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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

:( 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

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

errrrrrrr you said 'pus'

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

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

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

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.