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
One book isnt the whole Bible!

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.

This.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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....

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!

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.

Not really.

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.

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

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

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.

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...

You dont like muslims....??

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?

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....

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.