its not harsh it is intolerance and bigotry and they type of sadly ironic hysterical response that damages the whole debate.

He is infact a Freak God Nutter.

agreed

and a big fake phoney

Speaking of hypocrisy (not exactly but hear me out..)

It is no coincidence that homosexuality and equality for homosexuality, tolerance for homosexuality is happening where?
What countries?
Christian countries.
And not that they are all Christian but western christian nations founded on christian principles.
Its not a fluke coincidence. It is actually BECAUSE of Christianity.
In fact, that so many here are evangelical about 'equality' is BECAUSE they were raised in a culture premised in Christianity.

People take this for granted. You see here where people just presume we should all agree that 'equality' is a RIGHT.
That it IS RIGHT.
That is it universally and objectively correct and morally right that people be treated equal.
Says who?
In many a culture throughout history and today and in a large part of the world that is NOT A GIVEN PREMISE.
That is some 'Christian value' or belief and they would tell you there is NOTHING saying all people are equal or should be.
Just because your Christian based society has that philosophy based on its bible!

This is why 'gay rights' and 'gay marriages' and the ability to make gay media, gay parades etc,
this happens in the most Christian nations.
and,
NOT because it conforms to Christianity but because Christians believe that 'God loves all people' and that people ought to have a 'right' to do what they will (even wrong things) and can't be less for it.

So the next time you are assuming 'equality and justice' are 'rights' you can thank your Christian heritage.
Next time you want gays treated fairly you can thank the New Testament for that belief.

He said HE would not conduct a marriage ceremony between a gay couple as this would compromise his Christian beliefs and he is entitled to that stance. It has nothing to do with homophobia. I loathe any type of discrimination where it is unmerited, but in the case of religion which is a personal choice I do not see why someone should have to compromise their faith to accommodate the often secular opinions of others. There are plenty of other Christian demoninations who feel the same way, and would not entertain a gay marriage. Nobody has said gay people cannot get married if they so wish. A lot of ministers will not marry straight people who are not regular churchgoers, and quite right too. The church isn't there as a backdrop to your wedding pics, it should mean something, otherwise go do the deed in a registry office (as I did as I'm not a hypocrite).

If a gay couple want a religious ceremony one would have to ask WHY? when it so clearly states in the bible that homosexuality is not condoned. If you have decided to follow a religion you cannot just cherry pick the bits you agree with and ignore the bits don't.

I

I do have a problem with gay marriage thing.

Should we also give priority to straight couples that reinforce traditional gender roles over those that send "mixed messages" like teh gaes? Like butch women who are into cars and sports, or effeminate men into musicals and fashion? Or is opposing genitalia the only criteria, regardless of behavior?

Should infertile straight couples get married? Couples over the age of 50?

There are more proslavery verses in the Bible than antigay verses, yet people managed to look beyond so many stupid bits and accept them as "products of their time" we've moved beyond. What people freak out about morally has mostly to do with how you were raised and little to do with the Bible, which I doubt David's read.

His interpretation of Christianity is already so loose, the fact that he's strict on this issue makes him seem even more douchey than a traditional evangelical.

dont marry a gay then

Thats it! We gonna divorce now.

This is a very good point...

I already said - if I wanted to get married to a dude and it was up to him, he'd deny us marriage. I don't think it's harsh in the least to think of him as scum for that.

I was just saying what marriage was originally probably established for, as I have also made clear it's function has changed considerably over time. Religious people take the older view of it I suppose.

Of course women and men do not have to fit into specific roles, however in general they are different kinds of role models for a child in any society where there are clear differences between men and women (physical and biological ones for example).

I think people confuse sexual equality where people can do what they want in bed (not altogether new, previous societies have had it) and a child's rights which some people I suppose don't value over their own desires.

There are so few gay "marriages" that it hardly is worth the debate and i think numbers are on the decrease?

We should be concentrating on why poorly educated people cannot get married and stay together!

all marriages are on the decrease, especially with increased education.

and to starry, I would much rather a child be with two sane homosexual men than two insane religious former addicts that happen to be straight like David & Whoever. Or two straight people that get in fights constantly and divorce with kids. My point is that your mental and physical ability should be the #1 criteria, not gender. I just dont get the genitalia obsession, like it matters in reality.

It isn't just about genitals that is a ridiculous simplification. Although I suppose some transsexuals may look at it like that.

And yes of course you can have bad parents of whatever type, but that is just trying to confuse the issue with some other unconnected particulars. You might have some homosexual couple who are religious addicts of some type too I suppose.

You said "To me, anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a ****ing idiot."

That's a MASSIVE generalisation. And you're showing that you don't have the capability to listen to reason, and that you have no respect for other people's opinions.

Unconnected particulars? How about totally connected particulars? We're talking about what makes a bad parent or a parent of "less priority", and I'm saying sanity has much more to do with raising kids than anything else. And the strength of your marriage vows. Of course many homosexual couples should NOT have children, just like many straight couples. These are not far off abstractions...my examples were excessive religiosity and divorce, very common traits that I find more practically harmful to a child than being around untraditional gender roles.

well he's sure as hell going to have lost alot of public support there!

I'm celebrating my 41st wedding anniversary today so I obviously agree with marriage. I believe civil services are right for all sorts of reasons and hope that in future gays will be allowed to marry if they want to.

Dave has his Christian beliefs, to which he equally entitled and it's just that he didn't want to cause conflict by saying any more. Actually, I think, the same as he didn't chose Govan to be up for eviction because he thought it would make him unpopular

who?

Are you effing serious? Thats EXACTLY what most religious folk do. Selective reading. Truth is you can pick bits out of the bible to justify or condemn anything.

And where does it say in the bible; thou shall molest the choir boys?

Well, seeing as this Thread is about Dave, who do you think?????

Homosexuality is antiChristian. David is entitled to his views.

There may be other things that could be potentially more harmful (or less harmful), really it depends on the individual situation. But that's still a completely different issue.

And it's not about simply gender 'roles'. Men and women are different, some genes are different, the brains are different in some ways. The fact is - whether you like it or not - every child is born with a mother and a father.

of course he is but it's still going to make him unpopular with alot of the viewing public!