[cazzy555]

I would be nice if people weren't discriminated because of beliefs but religion is one of those things where people put themselves in a group that does discriminate. most religions (probably all) discriminate against other peoples beliefs that don't agree with their own. Most believers I know avoid this by just not talking about there beliefs to those they know won't like it. I think this shows with Dave not wanting to talk about gay marriage but finally gave an honest answer when directly asked.

Religion is fair game for nominations in my book.

[newspresenter]

Originally Posted by Nate

I think so. It pisses me off when people do that, its really scraping the barrell

Reasons should be like - i don't get on with them in the house..we argued..whatever but when its just about beliefs, especially when the person doesn't air their beliefs (like Dave with same sex marriage, he never airs them) and they nom him for it, its really, really pathetic

Dave should be allowed to disagree with gay marridge, thats his belief, thats free speech. He didn't force his belief on anyone, and he trood on eggshells when explaining it to Josie beside the pool. Josie used it as a tool to attack Dave, that was wrong, but because we live in a society where any disagreement on a minority is deemed 'wrong', Josie got away with it, and those ignorant HM's who nominated Dave were wrong, oh the irony.

[paper-cut-exit]

They're gonna nominate who they want out regardless, so it makes little difference what their reasoning is imo.

[Jords]

Completely agree, its not based on that, it should be how they act within the house...

[stonedape]

Sometimes belief-nominations can be petty, but I think those for Dave are valid, at least in these earlier rounds. It's as stupid a belief as not supporting interracial marriage (once justified with the Bible too). Even hearing that opinion once, it would be enough for me to continually nominate them until someone else pissed me off more. And the 2000-year old opinion on homosexual ethics matched with the lovey new-age garbage (legitimate or fake) would piss me off too. If you're going to hold such a ridiculous opinion, at least have the balls to defend it.

And there were plenty of other reasons people nominated Dave, like general lack of trust, "bitchy" comments and such. If he weren't so cliquey, he'd be avoiding a lot more of these nominations.

[eye sea]

I totally agree with the OP. It also pi**ses me off when I hear the claptrap reasons why the likes of Nathan doesn't like Dave. 'It's because he's against same sex marriage.'

As if Nathan lies awake all night worrying about same sex marriages. I mean, give me a bloody break. Dave has his beliefs, full stop. You either agree or disagree. But don't hold it against him for a reason to vote him out. Especially that idiot Nathan. When does the rights or wrongs of same sex marriage affect his life? What a complete a**hole.

[MrWong]

Originally Posted by Chosu

After telling Steve yesterday that he believes someday god will give him the power to lay his hands on an amputee and their limbs will grow back, I think he pretty much deserves any nominations or backlash thrown his way. Ive seen some pretty wild pentacostals in my day, but he either has mild delusions of granduer or hes acting the whole god thing out. Even people in his own church cant be that ignorant to take him seriously unless its a cult.

Yep i'd have nom'd him for that alone. Dudes lucky that shizzle was left out in the edit. As offensive as when he said he layed hands on someones tumour and it dissapeared.

Then there's his views on civil partnerships...

"Oooo, i can't oversee the marriage of the gayers, the Big Book of Fairytales says i can't'

Twat.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Nate

I think so. It pisses me off when people do that, its really scraping the barrell

Reasons should be like - i don't get on with them in the house..we argued..whatever but when its just about beliefs, especially when the person doesn't air their beliefs (like Dave with same sex marriage, he never airs them) and they nom him for it, its really, really pathetic

I've just posted on another thread about this and I agree with you.

I don't understand why HMs are allowed to use this reason, since it is clearly religious discrimination and bigotry which seems to be condoned by BB. Some of them continue to nominate Ben and Sunshine on class grounds as well. What if Dave nominated Scabby and Mario on the grounds of being gay? Or JJ on the grounds that he was Australian? Or Ben and Sunshine because they are posh? There would be an uproar, yet these thick, ignorant HMs can think of no other reason to nominate him, other than they are against his religious convictions, and seem to think they are gaining brownie points with the public because they are seen to be PC, instead of the bigoted idiots they actually are.

[fivecougz]

Originally Posted by Dannyboii

When has dave EVER forced his beliefs? Some asked him if he would be a minister for Mario's wedding and he said he was against same sex marriage. Thats the only religeous comment I have seen him make tbh.

Sounds like you've only ever watched half of one episode.

[Peter Plunker]

Disagreement is not discrimination.

[starry]

I did a thread on this a couple of weeks or so ago, and my opinion was that people should not nominated people because of beliefs unless it directly relates to them being an irritant in the house in some way.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Dannyboii

When has dave EVER forced his beliefs? Some asked him if he would be a minister for Mario's wedding and he said he was against same sex marriage. Thats the only religeous comment I have seen him make tbh.

Same here - people love to exaggerate for their own ends! No way can he be accused of trying to force it on others - he is entitled to talk about it though!

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by angus58

I don't understand why HMs are allowed to use this reason, since it is clearly religious discrimination and bigotry which seems to be condoned by BB.

So the people for equal rights are the bigots....making Dave what, open-minded? Hilariously twisted. Being anti-anti gay is not of comparable bigotry to being even a little anti-gay. And this has nothing to do with religious bigotry, it has to do with the specific ideas Dave holds on homosexual marriage. Dave could have got his views on gay marriage from Harry Potter, they'd still be just as irrational and unfounded. The only part that's annoying about the opinion being based on the Bible is that almost no one takes the Bible even close to 100% literally/seriously, yet this is the issue they've decided not to settle on. This especially applies to Dave, who is basically Unitarian Universalisty in every other respect.

And there were plenty of other reasons stated for nominating Dave. Like most nominations, the reasons are mostly petty/forced and it mainly comes down to who you get along with. This religion issue is a red herring. Dave's annoying, Dave doesn't spend time with people outside his circle. He's like an inverse Shabby.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by stonedape

So the people for equal rights are the bigots....making Dave what, open-minded? Hilariously twisted. Being anti-anti gay is not of comparable bigotry to being even a little anti-gay. And this has nothing to do with religious bigotry, it has to do with the specific ideas Dave holds on homosexual marriage. Dave could have got his views on gay marriage from Harry Potter, they'd still be just as irrational and unfounded.

And there were plenty of other reasons stated for nominating Dave. Like most nominations, the reasons are mostly petty/forced and it mainly comes down to who you get along with. This religion issue is a red herring. Dave's annoying, Dave doesn't spend time with people outside his circle. He's like an inverse Shabby.

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.

[stonedape]

"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.

[stoney]

Originally Posted by Zippy

But for some that equates to prejudiced opinion. For some its a genuinely crucial issue. Especially gay people.

And compared to many reasons that are given its a fairly substantial.

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

[WOMBAI]

[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!

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by stoney

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

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.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by stonedape

"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.

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.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

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!

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".

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

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.

[MrWong]

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!!

[newspresenter]

Originally Posted by Peter Plunker

Disagreement is not discrimination.

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.

[newspresenter]

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'.

Youtube video