? Because of our instincts that tell us that unnormal is not good; for the same reason we`re sceptical to child molestors, necrophiles etc., we see them as a threat to what we`ve established.

Originally Posted by Spartakus

But these things are irrelevant, the homosexuals don't want to be homosexuals so they can be "useful" in lowering the birth rate.

They aren`t in western society anymore. Birthrates are going down all over the western world.

Originally Posted by mystic brew

um...

yeah, except that we operate in flocks, families and clans, rather than as individuals... gay people contribute to society by gathering resources, and as these are shared in society they help the average heterosexual. To say those who cannot directly reporduce contribute nothing to the survival of the species seems bizarre.

Indeed um....; because I were talking of the time when humans lived in flocks. Todays society is different.

What about homosexuals who are doctors, scientists, who contribute to species survival.

Mention some.

To talk about reproduction as the be-all and end-all is simplistic and unrealistic

No; no reproduction, no more human specie.

Originally Posted by Lazul

Well sure he didnt preach open violance against homosexuals but how are you going to Remove homosexuals from sweden without violance!?

Convert them all to christians.

Originally Posted by Husar

Convert them all to christians.

plenty of christians are gay mate, wich in my eyes makes no senes, since christianity is homofobic by nature.
But im not even christian myself tho hehe.

Originally Posted by Lazul

plenty of christians are gay mate, wich in my eyes makes no sense

It does make no sense because it´s paradoxical. And I never intended it this way.

Uhm, homosexual animals, are they *exclusively* homosexual, or do they occasionally mate with the opposite sex and produce offspring that way ?

Oh and reproduction IS everything, without reproduction the genes get lost. It is possible that certain people are mostly there to support their fast breeding relatives, but let's face it. Humans aren't ants, we are still a species that bases its society on the individual.

Originally Posted by Viking

Indeed um....; because I were talking of the time when humans lived in flocks. Todays society is different.

so what is your position on the utility of homosexuals in today's society, then, if things are different from the flock now?

Mention some.

Isaac Newton.
Leonardo da Vinci.
Alan Turing.

plus all the gay people who work in medicine and healthcare. And whatever percentage that is, these individuals make a contribution.

No; no reproduction, no more human specie.

yeah, reproduction being the be-all and end-all for the species as a whole, not for individuals within that species.

those who do not reproduce still fulfil valuabel roles in society. they increase the adult-child ratio in families, they guard, provide for, generate income and so on. This is all beneficial to the species as a whole. If you judge an individual's worth solely on whether they reproduce or not you utterly ignore these contributions.

I don't believe that mankind has ever lived in flocks.....

Originally Posted by mystic brew

so what is your position on the utility of homosexuals in today's society, then, if things are different from the flock now?


Isaac Newton.
Leonardo da Vinci.
Alan Turing.

plus all the gay people who work in medicine and healthcare. And whatever percentage that is, these individuals make a contribution.


yeah, reproduction being the be-all and end-all for the species as a whole, not for individuals within that species.

those who do not reproduce still fulfil valuabel roles in society. they increase the adult-child ratio in families, they guard, provide for, generate income and so on. This is all beneficial to the species as a whole. If you judge an individual's worth solely on whether they reproduce or not you utterly ignore these contributions.

Well, they still contribute less to society than heterosexuals since they cannot reproduce themselves. And reproduction is what this life is all about. Everything starts with the induviduals.

My point is, they contribute less than heterosexuals; whatever gays can, heteros can too.

Originally Posted by Viking

Well, they still contribute less to society than heterosexuals since they cannot reproduce themselves. And reproduction is what this life is all about. Everything starts with the induviduals.

My point is, they contribute less than heterosexuals; whatever gays can, heteros can too.

yeah, thats sort of logical....since most people are hetro and not gay. So, no wonder we (hetro) can contribute more.
Also, keep in mind, alot of people are bisexual, for instance I got a friend that is, he only has sex with men couse of the simple fact that he likes it, but he still plans on marrige with a woman and having children.