[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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by angus58

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by Peter Plunker

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by calyman

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by calyman

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by calyman

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.wordpr.../dave-vaughan/