[bansheewails]

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.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Peter Plunker

He isn't a homophobe. Bandwagon jump much?

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

[30stone]

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..

[billy123]

Originally Posted by 30stone

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.

[bansheewails]

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.

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by calyman

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.

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.

[SoFarSoGood282]

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....

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by bobnot

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.

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!

[ILoveTRW]

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

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ILoveTRW

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.

[Peter Plunker]

Originally Posted by ILoveTRW

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

Not really.

[calyman]

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.

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.

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.

[ILoveTRW]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yes but any person with even half a brain can understand that is because of his faith, not because of a personal prejudice.

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

[MojoNixon]

Originally Posted by MrGaryy

Anyone else finding this ridiculous? He's a man of deep faith which is widely known to be against gay marriage and the other housemates are just using this as a reason to pick on him and make him look like a bad person. Since when is a person defined by their beliefs? He's shown absolutely no malice towards Mario, Corin, Govan or Shabby and never once voiced his disdain at homosexuality until pressured into voicing his beliefs by Josie in front of everyone. I'm finding the whole thing I a bit nasty to be quite honest.

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

[Simone.]

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.

[toothpick]

Originally Posted by MrGaryy

Anyone else finding this ridiculous? He's a man of deep faith which is widely known to be against gay marriage and the other housemates are just using this as a reason to pick on him and make him look like a bad person. Since when is a person defined by their beliefs? He's shown absolutely no malice towards Mario, Corin, Govan or Shabby and never once voiced his disdain at homosexuality until pressured into voicing his beliefs by Josie in front of everyone. I'm finding the whole thing I a bit nasty to be quite honest.

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...

[toothpick]

Originally Posted by MojoNixon

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

You dont like muslims....??

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.

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?

[InOne]

Originally Posted by toothpick

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...

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?

[toothpick]

Originally Posted by InOne

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....

[Angus]

Originally Posted by calyman

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.

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.

[calyman]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[JustSkipIt]

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

[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.

[Firewire]

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.