but why did Nathan USE it as an excuse to nominate him nearly 3 weeks later tho:conf:
Dont think that was his reason last week

[QUOTE=stonedape;3422924]"I haven't once heard Dave nominate anyone on the grounds of being gay (which, according to you and other haters on here would be logical since you perceive Dave as being homophobic) whereas plenty of other HMs have continuously nominated him for his religious beliefs. Nor have I seen him treat Mario or Shabby any differently from the other HMs. If they wish to nominate Dave for reasons other than his religious convictions, why then do they not do so? It seems some are allowed THEIR beliefs whilst he is not being allowed his. You can't have one rule for some and another for others."


I don't "percieve" Dave as being homophobic. Dave holds an opinion that consenting adults shouldn't be married to the same sex. I don't care where he got the idea from...The Koran, the Bible, his parents (the real answer), it's stupid. And you're clearly not reading, because my points have had nothing to do with Dave being bad because he actively hates or treats gays differently. And you aren't reading doubly because I don't want Dave to shut up about his (very stupid) opinions...I'd like for him to discuss his reasons for this conclusion at greater length. I understand why he wouldn't: the public, and specifically the typical BB viewer, doesn't agree with him.[/QUOTE]

If he did - you would all just accuse him of preaching - he can't win whatever he does! He is entitled to his opinions - I am sick of people like you trying to tell others how they should think! You basically accuse him of that - but you are doing the same thing!

Who cares? He doesn't like him in the house as much as the others and thats that!

You don't always have a specific reason for disliking somebody. Just a feeling. But they still have to give a reason.

That's all as maybe, but if BB does not give him the same amount of air time that they squander on the dullards like Scabby, Sidekick, Ife, Josie, JJ and Nathan, in order for him to be able to discuss his reasons, and if the HMs do not have the courage to tell him to **** about his beliefs, or better still challenge and question him on his beliefs in order to make an informed judgment, then that's not Dave's fault. Irrespective of all that,they have no right to nominate him on the grounds of his religious beliefs, which is what they have been citing as their reasons.

You put yourself in a Catch-22 when you sign on to believing the Bible in the first place. The book is outdated, so you're forced to either cherry-pick (hypocrisy) or take it 100% seriously (crazy fundamentalist). And then there are contradictions, where it's logically impossible to follow both sets of advice. And you don't read minds: I'm fine with proselytizing of all kinds. In the Christian's case, you're a hypocrite if you're not proselytizing your beliefs. I think what people mean when they say "don't force your opinions on to me" is "I don't want to think about that, let's stop talking about it".

Well many religious folk do agree with gay marriage so its not compulsary for him to disagree with it just because he's a bible follower. And Im pretty damn sure he breaks many other rules that the bible teaches.

So he doesn't deserve a free pass for saying it.

Nominating him for his outdated beliefs is just as valid a reason as nominating him for sporting a ridiculous bellend shaped hair-dont.

Even his face irritates the sh!t out of me, ugh!!

Correct. Lets look at the meaning of discrimination.

discrimination • noun 1 the action of discriminating against people. 2 recognition of the difference between one thing and another. 3 good judgement or taste.

Talking of free speech, its now against the law to describe someone as a 'coconut' in public.

The decision was made by Bristol Magistrates' Court after city councillor, Shirley Brown, referred to an Asian Tory councillor as a “coconut” during a council debate in February last year.

Although Ms Brown did not specify what she meant, she said in the council chamber that her “community” would understand the meaning of calling someone a coconut.

In the black community, to call someone a coconut means that they are black or brown on the outside, but white on the inside — in other words, they are traitors to their people and side with whites.

Ms Brown, a proud Liberal Democrat, was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £620 costs after being convicted of “inciting racial hatred” against Mrs Jethwa.

District Judge Simon Cook said that he was “satisfied there was a risk to public disorder and stimulation of racial hatred” even though there was absolutely no evidence that any racial hatred had erupted or been caused as a result of the comment.

Here is the 'racial hatred' of Shirley Brown describing someone as a 'coconut'.