The gay marriage debacle

[MrGaryy]

Anyone else finding this ridiculous? He's a man of deep faith which is widely known to be against gay marriage and the other housemates are just using this as a reason to pick on him and make him look like a bad person. Since when is a person defined by their beliefs? He's shown absolutely no malice towards Mario, Corin, Govan or Shabby and never once voiced his disdain at homosexuality until pressured into voicing his beliefs by Josie in front of everyone. I'm finding the whole thing I a bit nasty to be quite honest.

[_Seth]

Um, If I wanted to get married to a dude and it was up to him - he'd deny me and my boyfriend marriage. He's a **** for that.

[Shaun]

depends on how strongly he believes in it I guess. Ultimately he has very half-hearted beliefs in a wholeheartedly terrible religion.

[MrGaryy]

Um, If I wanted to get married to a dude and it was up to him - he'd deny me and my boyfriend marriage. He's a **** for that.

are you telling me that if you were in a serious relationship with a man and planned to get married, you would go and ask a Catholic monk to marry you, even though you're fully aware of how homosexuality is perceived in the church?

[Z]

I think it's a bit unfair on Dave to be picked up on that. He's absolutely cool with gay people being in the house; he's quite blatantly not homophobic - he's a Christian, of course he's going to disagree with gay marriage - I actually think he should be viewed in a positive light for being fine with gay people in spite of his religious beliefs.

[_Seth]

are you telling me that if you were in a serious relationship with a man and planned to get married, you would go and ask a Catholic monk to marry you, even though you're fully aware of how homosexuality is perceived in the church?

No, I just said if it was up to him he'd deny me and my BF marriage.

[Shaun]

No, I just said if it was up to him he'd deny me and my BF marriage.

Well you and your hypothetical boyfriend's marriage has very little to do with a Brummie in a Big Brothe rhouse.

[MrGaryy]

No, I just said if it was up to him he'd deny me and my BF marriage.

Not him - the church denies you the right. He just has to abide by the law of the church.

[Shiner]

Not him - the church denies you the right. He just has to abide by the law of the church.

Yep. Even Mario stood up for him and said he's not against it but in his capacity as a monk he is unable to perform the ceremony.

[_Seth]

Not him - the church denies you the right. He just has to abide by the law of the church.

If it was up to HIM, he'd say no.

[Tom4784]

I think it's a bit unfair on Dave to be picked up on that. He's absolutely cool with gay people being in the house; he's quite blatantly not homophobic - he's a Christian, of course he's going to disagree with gay marriage - I actually think he should be viewed in a positive light for being fine with gay people in spite of his religious beliefs.

This, I don't really like him but it's obvious that he isn't homophobic and I don't really think he believes in that part of it really, he seemed a bit half hearted about it.

[BB_Eye]

Yeah I'd say they're overreacting big time and just using it against him.

What they should be really annoyed about is his insufferable pontificating and bizarre bible reading sermons.

[supergirthuk]

I agree with gay marriage as it is about loving someone but if Dave doesnt thats up to him and he is entitled to his opinion. If you were gay and wanted to marry then I am sure there are plenty of other people who would marry you. Just go to one of them.

[Tom4784]

If it was up to HIM, he'd say no.

Who could say?

He's only taken that stance because it's the law of the church, if it was fully upto him I don't think he'd mind really since it's obvious he isn't homophobic.

[jtalh2003]

he is trying to walk a tight rope on the one hand he dont want to offend his faith on the other he dont wanna offend the voting public
personal i just think he should do what ever he thinks is right and bugger every one else you should always be true to your self

[Shiner]

he is trying to walk a tight rope on the one hand he dont want to offend his faith on the other he dont wanna offend the voting public
personal i just think he should do what ever he thinks is right and bugger every one else you should always be true to your self

He'd really be in trouble with the church if he did that. :joker:

[supergirthuk]

Josie brought it up so that she had an excuse to vote for him and unfortunately for him it is sticking to him as Ife used the same excuse this week.

I dont like Dave but I really went off Josie and my opinion of her has plummeted the more I see of her since then.

[jtalh2003]

He'd really be in trouble with the church if he did that. :joker:
yep but sometimes it needs people on the inside of a organisation to say something is wrong to get change

[cazzy555]

It doesn't really bother me to be honest, I think he's trying to stay true to his beliefs but he is clearly not homophobic and doesn't mind sharring a bed with another man and out of all the religions out there ( not that I agree with any of them) Cristianity does tend to change with the times so it's only a matter of time before they allow gay marriage. Besides the Bible is full of gay sex it's just that it's used as punnishment in the bible.

[Shasown]

It doesn't really bother me to be honest, I think he's trying to stay true to his beliefs but he is clearly not homophobic and doesn't mind sharring a bed with another man and out of all the religions out there ( not that I agree with any of them) Cristianity does tend to change with the times so it's only a matter of time before they allow gay marriage. Besides the Bible is full of gay sex it's just that it's used as punnishment in the bible.

PMSL What bible have you been reading? Did Moses ass**** pharoah into letting the Israelites go from Egypt?

[Jords]

I agree, just giving the housemates an easy nomination tbh.

[cazzy555]

PMSL What bible have you been reading? Did Moses ass**** pharoah into letting the Israelites go from Egypt?

LOL I believe it's in the book of Job if you wish to look it up

[iRyan]

I think it's a bit unfair on Dave to be picked up on that. He's absolutely cool with gay people being in the house; he's quite blatantly not homophobic - he's a Christian, of course he's going to disagree with gay marriage - I actually think he should be viewed in a positive light for being fine with gay people in spite of his religious beliefs.

He's basically saying, though "You're my friend but sorry, I don't think you deserve the same rights I do".

[MrGaryy]

He's basically saying, though "You're my friend but sorry, I don't think you deserve the same rights I do".

No he's saying 'You're my friend, but the religion I follow does not grant you the same rights as I have' - not about his personal opinion and nothing about whether or not gays should have the same rights.

[Colbert-Bump]

Can't believe housemates are still going on about it, Big Brother should stop them from using it as a reason to nominate Dave.

[Jamietwo]

any form of homosexual encounter is an abomination and you will burn in hell , apart from lesbians if thier fit and are fairly discreet about it and don't slack on thier duties of collecting wood and cooking etc .... However God loves sinners and if you repent and turn to our Lord and saviour Gods son jesus christ of nazareth then you can go to heaven. Or something.

seriously though Dave is clearly not homophobic Not like that grumpy little asswipe science who would not even eat the anus of a chicken in case he turned gay.

[Angus]

Um, If I wanted to get married to a dude and it was up to him - he'd deny me and my boyfriend marriage. He's a **** for that.

Then why would you want to be married in a faith you clearly would not believe in since it takes the view that gay marriage is wrong? THAT to me is just being a *****. If gay people want to get married go tie the knot in a register office, not in a church.

[Angus]

No, I just said if it was up to him he'd deny me and my BF marriage.

Quite right too, because you would be unreasonable to expect him to compromise his faith for you.

[Angus]

Can't believe housemates are still going on about it, Big Brother should stop them from using it as a reason to nominate Dave.

If anything they are religious bigots who are discriminating against Dave on the grounds of HIS faith. If a muslim cleric had been in the house and had said he would not condone gay marriage, would those "want to be seen jumping on the PC Bandwagon" sheep dare to nominate him for the same reason? I think not - bunch of hypocrites.

[billy123]

If anything they are religious bigots who are discriminating against Dave on the grounds of HIS faith. If a muslim cleric had been in the house and had said he would not condone gay marriage, would those "want to be seen jumping on the PC Bandwagon" sheep dare to nominate him for the same reason? I think not - bunch of hypocrites.
good post.

[JustSkipIt]

Angus58 - you are the voice of reason. Is your surname Metatron by any chance?

The Christian faith of over 2000 years old. It is NOT a religion of intolerance and hate, but in the scheme of things, gay marriage is quite a new idea, and the church can't change doctrine every time public opinion shifts - it took over 1300 years just to get the bible written in English.
Besides - if you find the church so repulsive, why on earth would you want to celebrate your wedding there?
Either way, it's not up to Dave – he wouldn't be allowed to marry a gay couple any more than I would.

[WOMBAI]

Um, If I wanted to get married to a dude and it was up to him - he'd deny me and my boyfriend marriage. He's a **** for that.

He has as much right to his opinions as you - get someone else to marry you then - no big deal!

[WOMBAI]

Can't believe housemates are still going on about it, Big Brother should stop them from using it as a reason to nominate Dave.

Couldn't agree more! It is a cheap shot by the hms and the public - to use his faith as an excuse to personally attack him! Put me off Josie - saw a different side to her then!

[WOMBAI]

Quite right too, because you would be unreasonable to expect him to compromise his faith for you.

Well said!

[Shiner]

He's basically saying, though "You're my friend but sorry, I don't think you deserve the same rights I do".

Well no. He's basically saying "You're my friend but sorry, my bosses believe that at the moment if we cave on this rule some of our existing members might get hacked off and leave the organisation. However not so far from now they will more than likely relax this old fashioned rule to fall in line with the current social standing. If it were up to me I'd do it because I love you but my hands are tied on this. Pass the nail varnish buddy. Is my guy-liner on straight? C'mon let's hug it out."

Y' see he may be boring but he's not a bigot. :)

[Julie10]

At the end of the day he is a slimeball not on his views about gay relationships but at his acting up by laying around with young men. What message is he giving out? To me it is his desperation not to be nominated that he will do anything to keep these men on his side.

if he doesn't agree with gay relationships fair enough but what is he doing lieing around with men and constantly cosying up to them the fact that he is so desperate he would do that to stay in the house says to me he is sad and not a full christian or whatever he's supposed to be!

Get him out!

[Peter Plunker]

At the end of the day he is a slimeball not on his views about gay relationships but at his acting up by laying around with young men. What message is he giving out? To me it is his desperation not to be nominated that he will do anything to keep these men on his side.

if he doesn't agree with gay relationships fair enough but what is he doing lieing around with men and constantly cosying up to them the fact that he is so desperate he would do that to stay in the house says to me he is sad and not a full christian or whatever he's supposed to be!

Get him out!

That's what Dave is like, he's a tactile bloke. He's like it with me and all our mates and most of us a very happily married.

In the Bible John was described as the one who reclined on Jesus. I'm not comparing Dave to Jesus I'm just saying God has no problems with people getting their cuddle on. It's a just a good old fashioned 'cwtch' as we call it here in Wales.

[ILoveTRW]

Dave is a sick twat, just because you believe in the bible doesn't mean that you have to be homophobic.

[stoney]

it seems that you only have religious freedom in this country as long as its not old fashioned Christianity:nono:

Dave tried to explain his position very near the begining. He said that HIS interpretation of the scriptures is that gay marriage is wrong but he has absolutely no problem with gay people as God loves everyone.

Is he not allowed that belief because it doesn't fit into our PC world:conf:

what IS mattiage in the eyes of the church:conf: It used to be the bringing together of a man and a woman cementing their relationship before having children:conf:
Now I'm not so sure what it is meant mean apart from some trendy equal rights tax break:conf:

[Peter Plunker]

Dave is a sick twat, just because you believe in the bible doesn't mean that you have to homophobic.

He isn't a homophobe. Bandwagon jump much?

[Shasown]

LOL I believe it's in the book of Job if you wish to look it up

Yeah it does appear in the Book of Job, as a form of test not punishment, It was Satan that inflicted the trials onto Job to prove to God that Job was only devout and worshipping God because of his good fortune and that his faith would waver if ill fortune and illness was heaped upon him.

However in the post I questioned you said
Besides the Bible is full of gay sex

One book isnt the whole Bible!

[Stacey.]

In fairness, I didn't think that reason would be allowed to nominate someone..

As much as I don't like him and don't agree with him, it's only what he believes in.. but I'm sure he said he doesn't have a problem with gays, yet he thinks gay marriage is wrong.. bit odd.

[CaraRawr]

I think it's a bit unfair on Dave to be picked up on that. He's absolutely cool with gay people being in the house; he's quite blatantly not homophobic - he's a Christian, of course he's going to disagree with gay marriage - I actually think he should be viewed in a positive light for being fine with gay people in spite of his religious beliefs.

This.

[Jack_]

At the end of the day, it isn't a personal opinion. Gay people have and should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Fact.

[Chuckyegg]

How kind and loving of him to be cool with the gay people around him. Bless him for not kicking off about it. He doesn't have a problem with gay people. They are evil but he loves them. Get that asshole out of there ffs.

[calyman]

Dave is clearly not homophobic but equally clearly is prepared to side with a homophobic ruling within his faith that refuses same sex marriage. He cannot have the best of both worlds. He must either say that part of his faith is unnaceptable and then strive to change it, or accept that a fundemental spiritual core belief tells him what he must believe and he should defend it. Any other way is just duplicity.

I have strong personal beliefs, if there is something about my belief that contradicts my own views then I have a dilemma if I take the fence sitting role. I would take a stand, as I did when I had issues with the Catholic Church and chose to turn by back on it because of it's hypocrisy and intolerence.

Dave and his faith cannot be respected while he thinks it's acceptable to take the middle route and please neither his church, nor those his church insults and offends.

[Shasown]

it seems that you only have religious freedom in this country as long as its not old fashioned Christianity:nono:

Dave tried to explain his position very near the begining. He said that HIS interpretation of the scriptures is that gay marriage is wrong but he has absolutely no problem with gay people as God loves everyone.

Is he not allowed that belief because it doesn't fit into our PC world:conf:

what IS mattiage in the eyes of the church:conf: It used to be the bringing together of a man and a woman cementing their relationship before having children:conf:
Now I'm not so sure what it is meant mean apart from some trendy equal rights tax break:conf:

Its not only Daves view, nor any particular churches view, its the law of the land. Homosexuals are allowed to commit themselves in a civil partnership ceremony. This isnt marriage. It treats gays in a separate legal status from opposite sex couples. Although it does actually give them the same rights and responsibilities it still has not altered the Marriage Act.

I dont see how you can call Dave hypocritical for following his religion, surely the hypocrites are the ones who know that in the eyes of some churches a homosexual liaison/relationship is sinning yet expect that church to perform a marriage to endorse what they regard as a state of sin.

What next rapists asking the local minister to bless the bottle of rohypnol, or their hammer?

[Shasown]

At the end of the day, it isn't a personal opinion. Gay people have and should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Fact.

Yes and religious organisations have the right to have their belief respected. Maybe one day church organisations will review their belief about it and change but at the moment most churches dont accept it.

Perhaps those who criticise religions should work to achieve equal rights for women inside religious organisations.

[calyman]

Its not only Daves view, nor any particular churches view, its the law of the land. Homosexuals are allowed to commit themselves in a civil partnership ceremony. This isnt marriage. It treats gays in a separate legal status from opposite sex couples. Although it does actually give them the same rights and responsibilities it still has not altered the Marriage Act.

I dont see how you can call Dave hypocritical for following his religion, surely the hypocrites are the ones who know that in the eyes of some churches a homosexual liaison/relationship is sinning yet expect that church to perform a marriage to endorse what they regard as a state of sin.

What next rapists asking the local minister to bless the bottle of rohypnol, or their hammer?
You need to consider what the Church has condoned through the centuries, it's attitude not just to Gay people, but also women, slavery, it's involvement in genocide, it's Inquisitions, it's murdering those who'se scientific enquiry challenged the Church, it's selling of salvation for money. The Church has done all of that but mostly changed it's stance. Is it such a major step to do likewise with regard to Gay marriage?

A marriage is a union, a construct, a social or legal agreement. it does not exist in some rarified exalted place that only certain people who meet unnaceptable standards are entitled to. Marriage is and should be open to all.

[WOMBAI]

At the end of the day he is a slimeball not on his views about gay relationships but at his acting up by laying around with young men. What message is he giving out? To me it is his desperation not to be nominated that he will do anything to keep these men on his side.

if he doesn't agree with gay relationships fair enough but what is he doing lieing around with men and constantly cosying up to them the fact that he is so desperate he would do that to stay in the house says to me he is sad and not a full christian or whatever he's supposed to be!

Get him out!

What do you mean laying around with young men - would you rather he treated them as if they had the plague or something - you would be quick to have a go at him then! He is a naturally friendly, tactile person - age has bugger all to do with it - he is doing nothing wrong! You have some very antiquated ideas about how religious people should behave! Would you rather he sat there with a scowl on his face - tutting at everyone!

[bansheewails]

I really really want Dave out. He justs sit there with his hand on his belly or his head like some kind of modern day Friar tuck. The only time he is animated is when he is trying to save his ass in the save and swap thing.

[WOMBAI]

He isn't a homophobe. Bandwagon jump much?

Here, here - he is fast becoming as big a joke as Thomas C with his ridiculous, infantile views!

[30stone]

Do people actually choose not to take it in?


Its obvious he has no problems with gay people or people being gay or anything, but the faith he follows means he would be unable to perform a same couple marrige..
Its not his opinion..

[billy123]

Do people actually choose not to take it in?


Its obvious he has no problems with gay people or people being gay or anything, but the faith he follows means he would be unable to perform a same couple marrige..
Its not his opinion..
i think its a combination of people that dont understand why his faith doesnt allow him to agree to marry people of the same sex and people that are just using the fact he cant agree to marry people of the same sex as a stick to bash him with which is pretty sad as he has been completely open and liberal with his views when it would have been easier to just lie about it all.

[bansheewails]

He does have the right to believe what ever he wishes, but the housemates have the right to nominate him as well for ANY reason as long as it is valid. :D

Personally I couldn't care less if he wanted to marry a cat and a dog dressed, whilst he was dressed as a African Witch Doctor. He is dull therefore send him home please. :D

[Shasown]

You need to consider what the Church has condoned through the centuries, it's attitude not just to Gay people, but also women, slavery, it's involvement in genocide, it's Inquisitions, it's murdering those who'se scientific enquiry challenged the Church, it's selling of salvation for money. The Church has done all of that but mostly changed it's stance. Is it such a major step to do likewise with regard to Gay marriage?

A marriage is a union, a construct, a social or legal agreement. it does not exist in some rarified exalted place that only certain people who meet unnaceptable standards are entitled to. Marriage is and should be open to all.

No you dont need to consider what was done in the past in the name of religion, you need to consider how likely churches (because there are more than one) are to accept same sex marriages when they view same sex liaisons or even long term relationships as a state of sin.

Marriage is the blessing of a union, you cant expect a religious organisation to endorse what is to them a state of sin.

A lot of different churches still dont accept women as priests/ministers. Which do you think is more likely to occur in the future? Some churches are truly international, if churches have to accept same sex marriages in the Uk what about in countries where homosexuality is illegal?

If homosexuals were really that bothered about marriage they may be better advised to set up their own Christian Faith where anyone can marry anyone in their church.

That might sound like a homophobic comment but its not, its realistic, the number of civil partnership ceremonies is actually dropping on a year on year basis. The Catholic Church wont accept same sex marriages, well at least for the foreseeable future. Look at the problems the Church of England faced when introducing women ministers and bishops.

[SoFarSoGood282]

I don't think should be allowed to giv it as a reason to nominate him this week..... they have used it for two weeks now....

[WOMBAI]

i think its a combination of people that dont understand why his faith doesnt allow him to agree to marry people of the same sex and people that are just using the fact he cant agree to marry people of the same sex as a stick to bash him with which is pretty sad as he has been completely open and liberal with his views when it would have been easier to just lie about it all.

Exactly! I admire his honesty - not a quality most of the others possess! Agree with you as well about why people are failing to acknowledge that he has said and done nothing to justify them referring to him as a homophobe! Ignorance by either definition!

[ILoveTRW]

At the end of the day he has said that he wouldnt marry gay couples but would marry straight couples, any person with a brain can understand that that is homophobia

[Shasown]

At the end of the day he has said that he wouldnt marry gay couples but would marry straight couples, any person with a brain can understand that that is homophobia

Yes but any person with even half a brain can understand that is because of his faith, not because of a personal prejudice.

[Peter Plunker]

At the end of the day he has said that he wouldnt marry gay couples but would marry straight couples, any person with a brain can understand that that is homophobia

Not really.

[calyman]

No you dont need to consider what was done in the past in the name of religion, you need to consider how likely churches (because there are more than one) are to accept same sex marriages when they view same sex liaisons or even long term relationships as a state of sin.

Marriage is the blessing of a union, you cant expect a religious organisation to endorse what is to them a state of sin.

A lot of different churches still dont accept women as priests/ministers. Which do you think is more likely to occur in the future? Some churches are truly international, if churches have to accept same sex marriages in the Uk what about in countries where homosexuality is illegal?

If homosexuals were really that bothered about marriage they may be better advised to set up their own Christian Faith where anyone can marry anyone in their church.

That might sound like a homophobic comment but its not, its realistic, the number of civil partnership ceremonies is actually dropping on a year on year basis. The Catholic Church wont accept same sex marriages, well at least for the foreseeable future. Look at the problems the Church of England faced when introducing women ministers and bishops.

It's actually very important to consider what has occured in the past. It's what makes the church "relevant" today. That's because most believers think that some of the bigoted belilefs inherent in the church are enshrined in the fabric of consistent belief, they are not. If there's one thing the Catholc church has learned, it's how to survive, even if that means performing volte-face in the core beliefs.

Marriage as I have already stated is not necessarily the "blessing of a union", it's simply a legal or social construct.

It's true there are other christian denominations and indeed other religious organisations do not condone women as official practioners of their faith, that is only to the detriment of those religions. It's also clear that the COE has encountered difficulties in this and similarly with Gay men being Minsisters and Bishops, but to the credit of the COE they are attempting to do what should be done.

Marriages in general are dropiing year by year but that's another issue, more to do with the current trends in relationships. This is not specifically a Gay trend.

If religious organisations want to continue with outmoded, mysoginist and homophobic beliefs, that's their concern. However, when they seek to impose those values upon the rest of us then it becomes our concern as well. Even today high ranking Bishops have power and influence in the way Britain is Governed. I refute any homophobe's right to impose their bigotry upon society and do not respect their "God given" right to believe they can do so. There must be no special provision for such intolerence to be allowed to impose it's bigotry under the mantle of repecting their right to manifest their spiritual beliefs just because they are religious beliefs. religion has always associated with the ruling elite and as such should have no special dispensations for their more offensive beliefs.

[ILoveTRW]

Yes but any person with even half a brain can understand that is because of his faith, not because of a personal prejudice.

its nothing to do with faith, there are millions of people out there who are gay and still believe in Christianity.

[MojoNixon]

Anyone else finding this ridiculous? He's a man of deep faith which is widely known to be against gay marriage and the other housemates are just using this as a reason to pick on him and make him look like a bad person. Since when is a person defined by their beliefs? He's shown absolutely no malice towards Mario, Corin, Govan or Shabby and never once voiced his disdain at homosexuality until pressured into voicing his beliefs by Josie in front of everyone. I'm finding the whole thing I a bit nasty to be quite honest.

Well i guess it is ok to hate him. If he was muslim, then it was okk...

[Simone.]

I don't really have anything Dave, but I hate the whole thing about gay marriage.

There's three gay/bi people in here & he would deny them marriage. Say Corin wanted to marry her girlfriend, he'd be against that. But he hasn't shown any hatired towards gay people & it's not as if he's rud eor hateful about it, it's just that obviously he's froma a strict religion known for been against it. But yes, I do think it's wrong that gay people can be denined knowledge, they should have the same marital rights and straight people.

[toothpick]

Anyone else finding this ridiculous? He's a man of deep faith which is widely known to be against gay marriage and the other housemates are just using this as a reason to pick on him and make him look like a bad person. Since when is a person defined by their beliefs? He's shown absolutely no malice towards Mario, Corin, Govan or Shabby and never once voiced his disdain at homosexuality until pressured into voicing his beliefs by Josie in front of everyone. I'm finding the whole thing I a bit nasty to be quite honest.

Dave has been utterly honest and his stance on gay marriage from the beginning....he hasnt forced his opinion on anyone..yet the wacko's in the house are clearly using his views against him....im pretty sure the big war hero steve with his tatoos and umpteen kids wouldnt be castigated in the same way...

Josie makes me sick to be honest....pretending to be this big , bubbly fun girl but in fact shes a nasty , braindead hippo...we havent seen her true nature yet.

They are just picking up on peoples negative points and using it against them....i wish people would stand up to John James and tell the thick bastard to **** off...

[toothpick]

Well i guess it is ok to hate him. If he was muslim, then it was okk...

You dont like muslims....??

[Angus]

At the end of the day, it isn't a personal opinion. Gay people have and should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Fact.

FGS they DO have the same rights to get married if they wish. Do you not understand the concept of FAITH? If a particular religion does not condone gay marriage why should it be expected that its followers should compromise their beliefs? There are thousands upon thousands of denominations of the Christian religion alone, and if gay people are insistent on being married in a religious ceremony no doubt there will be several that will accommodate their wishes, but Dave's particular denomination does NOT.

If, on the other hand, gay people prefer a civil ceremony (as I did as I am not religious, nor a hypocrite), then get married in a registry office. What on earth is the problem?

[InOne]

Dave has been utterly honest and his stance on gay marriage from the beginning....he hasnt forced his opinion on anyone..yet the wacko's in the house are clearly using his views against him....im pretty sure the big war hero steve with his tatoos and umpteen kids wouldnt be castigated in the same way...

Josie makes me sick to be honest....pretending to be this big , bubbly fun girl but in fact shes a nasty , braindead hippo...we havent seen her true nature yet.

They are just picking up on peoples negative points and using it against them....i wish people would stand up to John James and tell the thick bastard to **** off...

I didn't like the way Josie was pushing him for an answer really. There was no need for it to be even mentioned. Why does it matter in the BB house?

[toothpick]

I didn't like the way Josie was pushing him for an answer really. There was no need for it to be even mentioned. Why does it matter in the BB house?

It was an indication of her sly character....she could have asked him in private if she wanted to know but the real reason was to belittle him in front of the house..

Just like when Rachael shouted ' have you got onions on your lunch ' to dave in front of everyone....

[Angus]

You need to consider what the Church has condoned through the centuries, it's attitude not just to Gay people, but also women, slavery, it's involvement in genocide, it's Inquisitions, it's murdering those who'se scientific enquiry challenged the Church, it's selling of salvation for money. The Church has done all of that but mostly changed it's stance. Is it such a major step to do likewise with regard to Gay marriage?

A marriage is a union, a construct, a social or legal agreement. it does not exist in some rarified exalted place that only certain people who meet unnaceptable standards are entitled to. Marriage is and should be open to all.

But it already is, so what on earth is the problem FFS? If, as you point out, the Church has been corrupt through the centuries, why are gay people bothered whether such an antiquated "homophobic" institution sanction their union? Specifically, how can they claim to believe in a faith which does not condone homosexuality? It is not after all a requirement of marriage that you marry in a church, a mosque or a tabernacle. If you insist on doing so then FFS have the honesty to admit you are doing it just to prove a point, not because you share the beliefs and values of that faith.

Personally, I see no merit in organised religion since it inhibits commonsense and common decency to others, and promotes division and conflicting ideologies. For that reason I did not choose to marry in a religious ceremony, where I would be required to pay lip service to a doctrine in which I did not believe, just so that I could have the pretty wedding pictures taken dressed in white outside a picturesque church. I had a civil ceremony which did the job just fine.

[calyman]

But it already is, so what on earth is the problem FFS? If, as you point out, the Church has been corrupt through the centuries, why are gay people bothered whether such an antiquated "homophobic" institution sanction their union? Specifically, how can they claim to believe in a faith which does not condone homosexuality? It is not after all a requirement of marriage that you marry in a church, a mosque or a tabernacle. If you insist on doing so then FFS have the honesty to admit you are doing it just to prove a point, not because you share the beliefs and values of that faith.

Personally, I see no merit in organised religion since it inhibits commonsense and common decency to others, and promotes division and conflicting ideologies. For that reason I did not choose to marry in a religious ceremony, where I would be required to pay lip service to a doctrine in which I did not believe, just so that I could have the pretty wedding pictures taken dressed in white outside a picturesque church. I had a civil ceremony which did the job just fine.
FFS!
I think you're missing the argument I'm making. Generally it'sL:

1) The church is well practised at changing the spiritual and athical goalposts when it suits.

2) Marrauge is NOT just a union blessed by some geezer in a frock

3)Spiritual organisations should be given no special dsipensations by the state to enforce it's prejudices upon the rest of us

4) No spiritual organisation should be involved in the Government of this country.

5)If spiritual organisations take it upon themselves to pontifcate to the rest of us about morals, ethics etc. Then as a Humanist, I see no inherent respect should be given to them for real or unintended offence given to others. basically, if they can give it out, they can damn well receive it back.

I would further argue that any special privileges they receive from the state should also be withdrawn. Let their message of superstition rely on it's own merits, not through avoidance of paying taxes etc, not through special provisions enshrined in Law which privilege's them against other worthier organisations.

[JustSkipIt]

Is tolerance a one-way street?
If only there was as much tolerance towards Christians as Dave has for homosexuals.

[Alpertinator]

Weird really isn't it... how outdated christianity is. I mean the new testament is too old never mind the old testament. It isn't relevant to the modern western society.

And to be honest, the bible is just an influencial/inspiring fictional story written by men many many years ago. Some believe it's loosely based on true events, but it's just a story which people are supposed to use as a guide to how they should live their lives. Unfortunately certain aspects of it are very outdated.

[Firewire]

No offence, in the dictionary, marriage is stated as...

'the state or relationship of being husband and wife, the institution of marriage'

But, I do think this whole malarkey, I think it's just stupid about them not accepting his beliefs.

[Alpertinator]

They should make two new words, one which is the wedding/marriage of two men and one which is th wedding/marriage of two women.

[BB_Eye]

No you dont need to consider what was done in the past in the name of religion, you need to consider how likely churches (because there are more than one) are to accept same sex marriages when they view same sex liaisons or even long term relationships as a state of sin.

Marriage is the blessing of a union, you cant expect a religious organisation to endorse what is to them a state of sin.

A lot of different churches still dont accept women as priests/ministers. Which do you think is more likely to occur in the future? Some churches are truly international, if churches have to accept same sex marriages in the Uk what about in countries where homosexuality is illegal?

If homosexuals were really that bothered about marriage they may be better advised to set up their own Christian Faith where anyone can marry anyone in their church.

This is like saying if most women really wanted to work on a construction site, they had better set up their own building firm. It's missing the point. Sure most gay people have no interest in religion and family, but those that do deserve that choice and not to be excluded from the community.

That might sound like a homophobic comment but its not, its realistic, the number of civil partnership ceremonies is actually dropping on a year on year basis. The Catholic Church wont accept same sex marriages, well at least for the foreseeable future. Look at the problems the Church of England faced when introducing women ministers and bishops.

The Catholic Church has a malicious agenda against gay people and liberal Christians. They need a scapegoat and a villain in a time of moral crisis and scandal. The Church of England's problem is its weakness. They will settle for the party line laid out by conservative African ministers to hold on to what little power they have left. If they really cared about making a difference, they would speak out against the anti-gay witchhunts endorsed by the church's conservative wing.

[WOMBAI]

Marriage was designed for pro-creation purposes - to provide stability for children! As it is unlikely that a gay couple will have children - why the need to get married in this day and age when most couples, gay or otherwise, just live together!

It seems to me that some people make a big thing about it - just because they want to make an issue of the equality thing - not because they really want to get married! You can't force all religions to just change their views, right or not - and if marriage is so important, why not just have a civil ceremony!

[Peter Plunker]

I'm appaled at some of the heterophobic comments in this thread.:crazy::crazy::crazy:

[Tom4784]

If anything they are religious bigots who are discriminating against Dave on the grounds of HIS faith. If a muslim cleric had been in the house and had said he would not condone gay marriage, would those "want to be seen jumping on the PC Bandwagon" sheep dare to nominate him for the same reason? I think not - bunch of hypocrites.

I disagree entirely, a Muslim preacher preaching the same as Dave would have gone sooner since there's OBVIOUSLY a lot more hate towards Islam then there is Christianity.

[BB_Eye]

I disagree entirely, a Muslim preacher preaching the same as Dave would have gone sooner since there's OBVIOUSLY a lot more hate towards Islam then there is Christianity.

Actually, since you mention it, one of the reason Dennis bullied Mo in BB9 was over alleged homophobia.

[GabrielleisLove]

I don't consider marriage that desirable anyway, it's just a social norm really. That aside, everyone should have a right.

[Peter Plunker]

Nobody should have a right to a ceremony in a religion that they themselves don't ascribe to. Gay or striaght.

[Jamietwo]

Weird really isn't it... how outdated christianity is. I mean the new testament is too old never mind the old testament. It isn't relevant to the modern western society.

And to be honest, the bible is just an influencial/inspiring fictional story written by men many many years ago. Some believe it's loosely based on true events, but it's just a story which people are supposed to use as a guide to how they should live their lives. Unfortunately certain aspects of it are very outdated.

christianity is a big deal because it extends the single God jewish religion to anyone that wants it with a love and forgiveness thing....spiritual principles...love, kindness, forgiveness, humility, honesty, courage etc...sad a lot of incarnations of christian doctorine focus on the small print which works against these principles. You can forget all the weirdness in the old testament really if your into jesus. Oh and there is plenty to suggest that jesus enjoyed a little bum fun in the bible as well as from other recently discovered sources ie the secret gospel of mark. Apparently jesus was doing it with boys in the bushes and all sorts lol

[Angus]

I disagree entirely, a Muslim preacher preaching the same as Dave would have gone sooner since there's OBVIOUSLY a lot more hate towards Islam then there is Christianity.

I doubt that since it is virtually a criminal offence in this country to criticise Islam in any way, and the hyenas tearing into Dave now would NOT have the guts to say anything.

[carpetman0569]

how ridiculous a 'marrage' between 2 people of the same sex!! some people live on a different planet..... And I'm Ron Burgundy. Go **** yourself, San Diego

[calyman]

Marriage was designed for pro-creation purposes - to provide stability for children! As it is unlikely that a gay couple will have children - why the need to get married in this day and age when most couples, gay or otherwise, just live together!

It seems to me that some people make a big thing about it - just because they want to make an issue of the equality thing - not because they really want to get married! You can't force all religions to just change their views, right or not - and if marriage is so important, why not just have a civil ceremony!

There are many Gay/Lesbian couples that have children nowadays. Guess what it's 2010 and times have moved on. It's a pity organisations that deal in superstition haven't done likewise. wether the coouple choose to live together or marry is their own concern and not a reason to be used by bigoted practitioners of pie in the sky to deem otherwise.

[carpetman0569]

Admin deleted

[BB_Eye]

Nobody should have a right to a ceremony in a religion that they themselves don't ascribe to. Gay or striaght.

Again, completely beside the point. Nobody is saying this.

[Jamietwo]

how ridiculous a 'marrage' between 2 people of the same sex!! some people live on a different planet..... And I'm Ron Burgundy. Go **** yourself, San Diego

:( I really tried hard to be str8....I slept with a girl once but after 5 hours of trying to get her vagina up my bum i gave up

[Shasown]

FFS!
I think you're missing the argument I'm making. Generally it'sL:

1) The church is well practised at changing the spiritual and athical goalposts when it suits.

2) Marrauge is NOT just a union blessed by some geezer in a frock

3)Spiritual organisations should be given no special dsipensations by the state to enforce it's prejudices upon the rest of us

4) No spiritual organisation should be involved in the Government of this country.

5)If spiritual organisations take it upon themselves to pontifcate to the rest of us about morals, ethics etc. Then as a Humanist, I see no inherent respect should be given to them for real or unintended offence given to others. basically, if they can give it out, they can damn well receive it back.

I would further argue that any special privileges they receive from the state should also be withdrawn. Let their message of superstition rely on it's own merits, not through avoidance of paying taxes etc, not through special provisions enshrined in Law which privilege's them against other worthier organisations.

In answer to some of your points

1)You say "The Church", which church do you refer to?

2) So why is it so important for gay people to have their union blessed by some geezer in a frock

3) They arent, they do not enforce anything on anyone, people arent kept tethered to a particular religion, if you dont like one particualr religion go and find another one that suits you, if you need a religion.

4) Thats a traditional role in the Upper House, they dont actually carry a lot of power and have to abstain in certain debates and votes.

5) I hope as a humanist you hold the same values for everyone, does that include someone who believes in a particular religion and lives his life by those rules but hasnt forced his beliefs on anyone, nor criticised others for their lifestyles or beliefs?

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

i am not a fan of either the catholic church or the gay community

people can pray as much as they want and have sex as much as they want no skin off my nose

but if someone wants to get married in a catholic church they have to respect the beliefs of that church just as they should respect gay community and their lifestyle

nothing wrong with being gay and wanting to get married but you cant force your views on other people and say they are wrong that they believe it to be a sin

strict catholics and other religions believe it is a sin
gay people obviously do not

point is that the church is for the catholics its their rules its upto them

[calyman]

In answer to some of your points

1)You say "The Church", which church do you refer to?

2) So why is it so important for gay people to have their union blessed by some geezer in a frock

3) They arent, they do not enforce anything on anyone, people arent kept tethered to a particular religion, if you dont like one particualr religion go and find another one that suits you, if you need a religion.

4) Thats a traditional role in the Upper House, they dont actually carry a lot of power and have to abstain in certain debates and votes.

5) I hope as a humanist you hold the same values for everyone, does that include someone who believes in a particular religion and lives his life by those rules but hasnt forced his beliefs on anyone, nor criticised others for their lifestyles or beliefs?

1) In the past 2000 or so years, the Rome Based church has been most effective at eliminating all other alternative views, even within it's own sphere. Where are the Cathars and the Gnostics now?

2) Link this to 5 also. There are some Gay Christians who would want their union to be blessed by their Church.

3) Spiritual organisations do indeed weild a considerable amount of influence within society. They also receive many benefits not due to other secular organisations. The British culture is essentially a christian one, even though very few people nowadays are active christians; most cultural and societal norms have christiani values as their source, Christian leaders exert an undue influence over how we should think and act. Whether one likes or dislikes any particular belief is irrelevant. We are still expected to behave in a manner that is intrisincly christian in nature.

4) Here's one example, the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, all Anglican Bishops voted against it. I'd call that unrepresentative and undue influence.

5) As a Humanist, my views are my own. I'm willing to discuss those with anyone. I do not have the right to insist others should accept them, no more than any folower of superstition has the right to force their views on others. Sadly, most established superstitious organisations do not subscribe to this excellent approach. if a christian, for instance wants to discuss with me about any matter, I shall give appropriate respect to their views but this also means I don't have to buy into any specious nonsense about so called spiritual or established beliefs that offend and insult others.

[Shasown]

1) In the past 2000 or so years, the Rome Based church has been most effective at eliminating all other alternative views, even within it's own sphere. Where are the Cathars and the Gnostics now?

2) Link this to 5 also. There are some Gay Christians who would want their union to be blessed by their Church.

3) Spiritual organisations do indeed weild a considerable amount of influence within society. They also receive many benefits not due to other secular organisations. The British culture is essentially a christian one, even though very few people nowadays are active christians; most cultural and societal norms have christiani values as their source, Christian leaders exert an undue influence over how we should think and act. Whether one likes or dislikes any particular belief is irrelevant. We are still expected to behave in a manner that is intrisincly christian in nature.

4) Here's one example, the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, all Anglican Bishops voted against it. I'd call that unrepresentative and undue influence.

5) As a Humanist, my views are my own. I'm willing to discuss those with anyone. I do not have the right to insist others should accept them, no more than any folower of superstition has the right to force their views on others. Sadly, most established superstitious organisations do not subscribe to this excellent approach. if a christian, for instance wants to discuss with me about any matter, I shall give appropriate respect to their views but this also means I don't have to buy into any specious nonsense about so called spiritual or established beliefs that offend and insult others.

1. Gnosticism still exists today and although it may only be a resurrected belief as opposed to one coming out of hiding, its still around, its also believed some of the Cathar beliefs remain in France, in fact some people in the Languedoc still consider themselves Cathar if only by descent as opposed to beliefs. Oh and purely for education, Gnosticism undermines christianity.

2. Yes there are Christians who are gay and would wish for their union to be performed in a church. Personally it wouldnt bother me if they did allow gay marriages. However the hierarchy of numerous branches of the christian religion would have to be persuaded. And that is where the real homophobia is entrenched, not in a dullard minister at the lower end of his particular religious food chain.

3. So Christian values are bad? Which particular values would you like to replace them with? Lets face it Western Society has got to where it is now because of said values. Our laws and society in general is based on a christian viewpoint. It may be time to move on from them to a higher level, but at the moment they hold sway.

4. Yeah I can see 26 (Lords Spiritual - Anglican Bishops in the Upper House) people holding a lot of influence over a house of just over 700 (pre the latets round of Honours). They represent the total christian population in the UK. But yeah I sort of agree with your point, The whole of the house of Lords need overhauling.

5. Yeah i see you do offer them respect of their beliefs that is why you call their beliefs 'superstition'. Couldnt that be considered offensive and insulting?

[calyman]

1. Gnosticism still exists today and although it may only be a resurrected belief as opposed to one coming out of hiding, its still around, its also believed some of the Cathar beliefs remain in France, in fact some people in the Languedoc still consider themselves Cathar if only by descent as opposed to beliefs. Oh and purely for education, Gnosticism undermines christianity.

2. Yes there are Christians who are gay and would wish for their union to be performed in a church. Personally it wouldnt bother me if they did allow gay marriages. However the hierarchy of numerous branches of the christian religion would have to be persuaded. And that is where the real homophobia is entrenched, not in a dullard minister at the lower end of his particular religious food chain.

3. So Christian values are bad? Which particular values would you like to replace them with? Lets face it Western Society has got to where it is now because of said values. Our laws and society in general is based on a christian viewpoint. It may be time to move on from them to a higher level, but at the moment they hold sway.

4. Yeah I can see 26 (Lords Spiritual - Anglican Bishops in the Upper House) people holding a lot of influence over a house of just over 700 (pre the latets round of Honours). They represent the total christian population in the UK. But yeah I sort of agree with your point, The whole of the house of Lords need overhauling.

5. Yeah i see you do offer them respect of their beliefs that is why you call their beliefs 'superstition'. Couldnt that be considered offensive and insulting?

1) I think you are failing to appreciate that neither the Cathars or Gnostics are in any way relevant as major beliefs nowadays. Both those beliefs were important enough before they were destroyed. It's not that they were destroyed because they "undermined christianity", in fact they were co-existent as alternative views on christianity. it's just a historical fact that the Rome based version of christianity was more effective at getting rid of the opposition. In fact, I'd argue that Gnostics had a nuch better understanding of what their belief in God meant to them. Perhaps Europe's history would not have been so violent if Gnosticism had been the dominant faith.

2) We are almost in agreement here. It's the dullards who get their authority from their superstitious organisations. If people are striving to change the mindset of such organisations, for the better; then I wish them well. Perhaps Gay marriage would then be as accepted as heterosexual marriage.

3) Exactly where did I say all christian values are bad. What I am arguing about is the perverse values which are "bad". Especially those which demand obedience to adhere to them. I do want want to see some white haired old geezer who has special bishopric responsibility blathering in the media, extohling to us all how we should live and act. As an example, in scotland when the Government wanted to repeal "section 28", the church leaders fought tooth and nail to retain this offensive legislation.

4) 27 people hold a lot of influence, especially with their other crusty cronies. What they generally do not do however, properly represent the interests of Britains anglicans, let alone all the other variants of those who follow supuerstitious beliefs. I do agree to apoint with you though about the House of Lords, though I think it needs replacing with an elected second house.

5) Respect goes both ways, I perceive followers of intangible beliefs as just that, superstitious people. There is no evidence of the existence of supposed spiritual deities ever been found. I respect people who claim they are satanists, wiccans, druids, followers of asgard, judeo/christians, buddhists, sikhs, believers in fairies, followers of Crowley, omens, fate and luck etc. What I do not believe is the legitimacy of their superstitious beliefs. You may believe this to be disrespect, I cannot demand how how you interperet my statements, equally do not try and score points by seeking to interperet mine.

[KG.]

I think Dave is 100% entitled to his opinion and to be able to follow his own belief, I don't particularly agree with everything he says but good on him for sticking to what he believes in.

Personally, I haven't warmed to the man at all, he is probably my least favourite housemate in there atm along with Shabby, yet I don't feel using this whole "he doesn't agree with gay marriage" malarky a valid reason for nomination.

[Shasown]

1) I think you are failing to appreciate that neither the Cathars or Gnostics are in any way relevant as major beliefs nowadays. Both those beliefs were important enough before they were destroyed. It's not that they were destroyed because they "undermined christianity", in fact they were co-existent as alternative views on christianity. it's just a historical fact that the Rome based version of christianity was more effective at getting rid of the opposition. In fact, I'd argue that Gnostics had a nuch better understanding of what their belief in God meant to them. Perhaps Europe's history would not have been so violent if Gnosticism had been the dominant faith.

2) We are almost in agreement here. It's the dullards who get their authority from their superstitious organisations. If people are striving to change the mindset of such organisations, for the better; then I wish them well. Perhaps Gay marriage would then be as accepted as heterosexual marriage.

3) Exactly where did I say all christian values are bad. What I am arguing about is the perverse values which are "bad". Especially those which demand obedience to adhere to them. I do want want to see some white haired old geezer who has special bishopric responsibility blathering in the media, extohling to us all how we should live and act. As an example, in scotland when the Government wanted to repeal "section 28", the church leaders fought tooth and nail to retain this offensive legislation.

4) 27 people hold a lot of influence, especially with their other crusty cronies. What they generally do not do however, properly represent the interests of Britains anglicans, let alone all the other variants of those who follow supuerstitious beliefs. I do agree to apoint with you though about the House of Lords, though I think it needs replacing with an elected second house.

5) Respect goes both ways, I perceive followers of intangible beliefs as just that, superstitious people. There is no evidence of the existence of supposed spiritual deities ever been found. I respect people who claim they are satanists, wiccans, druids, followers of asgard, judeo/christians, buddhists, sikhs, believers in fairies, followers of Crowley, omens, fate and luck etc. What I do not believe is the legitimacy of their superstitious beliefs. You may believe this to be disrespect, I cannot demand how how you interperet my statements, equally do not try and score points by seeking to interperet mine.

1. Except Pauline Christianity had become the majority religion in Europe.

2. No disagreement at all.

3. Dont we get that in real life and its not always religious leaders. As for section 28 and its repeal, thats a full debate in itself.

4. Those 27 people dont really hold that much influence, they are meant to represent the views of all adherents to any faith(amusing that isnt it, yet no mullahs presently sit in the upper house, how long before that is changed. A senate type thing would be nice but the British Public aint as perverse as the US in voting.

5. Aint tried to score points off you, I dont do try. But calling someone superstitious because they hold to a faith is not exactly respectful. Has any religious person shown disrespect to you on this site? You dont need to demand intepretation either the person understands, or they dont and you have to explain, if you want to.

As for evidence, you would have to address an aderent of a particular religion to see what evidence they could supply. But even if they couldnt supply satisfactory evidence isnt that what they call faith? Yeah I know I hate that argument as well.

Thing is Dave hasnt been hypocritical,unlike a majority of the housemates. He has stood by the tenets of his faith.

Incidentally he isnt a Catholic, thats just a general note not addressed to you in particular.

[Violetfairy]

Really at the end of the day it's just a body - flesh, bones and pus. So does it really matter if that body you love and cherish is a Man or a Woman. We humans have a right to find happiness with whom ever and if you are committed to one partner, then I do not see any difference between a same sex marriage and a gay one.
As with Dave he was pressured by Josie to give an answer and being "a man of god" his precepts would never have allowed him to preform gay marriages, Josie should of known this without having to ask and it was obvious that she wanted to make him seem a bad person. In this respects I do feel sorry for Dave, but really he should of known going into the house and expelling his beliefs, as he does, you are always going to be ridiculed.

[Jamietwo]

errrrrrrr you said 'pus'

[fivecougz]

If there is a god he created gays n lesbians too!

and as for Dave, he's just a cult leading nutjob - http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/category/dave-vaughan/

[Peter Plunker]

If there is a god he created gays n lesbians too!

and as for Dave, he's just a cult leading nutjob - http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/category/dave-vaughan/

Don't listen to those nut-jobs, they hate everyone.

[calyman]

1. Except Pauline Christianity had become the majority religion in Europe.

2. No disagreement at all.

3. Dont we get that in real life and its not always religious leaders. As for section 28 and its repeal, thats a full debate in itself.

4. Those 27 people dont really hold that much influence, they are meant to represent the views of all adherents to any faith(amusing that isnt it, yet no mullahs presently sit in the upper house, how long before that is changed. A senate type thing would be nice but the British Public aint as perverse as the US in voting.

5. Aint tried to score points off you, I dont do try. But calling someone superstitious because they hold to a faith is not exactly respectful. Has any religious person shown disrespect to you on this site? You dont need to demand intepretation either the person understands, or they dont and you have to explain, if you want to.

As for evidence, you would have to address an aderent of a particular religion to see what evidence they could supply. But even if they couldnt supply satisfactory evidence isnt that what they call faith? Yeah I know I hate that argument as well.

Thing is Dave hasnt been hypocritical,unlike a majority of the housemates. He has stood by the tenets of his faith.

Incidentally he isnt a Catholic, thats just a general note not addressed to you in particular.

Just as I said before, the Rome based version of christianity became the dominant one.

Regarding the influence of few individuals; it only took 5 Republican judges to give Bush the US Presidency in 2000.

Whether you still consider me as disrespectful for calling faith believers superstitious, does not detract from the statement. An unsubstantiated belief, with no foundation in fact or science, is still superstition. Believers in superstition for instance, insist on refering to the "theory" of evolution, when it quite clearly is a fact. What is theoretical is the mechanism of evolution. Faith believers have many names for others; Heathen, Gentile, Goyum, damned, Heretic, Blasphemer etc. None of those names cause me any lack of sleep, I've even had a christian accuse me of being the spawn of the devil, before collapsing on the floor and speaking in tongues (true). On that basis, I think using "superstition" is not offensive, disrespectful or intended to hurt, it's just what I think.

In general, I am always ready to discuss matters of superstition v science, but the minimum I expect from any person is mutual respect. I don't buy into mumbo jumbo and don't expect anyone to acknowledge that which I cannot defend by rational and scientific insight.

edit: Not that I directly accuse the person of being a believer in mumbo jumbo, just that they have superstitious beliefs.