I'm sorry... but I don't think he said anything offensive. He just shared HIS opinion, which he should be allowed to have.
It's okay if gay people are allowed to fight for their beliefs, but not okay for someone who is religious and believes in God to share theirs?! What kind of world are we living in here?! I'm not saying his views are right or wrong BUTTTT he's allowed to have them as long as he expresses them in a civilized and respectful manner.
People shouldn't discriminate. That is all. Other than that, each individual is entitled to their own opinion - take the Digital Spy forum rules for example.
okay i wasn't going to comment on this and have been avoiding ds tonight for this reason. i am the first person to complain when people are over-reacting but there is a complete difference having an opinion on a matter and saying something that will cause offence. of course not everybody will be offended by what Evander said but that still dosen't make it right and some people will be offended. by what you are saying in your post you are saying that it is fine for somebody to say that gay people can be fixed because that is their opinion. does that mean it would be okay for people to go around calling black people the N word and so on and so on because that would be their opinion.... no. Did what Evander say effect me, no but i can see how it would have caused offence. He is allowed his opinion, no matter how stupid and small minded it made him sound but that doesn't mean his opinion is right and that everybody will be happy which is why big brother warned him.... and that's all i will say on the matter.
okay i wasn't going to comment on this and have been avoiding ds tonight for this reason. i am the first person to complain when people are over-reacting but there is a complete difference having an opinion on a matter and saying something that will cause offence. of course not everybody will be offended by what Evander said but that still dosen't make it right and some people will be offended. by what you are saying in your post you are saying that it is fine for somebody to say that gay people can be fixed because that is their opinion. does that mean it would be okay for people to go around calling black people the N word and so on and so on because that would be their opinion.... no. Did what Evander say effect me, no but i can see how it would have caused offence. He is allowed his opinion, no matter how stupid and small minded it made him sound but that doesn't mean his opinion is right and that everybody will be happy which is why big brother warned him.... and that's all i will say on the matter.
This!
I am getting sick of people saying it's his view and stuff. People have lots of views but does that mean you say freedom of expression and offend them? Is that the point of freedom of expression to be restrictive in your outlook and offend other people? And anyway it wasn't just his view that gays should be fixed but treating them as if they have a disability!
Saying horrible things about someone's religion or someone's sexuality or someone's race are all equally tasteless tbh.
okay i wasn't going to comment on this and have been avoiding ds tonight for this reason. i am the first person to complain when people are over-reacting but there is a complete difference having an opinion on a matter and saying something that will cause offence. of course not everybody will be offended by what Evander said but that still dosen't make it right and some people will be offended. by what you are saying in your post you are saying that it is fine for somebody to say that gay people can be fixed because that is their opinion. does that mean it would be okay for people to go around calling black people the N word and so on and so on because that would be their opinion.... no. Did what Evander say effect me, no but i can see how it would have caused offence. He is allowed his opinion, no matter how stupid and small minded it made him sound but that doesn't mean his opinion is right and that everybody will be happy which is why big brother warned him.... and that's all i will say on the matter.
My only problem with this is that Big Brother holds the power of broadcasting whatever they want to and omitting whatever they want too. They chose to broadcast it and then slap his wrists for possible offence to viewers.
They could have avoided offending these people by choosing to not broadcast his opinion.
They would hold a bigger stance of not agreeing with possible offensive views he held by choosing to not allow it broadcast on their channel.
his comments werent hateful*, they were ignorant and besides the odd troll that seems to have popped up o.O, youd be hard-pushed to find anyone who agrees with his views. from what ive read, people think bb was wrong to give a warning not because they agree with his views but because they would have preferred to see how the conversation would have flowed between luiza & evander if theyd been allowed to speak freely. ignorance can only be cured with education and hes not going to get that if debate is stifled with political correctness
*he was perfectly calm & showed no hate or prejudice imo
Discounting a huge section of society and suggesting they can be 'fixed' is hateful to me. Suggesting that some of the most happy and content couples I know should be 'cured' of their love is hateful to me. He didn't need to shout it! The fact that it was said so calmly makes no difference. I stand by my comment. I am not anti-religion, but I do object when people choose to take particular aspects of their religion whilst quite happily ignoring others.
I know a lot of people who are religious but would not dream of saying what he did - including our local gay vicar!
My only problem with this is that Big Brother holds the power of broadcasting whatever they want to and omitting whatever they want too. They chose to broadcast it and then slap his wrists for possible offence to viewers.
They could have avoided offending these people by choosing to not broadcast his opinion.
They would hold a bigger stance of not agreeing with possible offensive views he held by choosing to not allow it broadcast on their channel.
but why should big brother choose not to show it when you said he has a right to have an opinion? wouldn't that be denying him his rights to have an opinion. he said what he has said and that was shown.
but why should big brother choose not to show it when you said he has a right to have an opinion? wouldn't that be denying him his rights to have an opinion. he said what he has said and that was shown.
It would. But they've already made their stance known that they won't tolerate this kind of view being expressed as it may cause offence. So surely it would've been in their own best interests to simply not air the footage?
That's where we see channel 5/Endemol weren't fearing him causing offence but courting some more publicity.
'I do not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
About gay people, black people, disabled people, anyone. It's not abuse, it's not harassment - it's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means allowing all opinions, regardless of whether you personally are offended by them. Otherwise it is meaningless.
The best way to respond to arguments such as Evander's is to counter-argue and expose their ridiculousness, though whether one would really feel comfortable doing that while shackled to him is another matter. I'm not quite sure Luisa would be up to the task anyway.
Example responses:
'If being gay is a choice, why are you suggesting it can be cured? Surely people can just make a different choice?'
'You suggest disabled people can be 'treated' as a general statement - can you tell me a treatment for Down's Syndrome or Autism?'
'You seem to suggest that disability is also undesirable. Would you advocate pre-natal and/or pre-fertilisation screening and abortion of disabled foetuses, or wider eugenic policies such as sterilisation of disabled people? How would you square this with your Christian principles?'
'Would you also suggest similar procedures regarding homosexuality? What about aversion therapy and the harm that it has been demonstrated to cause? Again, does this not conflict with Christian principles?'
'Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant even if you think that gay sex is morally wrong: If it is morally wrong then you shouldn't do it, even if you haven't chosen the inclination towards it. If it isn't morally wrong then it doesn't matter if you do it even if you have chosen the inclination towards it. Do you think gay sex is morally wrong? Why? Please explain in terms of harm done versus harm prevented.'
'If you rely on the Bible to determine your morality, do you ever think about what is right or wrong for yourself? Is not doing so perhaps somewhat psychopathic?'
'What if the Bible was written down incorrectly? What if the word of god was sabotaged? What if there is not god? What about the passages of the Bible used to justify slavery - isn't it all down to interpretation? Is slavery god's will, even though it may well have caused immense suffering to your ancestors? Did your ancestors believe in the Christian Bible before they were enslaved? Is the Bible continuing to function as a form of mental enslavement by those who choose how it is interpreted, or even as a form of mental self-enslavement by those who believe them?
Anti-gay opinion is horrid and shouldn't be allowed. It's offensive.
Anti-religion opinion is offensive but is fine and dandy.
I love DS logic.
Since the sources of the homophobia are the bibles and sacred codes of various religions, it makes perfect sense that religions are deemed offensive, and should be criticised. :)
Since the sources of the homophobia are the bibles and sacred codes of various religions, it makes perfect sense that religions are deemed offensive, and should be criticised. :)
And the anti-religious people are also offensive and should be criticised?
Comments
I do get it. You seem to be unable to see your hypocrisy.
Some of us actually use logic and don't believe in a made-up story dictating our life and causing worldwide problems.
His views deserve to be disrespected..gay people don't.
I don't know why you're repeating a post you've already made towards me.
I suppose I'll repeat my response for you.... I love the logic. It's highly amusing.
Well you don't seem to understand the logic but you're easily pleased, I'll grant you.
I'm humouring you.
I understand this logic you speak of, as I said, I find it amusing.
okay i wasn't going to comment on this and have been avoiding ds tonight for this reason. i am the first person to complain when people are over-reacting but there is a complete difference having an opinion on a matter and saying something that will cause offence. of course not everybody will be offended by what Evander said but that still dosen't make it right and some people will be offended. by what you are saying in your post you are saying that it is fine for somebody to say that gay people can be fixed because that is their opinion. does that mean it would be okay for people to go around calling black people the N word and so on and so on because that would be their opinion.... no. Did what Evander say effect me, no but i can see how it would have caused offence. He is allowed his opinion, no matter how stupid and small minded it made him sound but that doesn't mean his opinion is right and that everybody will be happy which is why big brother warned him.... and that's all i will say on the matter.
however he broke no laws
he can be voted off when his time comes.
Jim Davidson holds similar views from my understanding
This!
I am getting sick of people saying it's his view and stuff. People have lots of views but does that mean you say freedom of expression and offend them? Is that the point of freedom of expression to be restrictive in your outlook and offend other people? And anyway it wasn't just his view that gays should be fixed but treating them as if they have a disability!
Saying horrible things about someone's religion or someone's sexuality or someone's race are all equally tasteless tbh.
My only problem with this is that Big Brother holds the power of broadcasting whatever they want to and omitting whatever they want too. They chose to broadcast it and then slap his wrists for possible offence to viewers.
They could have avoided offending these people by choosing to not broadcast his opinion.
They would hold a bigger stance of not agreeing with possible offensive views he held by choosing to not allow it broadcast on their channel.
Discounting a huge section of society and suggesting they can be 'fixed' is hateful to me. Suggesting that some of the most happy and content couples I know should be 'cured' of their love is hateful to me. He didn't need to shout it! The fact that it was said so calmly makes no difference. I stand by my comment. I am not anti-religion, but I do object when people choose to take particular aspects of their religion whilst quite happily ignoring others.
I know a lot of people who are religious but would not dream of saying what he did - including our local gay vicar!
but why should big brother choose not to show it when you said he has a right to have an opinion? wouldn't that be denying him his rights to have an opinion. he said what he has said and that was shown.
You're priceless but getting really tedious..have a good old read about religion and you'll learn something about major hypocrisy.
It would. But they've already made their stance known that they won't tolerate this kind of view being expressed as it may cause offence. So surely it would've been in their own best interests to simply not air the footage?
That's where we see channel 5/Endemol weren't fearing him causing offence but courting some more publicity.
Where did I say religion doesn't contain hypocrisy?
Are you under some impression that I'm pro religion and agree with Evanda's comments?
If so, you've completely misunderstood everything written.
You were equating attacks on religion with attacks on homophobia.
They are not equal. Attacks on religion are justified.
You're never gonna get it, so I give up.
I never said anything justified anything.
I said if it's wrong of him to slam someone's way of life, then it's equally wrong of someone else to slam his way of life.
I do get it. And it's absolutely hilarious.
You can hold any opinion you want and express it all you like as long as it doesn't include negative opinions on homosexuals.
Then it's also wrong to slam his way of life if it promotes hate against members of the church.
You can't have it both ways as both promote hate against fellow humans.
About gay people, black people, disabled people, anyone. It's not abuse, it's not harassment - it's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means allowing all opinions, regardless of whether you personally are offended by them. Otherwise it is meaningless.
The best way to respond to arguments such as Evander's is to counter-argue and expose their ridiculousness, though whether one would really feel comfortable doing that while shackled to him is another matter. I'm not quite sure Luisa would be up to the task anyway.
Example responses:
'If being gay is a choice, why are you suggesting it can be cured? Surely people can just make a different choice?'
'You suggest disabled people can be 'treated' as a general statement - can you tell me a treatment for Down's Syndrome or Autism?'
'You seem to suggest that disability is also undesirable. Would you advocate pre-natal and/or pre-fertilisation screening and abortion of disabled foetuses, or wider eugenic policies such as sterilisation of disabled people? How would you square this with your Christian principles?'
'Would you also suggest similar procedures regarding homosexuality? What about aversion therapy and the harm that it has been demonstrated to cause? Again, does this not conflict with Christian principles?'
'Whether being gay is a choice or not is irrelevant even if you think that gay sex is morally wrong: If it is morally wrong then you shouldn't do it, even if you haven't chosen the inclination towards it. If it isn't morally wrong then it doesn't matter if you do it even if you have chosen the inclination towards it. Do you think gay sex is morally wrong? Why? Please explain in terms of harm done versus harm prevented.'
'If you rely on the Bible to determine your morality, do you ever think about what is right or wrong for yourself? Is not doing so perhaps somewhat psychopathic?'
'What if the Bible was written down incorrectly? What if the word of god was sabotaged? What if there is not god? What about the passages of the Bible used to justify slavery - isn't it all down to interpretation? Is slavery god's will, even though it may well have caused immense suffering to your ancestors? Did your ancestors believe in the Christian Bible before they were enslaved? Is the Bible continuing to function as a form of mental enslavement by those who choose how it is interpreted, or even as a form of mental self-enslavement by those who believe them?
And the anti-religious people are also offensive and should be criticised?
Both include promotion of hate.
They can challenge his views and debate with him if he has his facts wrong but an opinion isn't about facts.