Religion Folau

[kranky al]

You’re right that $3 million is based purely on speculation but you need to remember, so is your idea that he potentially stood to make $14mil.

He stood to “potentially” make $14mil like I “potentially” stand to make $50,000 if I put a rusting Datsun 120Y on eBay for that figure.

Nil please

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How did you figure that, because Fitzy said so?

Sheesh. I’m only relating what he said, and his reasoning.

My point is that people bandying about huge figures, on here and in the press, haven’t provided one skerrick of reasoning behind their figures.

 

[kranky al]

Nope. If the contract curtailed his religious beliefs, would it even be legal?

Righteo - im starting a new religion


I want all my imaginary friends bullshit to be protected against all and any contracts

Work beers here i come

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Nope. If the contract curtailed his religious beliefs, would it even be legal?

This is the big question that both parties declined to test in an open court.

 

[Snake_Baker]

My point is that people bandying about huge figures, on here and in the press, haven’t provided one skerrick of reasoning behind their figures.

How is it even really relevant? This is about principles.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Righteo - im starting a new religion


I want all my imaginary friends bullshit to be protected against all and any contracts

Work beers here i come

I have looked in to it, and it's not that easy.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Most? The vocal ones here certainly seem in favour of some sort of Islamic centralised government structure.

And I like the way you leaped straight from me saying “Soviet” to you saying “Islamic”.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

How is it even really relevant? This is about principles.

Says who? I’m totally uninterested in supposed principles at stake here. Only came on because things were quiet elsewhere on BF and I saw people bandying about wild figures with no attempt at justification whatsoever.

 

[raskolnikov]

Are you sure? You are probably of the opinion that people are sexual automatons with no power of choice over their sexual behaviour. I disagree. I think it's definitely more of a choice than being born black. Many "gays" probably pander to society's prevailing view that they were "born that way" and "can't help it" but many others are more courageous and tell a much different story. They unashamedly and categorically affirm that for them it IS a choice.

So much ignorance in that post it's unbelievable.

 

[Crankitup]

So much ignorance in that post it's unbelievable.

So much ignorance in your post it's unbelievable.

Still no apology after you found out you had a different Paul Murray in mind when you flew off the handle then?

 

[raskolnikov]

So much ignorance in your post it's unbelievable.

Still no apology after you found out you had a different Paul Murray in mind when you flew off the handle then?

Huh? You were the one who flew off the handle. But sorry if you need that to feel good about yourself on an internet forum. Hope that cheers you up. Much love.

 

[kranky al]

This is the big question that both parties declined to test in an open court.

Very much an all or nothing verdict isnt it.

Folau wins big - union is bankrupt and wound up

Aru wins big - folau gets nowt

You would want to be pretty sure of things not to settle.

 

[kranky al]

Are you sure? You are probably of the opinion that people are sexual automatons with no power of choice over their sexual behaviour. I disagree. I think it's definitely more of a choice than being born black. Many "gays" probably pander to society's prevailing view that they were "born that way" and "can't help it" but many others are more courageous and tell a much different story. They unashamedly and categorically affirm that for them it IS a choice.

Yes that small minority that are more than likely bisexual over whelm the absolute majority

Conservative logic 101

Ive found a few instances that dont fit the pattern so every single part of your theory is wrong

I grew up with a gay brother - he was different from when he was a little kid - before he even knew what sex was - he was different.

By the time he was 13 i knew even if he didnt.

When he came out at 16 i was like “deeeeer”

Literally exactly what i said to him - following it up with - it doesnt mean a pinch of shit to me - youre my brother and i love you.


Poor kid was shit scared his grunt brother would reject him. Terrified.

People shouldnt have to feel that way because of what they are.

I prefer hating on people for what they choose to be - you choose your footy team.... not your sexuality

 

[Crankitup]

Yes that small minority that are more than likely bisexual over whelm the absolute majority

Conservative logic 101

Ive found a few instances that dont fit the pattern so every single part of your theory is wrong

I grew up with a gay brother - he was different from when he was a little kid - before he even knew what sex was - he was different.

By the time he was 13 i knew even if he didnt.

When he came out at 16 i was like “deeeeer”

Literally exactly what i said to him - following it up with - it doesnt mean a pinch of shit to me - youre my brother and i love you.


Poor kid was shit scared his grunt brother would reject him. Terrified.

People shouldnt have to feel that way because of what they are.

I prefer hating on people for what they choose to be - you choose your footy team.... not your sexuality

How about you consider the reasoned arguments of lesbian feminist author Karla Mantilla in an article entitled 'Biology My Ass', extracts from which I'll give below.

The religious right's recent media blitz about how gay people can change comes as no surprise to me. Partly that's because I have a long commute and so listen to a religious right radio station to keep abreast of their thinking. And partly it's because I have long thought the strategy used by the gay rights movement of saying that it's biological is incredibly lame. In a strange way I agree with the religious right. Of course it's a choice--how could it not be?

Biology as an explanation
Biology is evoked all the time to explain or justify human choices and social patterns. There is a long history of using biology to justify inequality as inevitable due to the genetic characteristics of women or people of color. In general, biological explanations serve to delude people into believing that they can't help their choices; that it can be no other way; that their actions are not borne out of human volition or choice but rather inborn inescapable drives. But while the idea that if gays can't help it because they are born that way seemingly might arrive at our acceptance into society, it also diminishes us as thinking purposeful beings.
Hunger may be biological, but eating M&Ms is a choice
Clearly, there is some biological element to sexuality, but it is limited to the generic desire for sex, in the same manner that hunger is biological which leads us to want to ingest food. But what we end up eating is as varied as human cultures are; what we are convinced is nourishing varies as well. And our gastronomical proclivities change over time too. In the United States, during the first part of the twentieth century, a healthy and nourishing diet was considered to be one which included plenty of meat and potatoes; only the poor ate beans and rice and greens. It has now flip-flopped almost completely, and the tony restaurants will serve rice and beans long before they will serve meat and potatoes (admittedly some obscure variety of bean and specially flavored rice) So while hunger itself, in its most basic state is biological, the means with which humans have acquired to sate it vary to a large extent.

Yet, when we crave some food, we feel it is biological. It seems that our body cries out for bagels, perhaps. But if we were Maori tribespeople, our stomach would surely cry out not for bagels, but cow's blood. In a like manner with sexuality. I know someone who believes he was born to have a sexual penchant for wearing lacy silky women's underwear. But, come on, how could that be biological? Would some random Maori have a sexual fetish for underwear from Victoria's Secret any more than he might have a hankering for a bagel with cream cheese and lox? Clearly, however early in youth this man perceived his sexual proclivity beginning, there is no gene that codes for Victoria's Secret.

But how can people's experience be denied? If a gay man says that he was born that way, how can I deny his experience? First, no one can deny someone's experience, but people's interpretation of their experience is what is truly in debate. And I think people's interpretations, even about their own experience, can be and have been wrong.

I think that using the biological explanation is a poor strategy for several reasons. First, it maintains the current social order (the way heterosexuality is socially constructed currently) as stable and only gives individual escape hatches to a small number of people. Calling it biology is a neat way of sidestepping any critique of patriarchy or gender relations by attributing rebellion against the current structure to biology rather than dissatisfaction. Secondly, it does not allow people to think very deeply about why they choose on thing or another and so helps maintain the status quo of heterosexual relations. If people could say, heterosexuality sucks, and that's why I'm gay, then we could begin to see more clearly that patriarchy sucks, that male-female gender relations suck, that marriage sucks, etc. Third, it inhibits agency among gay people. Rather than being responsible for and proud of our choices, it makes us seem we are helpless pawns reacting to our biology. Fourth, it keeps other who are dissatisfied with patriarchy or gender relations from making the choice to become gay. We ought to recruit--we don't have much of a movement if we restrict new members only to those "born" to be gay. And finally, it is an exceptionally inadequate defense against the religious rights assertions that we can change. We would do better to say of course we could change if we wanted to, but we don't want to, because it is better to be gay.

 

[kranky al]

How about you consider the reasoned arguments of lesbian feminist author Karla Mantilla in an article entitled 'Biology My Ass', extracts from which I'll give below.

Like i said - you find one exception to a rule and think it justifies throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Liberal : human beings have separate toes

Conservative: Lol humans have webbed feet - see heres 4 in 10000 people that have syndactyly - you lose

Everyone else : wtf?

 

[M Malice]

Are you sure? You are probably of the opinion that people are sexual automatons with no power of choice over their sexual behaviour. I disagree. I think it's definitely more of a choice than being born black. Many "gays" probably pander to society's prevailing view that they were "born that way" and "can't help it" but many others are more courageous and tell a much different story. They unashamedly and categorically affirm that for them it IS a choice.

Your post is just outright ridiculous, for the vast majority of the population sexual preference is not a choice, I am attracted to the opposite sex, the thought of sex with another man is an immense turn off to me, homosexuals have the same reaction to the thought of having sex with the opposite sex.

Bisexuals can have twice the fun though.

 

[Crankitup]

Like i said - you find one exception to a rule and think it justifies throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Liberal : human beings have separate toes

Conservative: Lol humans have webbed feet - see heres 4 in 10000 people that have syndactyly - you lose

Everyone else : wtf?

One exception? I have read hundreds of accounts similar to Mantilla.

 

[Crankitup]

Your post is just outright ridiculous, for the vast majority of the population sexual preference is not a choice, I am attracted to the opposite sex, the thought of sex with another man is an immense turn off to me, homosexuals have the same reaction to the thought of having sex with the opposite sex.

Bisexuals can have twice the fun though.

You're not getting it. It's the aberrant behaviour that involves a willful choice.

Sure there are some who feel obliged and constrained by society to say they "can't help it" because they were "born that way". Which sort of makes the whole "Gay Pride" parade scene nonsensical. I mean I can understand people making an informed willful choice and being proud but being born with a nature they 'can't help' doesn't seem to be something you would feel proud about. If you think there's nothing wrong with being gay why would the suggestion that some people have made a choice to be so, be so offensive to you? I think the stance of Karla Mantilla and others is a lot more noble.

It's a complex subject though, sexual arousal. I think that in much the same way as someone with a foot fetish or someone into S&M is aroused by those things not as a born natural instinct or urge but more as a chosen learned behavioural response, maybe the same could be said of aberrations like pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia amongst others.

 

[M Malice]

You're not getting it. It's the aberrant behaviour that involves a willful choice.

You're right I'm not getting it, what is the "aberrant behaviour" you speak of?

 

[kranky al]

One exception? I have read hundreds of accounts similar to Mantilla.

Theres thousands of people with syndactyly

Theres somewhere in the region of about 1/2 a billion gay people on earth.

Join the dots.

Btw your mum told you a million times - dont exaggerate.

 

[kranky al]

One exception? I have read hundreds of accounts similar to Mantilla.

Also the article you raised is written by a person without qualifications in the field - aside from her own experiences.

'Gay genes': science is on the right track, we're born this way. Let’s deal with it.

A recent article argued that sexuality is down to choice, not genetics. But the scientific evidence says otherwise, and points to a strong biological origin

www.theguardian.com

 

[raskolnikov]

You're not getting it. It's the aberrant behaviour that involves a willful choice.

Sure there are some who feel obliged and constrained by society to say they "can't help it" because they were "born that way". Which sort of makes the whole "Gay Pride" parade scene nonsensical. I mean I can understand people making an informed willful choice and being proud but being born with a nature they 'can't help' doesn't seem to be something you would feel proud about. If you think there's nothing wrong with being gay why would the suggestion that some people have made a choice to be so, be so offensive to you? I think the stance of Karla Mantilla and others is a lot more noble.

It's a complex subject though, sexual arousal. I think that in much the same way as someone with a foot fetish or someone into S&M is aroused by those things not as a born natural instinct or urge but more as a chosen learned behavioural response, maybe the same could be said of aberrations like pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia amongst others.

You're a complete fukwit mate.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Bisexuals can have twice the fun though.

Or, as Woody Allen said, twice the chance of being stood up on a Saturday night.

 

[Father Jack]

Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a choice is clearly bisexual.

 

[Sainteric]

I wonder who the bushfires will be after next Izzy? Idolaters, drunkards, maybe atheists are next in line.

I think he mentioned non believers already, in idolaters he got most of the other Christian s as well.