2% rule

[pixee]

He only says 2% of what he thinks he claims.

Must be why he was so selective with his view on homosexuality, least we can now rule him out as a genuine person cause he is keeping 98% back.

Do the math...s

[Welovebigbro]

He only says 2% of what he thinks he claims.

Must be why he was so selective with his view on homosexuality, least we can now rule him out as a genuine person cause he is keeping 98% back.

Do the math...s


Agree 100%

[Livia]

I think he was right. It's not always best to blurt out everything that's on your mind. Sometimes it's better to engage the clutch of tact.

[housemate]

I think 'clutch of tact ' is more a case of fudge the facts in his case.

[pixee]

I think he was right. It's not always best to blurt out everything that's on your mind. Sometimes it's better to engage the clutch of tact.

Especially when your views might be homophobic "init".

I'd rather know peoples beliefs and opinions in that enviroment when 100k is up for grabs.

Sam won't win because he says what he is thinking and admitted tonight himself he should have rephrased what he said but at least you can all vote him out cause you know what he thinks.

[Livia]

Especially when your views might be homophobic "init".

I'd rather know peoples beliefs and opinions in that enviroment when 100k is up for grabs.

Sam won't win because he says what he is thinking and admitted tonight himself he should have rephrased what he said but at least you can all vote him out cause you know what he thinks.

I don't agree with Dave's views on homosexuality, and those of most religious people, but he has only spoken about them when people have asked him directly. He hasn't offered his opinion because it was on his mind and he felt everyone must be endlessly fascinated to hear what he thought. "Init".

[housemate]

...'Innit' .. lol, you have a point on the subject (in my opinion) but it does make me wonder what else he is being coy about. The reason I feel that way is because I have found some of what he says/his behaviour to be contradictory.

[Jords]

It sounded dodgey but I get what he means, sometimes its just bet to keep quiet - which is true.

[starry]

There will always be personal beliefs of HMs which people will disagree with to a greater or lesser extent, even of someone who might be your favourite. I think it's better to concentrate on HMs as they are in the house and just accept we will not know the full details of their beliefs, why they got them, how strong they are etc.

[eviled2010]

He only says 2% of what he thinks he claims.

Must be why he was so selective with his view on homosexuality, least we can now rule him out as a genuine person cause he is keeping 98% back.

Do the math...s

Totally agree.
I said at the time when he was having his arguments with Keeva about all that religious tosh. He refused to reply when she asked him pretty simple questions about homosexuality etc that only required a yes or no answer. He didn't have the courage of his convictions to say what he really believed and instead chose to muddy the waters..
Dave's real views on homosexuality and other things are totally fundamentalist and intolerant and he won't reveal them on BB because it would be the end of him.

[housemate]

There will always be personal beliefs of HMs which people will disagree with to a greater or lesser extent, even of someone who might be your favourite. I think it's better to concentrate on HMs as they are in the house and just accept we will not know the full details of their beliefs, why they got them, how strong they are etc.

My comment deals with his time in the house. Some of what I've seen has been hypocritical or at best contradictory. Someboby who within the past 24 hours has claimed to be friends with a Werewolf (along with the Drunk thing, flying to the sun, fairies, curing cancer, regrowing limbs etc...) is not the sort of person you would expect to be reluctant to call a spade a spade, or answer a direct question re his belief system .... afterall, he entered the house as a 'Minister' and so he leaves himself open to misinterpretation if he censors what he will and won't share, when asked, on the subject?

[Livia]

Totally agree.
I said at the time when he was having his arguments with Keeva about all that religious tosh. He refused to reply when she asked him pretty simple questions about homosexuality etc that only required a yes or no answer. He didn't have the courage of his convictions to say what he really believed and instead chose to muddy the waters..
Dave's real views on homosexuality and other things are totally fundamentalist and intolerant and he won't reveal them on BB because it would be the end of him.

I wasn't that Caoimhe, who was raised a Catholic, already knew the answers and was just raising the questions for an argument?

[starry]

My comment deals with his time in the house. Some of what I've seen has been hypocritical or at best contradictory. Someboby who within the past 24 hours has claimed to be friends with a Werewolf (along with the Drunk thing, flying to the sun, fairies, curing cancer, regrowing limbs etc...) is not the sort of person you would expect to be reluctant to call a spade a spade, or answer a direct question re his belief system .... afterall, he entered the house as a 'Minister' and so he leaves himself open to misinterpretation if he censors what he will and won't share, when asked, on the subject?

He entered the house as a HM, nothing more. Same as the others.

[dwarling]

Totally agree.
I said at the time when he was having his arguments with Keeva about all that religious tosh. He refused to reply when she asked him pretty simple questions about homosexuality etc that only required a yes or no answer. He didn't have the courage of his convictions to say what he really believed and instead chose to muddy the waters..
Dave's real views on homosexuality and other things are totally fundamentalist and intolerant and he won't reveal them on BB because it would be the end of him.
exactly this.

[housemate]

He entered the house as a HM, nothing more. Same as the others.

Shouting 'The Glory' adinfinitum, wearing a Habit and calling himself the Monk .. ? He has said on many occassions that his Mission is to 'spread the word' ... I don't think its unreasonable under those circumstances, to expect answers to straightforward questions...
I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative, I really am fascinated.

[headaball]

I don't agree with his religious views but he's entitled to them. I find people who try and tell people how to think and feel more annoying, and if they don't think like this then you're a bad person.

[eviled2010]

I find people who try and tell people how to think and feel more annoying, and if they don't think like this then you're a bad person.

But that is exactly what Dave's fundamentalist/infallible scripture based thought system/faith is!
:elephant:

[Shasown]

But that is exactly what Dave's fundamentalist/infallible scripture based thought system/faith is!
:elephant:

Is it?

The scriptures he uses cant be infallible because within them is contained a yes no and maybe answer for everything.

[headaball]

But that is exactly what Dave's fundamentalist/infallible scripture based thought system/faith is!
:elephant:

How do you explain Andrew being one of Dave's best friends then? Dave has said that Andrew is the most sceptical atheist he's ever met.

[eviled2010]

How do you explain Andrew being one of Dave's best friends then? Dave has said that Andrew is the most sceptical atheist he's ever met.

Andrew is not equipped to argue the sceptics case. Dave has dealt with him pretty easily to be honest.
All Andrew has done is said he doesn't believe Dave's claims. An equipped sceptic would explain why Dave's claims are just that, "claims" and not "fact"...it's not Andrew's fault, I suppose he has had no need or interest in learning how to effectively debunk this sort of nonsense before.

[eviled2010]

Is it?

The scriptures he uses cant be infallible because within them is contained a yes no and maybe answer for everything.

Exactly, I agree...but a fundamentalist position like Dave's...remember his idiotic age of the earth and dinosaur crap...does not accept that scripture is fallible. That was the point I was trying to make.

[housemate]

How do you explain Andrew being one of Dave's best friends then? Dave has said that Andrew is the most sceptical atheist he's ever met.

Andrew isn't within his remit, Daves recruits are the ex drug users/alcohlics etc ... altogether more vunerable and needy beings. I'm pretty sure Dave wouldn't welcome anybody from the house openly displaying an interest in joining his organisation ... he would then be forced into opening up with some direct answers.
Also, its not in his interest to be unfriendly with 'non-believers' because he will know from experience that he would quickly become branded a fanatic or fundamentalist.... by HMs and viewers alike.

[eviled2010]

Andrew isn't within his remit, Daves recruits are the ex drug users/alcohlics etc ... altogether more vunerable and needy beings. I'm pretty sure Dave wouldn't welcome anybody from the house openly displaying an interest in joining his organisation ... he would then be forced into opening up with some direct answers.
Also, its not in his interest to be unfriendly with 'non-believers' because he will know from experience that he would quickly become branded a fanatic or fundamentalist.... by HMs and viewers alike.

Well said.

[eviled2010]

"We" as in the "World" have practiced and believed all kinds of things in the past. It has NEVER made them true or morally right.
Fortunately, for those interested in a more enlightened and fair path, there exists today the knowledge and the fruits of labour of thousands (if not millions) of hard working scientists and scholars in all disciplines who have tried to move the human experience on just a little from a world of ghosts, goblins and gods.
Sadly, there still remains a hard core who are either too stupid or too bloody minded to grasp that the world is wonderful enough without it being based on fairy tales.

[eviled2010]

The above was in reply to a post by "El Proximo"(?)
The post seems to have been removed.

[flamingGalah!]

The above was in reply to a post by "El Proximo"(?)
The post seems to have been removed.

Thankfully...

[housemate]

I wish I had seen it .. was caught up in my teenagers problems and have only just managed to catch up here ... doh! (El Proximos Post)

[ElProximo]

"We" as in the "World" have practiced and believed all kinds of things in the past. It has NEVER made them true or morally right.
Fortunately, for those interested in a more enlightened and fair path, there exists today the knowledge and the fruits of labour of thousands (if not millions) of hard working scientists and scholars in all disciplines who have tried to move the human experience on just a little from a world of ghosts, goblins and gods.
Sadly, there still remains a hard core who are either too stupid or too bloody minded to grasp that the world is wonderful enough without it being based on fairy tales.

Uh no. This has nothing to do with 'Science' although it is true that many scientifically advanced civilizations believed homosexuality was some kind of disease or even a 'genetic mistake' and in the case of highly advanced Germany their were medical scientists who supposed it was an evolutionary mistake.
They supposed you could send them to death camps (eliminate them from the gene pool) and eventually eliminate that problem altogether.

Now I haven't seen any actual polls or surveys on what % of PHD's in the world think 'gay marriage' is perfectly acceptable but maybe you have?
What about just the UK?

Duly not that neither this post or my last censored post are anything but descriptions of history and the world around us.
They are not personally directed at anyone.
They are not even my own 'personal opinion'.

As an example:
- Hitler really did mass-murder Jews.
Horrible.
But me stating that historical reality is not 'me offending Jews'. It is not 'flaming or trolling' Jews or Nazis.
It is not my own 'pro nazi' endorsement.
It is simply stating 'what happened'.

Likewise, I am just stating that gay marriage has been largely unheard of in human history and for vast numbers of peoples over time and history that would be considered, at least, weird and unacceptable.
MANY today would even consider it sexually perverse, bizarre or even punishable by death.
Serious.
Once again, this is simply stating 'reality'. This 'happened'. Its a 'neutral' statement.

[housemate]

Uh no. This has nothing to do with 'Science' although it is true that many scientifically advanced civilizations believed homosexuality was some kind of disease or even a 'genetic mistake' and in the case of highly advanced Germany their were medical scientists who supposed it was an evolutionary mistake.
They supposed you could send them to death camps (eliminate them from the gene pool) and eventually eliminate that problem altogether.

Now I haven't seen any actual polls or surveys on what % of PHD's in the world think 'gay marriage' is perfectly acceptable but maybe you have?
What about just the UK?

Duly not that neither this post or my last censored post are anything but descriptions of history and the world around us.
They are not personally directed at anyone.
They are not even my own 'personal opinion'.

As an example:
- Hitler really did mass-murder Jews.
Horrible.
But me stating that historical reality is not 'me offending Jews'. It is not 'flaming or trolling' Jews or Nazis.
It is not my own 'pro nazi' endorsement.
It is simply stating 'what happened'.

Likewise, I am just stating that gay marriage has been largely unheard of in human history and for vast numbers of peoples over time and history that would be considered, at least, weird and unacceptable.
MANY today would even consider it sexually perverse, bizarre or even punishable by death.
Serious.
Once again, this is simply stating 'reality'. This 'happened'. Its a 'neutral' statement.

Not sure if I have missed the link to this branch of the topic and I'm a bit puzzled as to how we got here.
Gay Marriage may have been unheard of, despised and or thought of as an 'abomination' throughout History and may still be, in areas/individuals of the World today. However, gay relationships covert or otherwise have been with us since the dawn of time.
Daves views on Gay Marriage are his own affair, I doubt his Cult will be recruiting many who would be affected by this dictate anyway?

[ElProximo]

Not sure if I have missed the link to this branch of the topic and I'm a bit puzzled as to how we got here.
Gay Marriage may have been unheard of, despised and or thought of as an 'abomination' throughout History and may still be, in areas/individuals of the World today. However, gay relationships covert or otherwise have been with us since the dawn of time.
Daves views on Gay Marriage are his own affair, I doubt his Cult will be recruiting many who would be affected by this dictate anyway?

It is true that we can find some cultures in history who (for a time at least) had some kind of acceptance of homosexual couples or even some kind of 'marriage' for them.
These are called 'exceptions to the rule'. Sometimes they didn't last long. Other times were even considered 'strange' in those exceptions,
but,
The actual 'complaint' being made here was that there are a number of people who believe this ought to be acceptable (wait for it) but who also carry on discussions 'as if' everyone else ought know and accept it too,
and,
what is worse is that they not only presume their 'truth' is superior and everyone should agree but that anyone who disagrees must be 'strange' and even punished for their non-compliance.

[housemate]

I'm in favour of 'each to their own' .. I won't accept being told what to think on any topic but I am avidly interested in both sides of every (reasoned) argument. If I find holes in my 'reasoning, I'm happy to have learnt something.
My problem with Dave is that I think he is wrong to duck and dive on issues which HE raised by entering onto a public platform, proclaiming himself to be a Monk.
Offering his 2% under those circumstances is tantemount to how Blair got us into Iraq, we never learn .. theres more to be learnt from whats been left unsaid sometimes.
Ultimately, somebody has to care about Daves recruits. Dave openly boasts about his travel agendas over the past years, this alone should atleast raise some eyebrows.

[Late for the Party]

Dave openly boasts about his travel agendas over the past years, this alone should atleast raise some eyebrows.A trip to the sun must cost a fortune. Pity it wasn't a one way ticket

[housemate]

How on earth (lol) does he pay for these trips ... he's off to Australia and America after BB ... I want to know where the money comes from, if its all upfront there shouldn't be a problem.
Does anybody know if there are any official bodies who are charged with 'monitoring' these Organisations etc ...?

[ElProximo]

How on earth (lol) does he pay for these trips ... he's off to Australia and America after BB ... I want to know where the money comes from, if its all upfront there shouldn't be a problem.
Does anybody know if there are any official bodies who are charged with 'monitoring' these Organisations etc ...?

In no way defending or suspecting anything Dave's cult is doing but it's entirely possible that Crowderites in (for example) invited him and bought him a ticket from donations,
and/or
a common way with Church circles is that Dave pays his own way out of whatever money he has.
After speaking/babbling/prophecying they take a collection to help cover his travel expenses.

As a practice there is obviously nothing wrong with that but it would be up to the ministry to make sure they report to their tax authorities in their countries as they should.

As a general description - Crowderites are NOT wealthy and are largely younger types and many out of drug or party lifestyles (so nothing changed) but not 'street people' poor either.
It is possible they have some benevolent wealthy sponsors but I don't see any lavish wealth quite yet.

[housemate]

Then the next puzzle is how Dave manages to support his Family and run his home expenses ... whichever way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. He travels extensively, has three kids and can manage to host huge sloshfests (I'm going to assume they eat tangible food at these events) aswell as travelling around to Towns around the Country for their You Tube Promos.
He named a huge figure of Money to Keely when she questioned him about how they made their money, covering the prior 18 months .. This doesn't tally with what you are saying.
I don't see how very many ex drug takers/Alcoholics manage to get their lives back on track and then fall into brackets of pay which would take them THAT far away from poverty.

[JTM45]

there are a number of people who believe this ought to be acceptable (wait for it) but who also carry on discussions 'as if' everyone else ought know and accept it too,
and,
what is worse is that they not only presume their 'truth' is superior and everyone should agree but that anyone who disagrees must be 'strange' and even punished for their non-compliance.

That actually sounds like a description of Christians (or any one of the of the archaic religious groups that sadly still exist!).:hugesmile:

[ElProximo]

That actually sounds like a description of Christians (or any one of the of the archaic religious groups that sadly still exist!).:hugesmile:

In fact it sounds like you. Someone who is not aware that Christianity is growing in massive leaps and bounds on this planet,
and,
someone who doesn't understand that just their peculiar cultural 'beliefs' are not shared by the rest of the planet and let me describe this for you:
- You have a 'belief' that technological progress and 'modernization' is the same as 'declining religion'.
That is something peculiar to just a few western countries and is not shared by the rest of the world.

In fact, religion never became 'archaic' in these western countries but never mind that because in the rest of the planet religion maintains popularity and practice REGARDLESS of 'modernization' or these advances in society (technology, sciences etc).
Religion maintains or in many cases lately INCREASES in practice.

But you just assumed that your own peculiar experience of your little culture in just these last few decades is 'The World Now and Always'.
An 'Objective Truth'.
In fact, I better you are 'surprised' by what I'm telling you and your first reaction is 'Disbelief'.
I must be crazy.
In fact I must not only be wrong but deliberately 'offending you' with some lies.
You think and react this way BECAUSE you are one of these types who is absolutely so convinced their beliefs and knowledge must be superior that to even question it 'offends you'.
Thats you.
You just did that.

[starry]

I'm in favour of 'each to their own' .. I won't accept being told what to think on any topic but I am avidly interested in both sides of every (reasoned) argument. If I find holes in my 'reasoning, I'm happy to have learnt something.
My problem with Dave is that I think he is wrong to duck and dive on issues which HE raised by entering onto a public platform, proclaiming himself to be a Monk.
Offering his 2% under those circumstances is tantemount to how Blair got us into Iraq, we never learn .. theres more to be learnt from whats been left unsaid sometimes.
Ultimately, somebody has to care about Daves recruits. Dave openly boasts about his travel agendas over the past years, this alone should atleast raise some eyebrows.

He isn't a politician.

[Late for the Party]

Christianity is growing in massive leaps and
No, its not.
I don't believe you are trying to deliberately offend anyone.
The practising Christian (worldwide) community is declining, FACT. Static at best, but growing in massive leaps and bounds, it is not, FACT.

[flamingGalah!]

In fact it sounds like you. Someone who is not aware that Christianity is growing in massive leaps and bounds on this planet,
and,
someone who doesn't understand that just their peculiar cultural 'beliefs' are not shared by the rest of the planet and let me describe this for you:
- You have a 'belief' that technological progress and 'modernization' is the same as 'declining religion'.
That is something peculiar to just a few western countries and is not shared by the rest of the world.

In fact, religion never became 'archaic' in these western countries but never mind that because in the rest of the planet religion maintains popularity and practice REGARDLESS of 'modernization' or these advances in society (technology, sciences etc).
Religion maintains or in many cases lately INCREASES in practice.

But you just assumed that your own peculiar experience of your little culture in just these last few decades is 'The World Now and Always'.
An 'Objective Truth'.
In fact, I better you are 'surprised' by what I'm telling you and your first reaction is 'Disbelief'.
I must be crazy.
In fact I must not only be wrong but deliberately 'offending you' with some lies.
You think and react this way BECAUSE you are one of these types who is absolutely so convinced their beliefs and knowledge must be superior that to even question it 'offends you'.
Thats you.
You just did that.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :sleep:

Methinks you have been having some of what Dave has been having... ;)

Funny how you think that your opinions are the truth & shared by the majority of the population, when infact it is the complete opposite & it is YOUR opinions that are very much in the minority... thankfully... :xyxwave:

[joeysteele]

Actually housemate you are spot on, he said from the start he felt he was on a mission, all the early weeks in the diary room and all over the house, he carried out his preaching,all this full of the love of the lord drunk on the lord, drunk of the holy spirit, preaching on certan activities such as gay marriage and giving a sermon really. He was always on about it and although there is a slight abatement he still goes on and on and regularly stated in the early weeks it was his duty to promote the power and love of the lord.
His statement that he only says 2% of all he thinks,well,all I can say is, THANK the lord for that, thank goodness he does only say 2%.
I can go on a lot making my points on things, but if he gave us all the other 98% we would be brainwashed because there would be no more time to hear what any other housemate said.

[flamingGalah!]

It is true that we can find some cultures in history who (for a time at least) had some kind of acceptance of homosexual couples or even some kind of 'marriage' for them.
These are called 'exceptions to the rule'. Sometimes they didn't last long. Other times were even considered 'strange' in those exceptions,
but,
The actual 'complaint' being made here was that there are a number of people who believe this ought to be acceptable (wait for it) but who also carry on discussions 'as if' everyone else ought know and accept it too,
and,
what is worse is that they not only presume their 'truth' is superior and everyone should agree but that anyone who disagrees must be 'strange' and even punished for their non-compliance.

I'm not sure what planet or even what year you are living in, but this is 2010 on Earth & now the majority of people are very accepting of homosexuals, quite rightly so too...

It IS acceptable, not to you maybe, but who cares? :sleep:

You seem to be under the wrong impression that people who think homosexuals are "acceptable" are wrong, when infact it is you who are very very wrong... And why isn't it "acceptable"???? :conf: :sleep:

The only person dictating their views on this subject has been YOU. YOU are the one who presumes their "truth" is "superior" & have tried to turn it round that anyone that disagrees with YOU must be "strange"... :sleep:

We get it, you are a Christian & you don't agree with homosexuals... NO ONE CARES... :xyxwave:

[WOMBAI]

He only says 2% of what he thinks he claims.

Must be why he was so selective with his view on homosexuality, least we can now rule him out as a genuine person cause he is keeping 98% back.

Do the math...s

How ridiculous - talk about twist his words! He was simply saying that you have to be tactful about what you say to people - you can't just say everything you think - if it may offend! And 2% was just an off-the-cuff figure! Sigh!

[pixee]

How ridiculous - talk about twist his words! He was simply saying that you have to be tactful about what you say to people - you can't just say everything you think - if it may offend! And 2% was just an off-the-cuff figure! Sigh!

Well maybe he should think about what he says before he says it like he was trying to explain to sam..

this wasn't an entirely serious thread but a fair one in the context of him trying to tell someone else to think before they speak surely.

[joeysteele]

The real big turn off for people as to Christianity, (and I am a Christian, I have family who are Priests), are many people who call themselves Christians,watch them and you see no bigger example of hypocrisy from being a Church singing sweetly and looking all pious,then leaving church and tearing away to get home, speaking to few poeple and moaning the service or sermon was too long, then they go and forget about helping people in the main until next week for an hour or so in church.
DAVE would drive me away from his church not win me over to it in any way.
Talk is easy and Dave does a hell of a lot of that.

[WOMBAI]

Especially when your views might be homophobic "init".

I'd rather know peoples beliefs and opinions in that enviroment when 100k is up for grabs.

Sam won't win because he says what he is thinking and admitted tonight himself he should have rephrased what he said but at least you can all vote him out cause you know what he thinks.

Oh - I'm sure you share every private thought about people with them! You don't like a colleague at work very much - so you just blurt it out! Life doesn't work like that - people often keep their opinions to themself - there would be chaos if we all went round telling everyone what we really think of them! Realities of life!

And what is this constant obsession with gays! Talk about trying to shove your opinions down other people's throats! Dave clearly has no problem with gay people per se - just can't marry them due to religious restraints. Not that that is anyone else's business anyway! Just trying to stir up more hatred for him! :sleep:

[pixee]

Uh no. This has nothing to do with 'Science' although it is true that many scientifically advanced civilizations believed homosexuality was some kind of disease or even a 'genetic mistake' and in the case of highly advanced Germany their were medical scientists who supposed it was an evolutionary mistake.
They supposed you could send them to death camps (eliminate them from the gene pool) and eventually eliminate that problem altogether.


We currently are at a peak of human scientific evolution and homosexuality in europe is accepted.

And wouldn't you agree that those scientists were wrong and perhaps their findings were based on bias or "expected" results?

Not that this has anything to do with the topic that i created lol..

[pixee]

Oh - I'm sure you share every private thought about people with them! You don't like a colleague at work very much - so you just blurt it out! Life doesn't work like that - people often keep their opinions to themself - there would be chaos if we all went round telling everyone what we really think of them! Realities of life!

And what is this constant obsession with gays! Talk about trying to shove your opinions down other people's throats! Dave clearly has no problem with gay people per se - just can't marry them due to religious restraints. Not that that is anyone else's business anyway! Just trying to stir up more hatred for him! :sleep:

Wish people would stop comparing a reality entertainment show with a competative prize element with "real life" they can say they don't like one another cause they are never going to meet again unless they choose to and people are watching them and like it or not judging them.

[flamingGalah!]

We currently are at a peak of human scientific evolution and homosexuality in europe is accepted.

And wouldn't you agree that those scientists were wrong and perhaps their findings were based on bias or "expected" results?Not that this has anything to do with the topic that i created lol..

I really don't think he would agree to be honest... :nono:

[pixee]

I really don't think he would agree to be honest... :nono:

haha no i don't think he will either.

[ElProximo]

We currently are at a peak of human scientific evolution..

We are??
Wow!


...and homosexuality in europe is accepted.

In fact, state-acknowledged homosexual marriage is not happening in most of Europe.

As for homosexuality in general (put aside marriage) it is very obvious to anyone that a large portion of European certainly don't accept this as 'completely normal'.
People 'accept' if you mean 'tolerate' and so we also tolerate alcoholism, football fanatics and latex fetishes.

And wouldn't you agree that those scientists were wrong and perhaps their findings were based on bias or "expected" results?

Yes, I do agree that these scientists were wrong and homosexuality was not a 'mistake of evolution' and could not be ended by eliminating gays in camps. Agreed.


Not that this has anything to do with the topic that i created lol..

Here again is the specific complaint or criticism:
Having a discussion where we 'pretend' that not only is homosexual marriage perfectly acceptable by everyone of us,
but,
in fact the very idea of even questioning it or (in this case) a Christian minister NOT happily marrying gays....
...that people act 'as if' this were UNHEARD OF!.
That we ought to be SURPRISED!
Not only surprised but want to HURT HIM for daring to say something so outrageous and defying!

In reality, even with a 'liberal' party elected into power they knew they could not do 'gay marriage' for the backlash and resistance it would meet (and probably fail).
So they went for 'civil union' instead - something which does not even imply homosexuality after all.

So why are we pretending we are 'surprised' at such a thing?

[Patricia4]

He only says 2% of what he thinks he claims.

Must be why he was so selective with his view on homosexuality, least we can now rule him out as a genuine person cause he is keeping 98% back.

Do the math...she only says 2% because he bitches behind their backs the other 98%.