Religion Folau

Remove this Banner Ad

twotooto said:
Folau would be lucky to have a couple of functioning neurons to rub together but I think it's a valid point that if you're going to call him out for homophobic comments per his religious beliefs, it's probably incumbent on you to call out other religions also.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that standard. Yet the question remains, are those calling out Folau doing so for similar beliefs - and voiced opinions stemming from those beliefs - across the entire spectrum of religions? Doubtful. Folau is just seen as an easy kill because let's face it, he ain't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Click to expand...
Who chose to put himself front and centre of the national discourse.

C'mon.

"Folau" is the title of the thread.

News to me people had to present their credentials as fearless intolerance busters before they could express an opinion.
 
twotooto said:
Folau would be lucky to have a couple of functioning neurons to rub together but I think it's a valid point that if you're going to call him out for homophobic comments per his religious beliefs, it's probably incumbent on you to call out other religions also.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that standard. Yet the question remains, are those calling out Folau doing so for similar beliefs - and voiced opinions stemming from those beliefs - across the entire spectrum of religions? Doubtful. Folau is just seen as an easy kill because let's face it, he ain't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But it is worth noting that Anthony Mundine was quite rightly condemned in the media for his homophobic comments which he tried justifying on the basis of race (Aboriginality) and religion (Islam). For example:

www.who.com.au

Anthony Mundine claims gay community should be subjected to capital punishment

Fans react I'm a Celeb star Anthony Mundine claims he wants capital punishment for the gay community in a video obtained by The Daily Telegraph.
www.who.com.au www.who.com.au

I go back to the point that what was on trial here was what right does your employer have to police your personal social media profile and act accordingly?

I've come up with three scenarios:

1) Your employer has no right
2) Your employer has the right unless you can claim religious exception
3) Your employer has the right but it must be clear in the terms of employment

All three scenarios fit what has happened - Folau getting a payout and Rugby Australia with their tail between their legs. But the rest of us are none the wiser. Folau's principles obviously can be bought (reminds me of the old punchline to the joke - we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price) but that doesn't mean it's a win for religious exception. It could well be that RUA screwed up royally and didn't make it clear in the terms of employment (which was insinuated in this thread very early on in the piece). It could be that your employer has no right. It could be that only those that claim religious privilege are exempt.

This is why it sucks we didn't get a ruling - RUA get rid of a troublesome employee, Folau gets a nice paycheck and the rest of us get sweet FA.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Drakescoffeecake said:
How do you explain such horrible numbers in suicide of gay people when it's just easy for them to switch to being straight?
Click to expand...
Seems the theme was straight people can choose to be gay, however, doesn't seem that gay people can choose to be straight.
As an older person I find the general acceptance of gay people has improved dramatically over the past couple of decades... world ain't perfect though.
 
Drakescoffeecake said:
How do you explain such horrible numbers in suicide of gay people when it's just easy for them to switch to being straight?
Click to expand...


Because according to a study last year involving 10,311 cases, the most common factor that contributes to suicide is relationship problems. People have these problems regardless of which sex they pursue a relationship with.

The most common factor that contributed to suicides in the study was “intimate partner problems”.

  • 72% of Lesbian suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 62% of Non-LGBT male suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 58% of Bisexual female suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 53% of Non-LGBT female suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 35% of Gay male suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 33% of Bisexual male suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
Click to expand...

https://www.amhf.org.au/new_study_sheds_light_on_lgbt_youth_suicides
 
Last edited:
Demontim275 said:
I think it’s safe to assume the bloke paraphrasing the bible and calling
homosexuality abberant
Click to expand...

(1) Didn't paraphrase the bible. I talked about liberal Christians and what will be the result of their actions if a certain passage in their bible is true and cited the passage. No paraphrase.

(2) I didn't call homosexuality aberrant (note the spelling). I called the behaviour aberrant. You'll understand the distinction if you read what I wrote here - #6,386.
 
Crankitup said:
(1) Didn't paraphrase the bible. I talked about liberal Christians and what will be the result of their actions if a certain passage in their bible is true and cited the passage. No paraphrase.

(2) I didn't call homosexuality aberrant (note the spelling). I called the behaviour aberrant. You'll understand the distinction if you read what I wrote here - #6,386.
Click to expand...
You paraphrased the bible...

Potato. Potato.

so your overarching point is though that we can choose who we *, yes? And you’re providing supporting evidence of people who have chosen to * certain people, even if they’re attracted to others?

Is a man who has sex with men and women, but had issues with homosexuality so identifies as “straight” a heterosexual?
 
Crankitup said:
Because according to a study last year involving 10,311 cases, the most common factor that contributes to suicide is relationship problems. People have these problems regardless of which sex they pursue a relationship with.



https://www.amhf.org.au/new_study_sheds_light_on_lgbt_youth_suicides
Click to expand...

You've quoted two non LGBT statistics whilst also failing to give that statistics for gay males, bisexual males, trans males and trans females which are all >35%. But hey, selective quoting eh?

  • 35% of Gay male suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 33% of Bisexual male suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 33% of Trans female (biologically male) suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 19% of Trans male (biologically female) suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
 
Drakescoffeecake said:
You've quoted two non LGBT statistics whilst also failing to give that statistics for gay males, bisexual males, trans males and trans females which are all >35%. But hey, selective quoting eh?

  • 35% of Gay male suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 33% of Bisexual male suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 33% of Trans female (biologically male) suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
  • 19% of Trans male (biologically female) suicides were linked to intimate partner problems
Click to expand...

On the contrary. Read what I wrote again I did give the figures for gay and bisexual males. I did miss the Trans figures though. Not intentionally just poor copying and pasting.
 
We do choose who we have sexual relations with.

We do not choose whether we are attracted to males or females though, I remember being smitten with girls at a very young age ie. around 8-9 years of age, at that age I hazard a guess that my attraction to females was innate.
 
Crankitup said:
On the contrary. Read what I wrote again I did give the figures for gay and bisexual males. I did miss the Trans figures though. Not intentionally just poor copying and pasting.
Click to expand...

Gay and bisexual females were the only groups to have 50% or more. Trans m/f, gay males and bisexual males were all under 35%. Certainly clutching at straws with your theory there.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Demontim275 said:
You paraphrased the bible...

Potato. Potato.

so your overarching point is though that we can choose who we fu**, yes? And you’re providing supporting evidence of people who have chosen to fu** certain people, even if they’re attracted to others?

Is a man who has sex with men and women, but had issues with homosexuality so identifies as “straight” a heterosexual?
Click to expand...

We're not going to get very far if you insist on misrepresenting me. You've already conceded one such misrepresentation and are desperately trying to hold on to another. I DID NOT paraphrase the bible. I gave a scripture reference only and said that if it was true those liberal Christians are not acting in people's best interests. I didn't quote the bible or paraphrase it.
 
Crankitup said:
We're not going to get very far if you insist on misrepresenting me. You've already conceded one such misrepresentation and are desperately trying to hold on to another. I DID NOT paraphrase the bible. I gave a scripture reference only and said that if it was true those liberal Christians are not acting in people's best interests. I didn't quote the bible or paraphrase it.
Click to expand...
So you can’t answer simple questions on your point.

you’re right. You’re going nowhere.
 
Drakescoffeecake said:
Gay and bisexual females were the only groups to have 50% or more. Trans m/f, gay males and bisexual males were all under 35%. Certainly clutching at straws with your theory there.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what 'most common reason' means??? It doesn't equate to the majority, or more than 50%. If there were 10 different reasons cited for instance then >35% for one of those reasons is pretty high.
 
Crankitup said:
(1) Didn't paraphrase the bible. I talked about liberal Christians and what will be the result of their actions if a certain passage in their bible is true and cited the passage. No paraphrase.

(2) I didn't call homosexuality aberrant (note the spelling). I called the behaviour aberrant. You'll understand the distinction if you read what I wrote here - #6,386.
Click to expand...

What behaviour is aberrant (sic)?
 
Demontim275 said:
So you can’t answer simple questions on your point.

you’re right. You’re going nowhere.
Click to expand...

Not with you, no. It doesn't surprise me much though considering the first thing you said in this thread to me was this #6,424. So no skin off my nose if I don't hear from you again TBH.
 
Last edited:
Crankitup said:
Not with you, no. It doesn't surprise me much though considering the first thing you said in this thread to me was this #6,424. So no skin off my nose if I don;t hear from you again TBH.
Click to expand...
Weird. For someone getting on a high horse that you’re the only one wanting to discuss a topic, that you refuse to answer a question on your views

it’s pretty basic too

So what is your point exactly?
 
Scotland said:
All good, thought you were quoting the last guy with the spelling ref.

So, what behaviour is aberrant?
Click to expand...

That which deviates from the standard or normal. Limited to a small minority.

I will quote from a journal of psychiatry ....

Homosexuality is not normal statistically and biologically. Statistically, it is not normal since it forms a minority and skewed in the normal distribution. Every biological function has a physiological goal and purpose. Sexual activity has two goals. One is procreation to safeguard the continuation of the species. The second one is the experience of pleasure, which in fact, is to facilitate the sexual activity and to strengthen the bond between husband and wife. Homosexuality negates one of the goals of sexual activity procreation.

Homosexuality has therefore, to be considered as an aberration in the psychosexual development .......
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top