Israel Folau

SecretFly wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:The difference is that someone's sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. I can choose to get drunk, commit adultery, fornicate, steal, lie, etc.

You do not have a choice about your sexuality - if you are gay, straight or anything inbetween that's how and who you are.

"If God doesn't like gay people why does she make so many of them?"

Neither is someone's genetic construction a matter of choice.  Yet choice is the new heading on that too, isn't it.  I 'choose' to be female.  
You are free to choose to call yourself female, but if you are genetically male then I am not obligated to identify you as such.
"Oh yes you are!  It's legal!"

Oh so 'Legal' is the new Religion that preaches and commands conformity to a set of Belief Based ideals?

It's his Religion, Irish.  You say he shouldn't be allowed or given a platform to preach it.  I say that dangerously close or slap bang right on target mirroring the thoughts of Islamophobes.
I say he has the right as an individual born onto this Earth with no less meaning than you, to give a picture of the world from his perspective, no matter how offensive other groups might find it.  The equalising of that is in me saying you too should have the equal right to question, challenge and ridicule, if must be, his world view.

But when someone says to me that they choose to be the arbiters of what World view is presented to that World..... nope, that's when I draw a line, as we're entering the world where the ideal is authoritarianism...one world approved view.

Of course he has the right to say whatever he likes privately, however he's broken a contract with his employer and should face up to that. If he posted that all Jews were going to hell he'd be sacked without a peep from anyone (or given a job in the Labour Party ;-P ).
"You cannot serve God and Mammon", so he needs to decide when he posts these tweets which he wants to do. Without his profile as a rugby player he'd just be another religious fundamentalist spouting hate speech on Twitter.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:




Beliefs are obviously very personal things, but why are people that profess to be doing the work of God always shouting out about the fire and brimstone elements, what happened to the love of fellow man, forgiveness, acceptance of people as they are, that the bible and the Quran preach. Are they trying to create a new phobia as they seem to be trying to spread fear of what will happen if you behave as you were made by the very God they believe will send you to hell. Can they not see the irony of it?

Your own post contradicts you though.  You mention a Muslim that 'understands' that these Relious texts were written thousands of years ago.  Now he's still a practicing Muslim...but also, he's not one of the people you mentioned in that final paragraph.
So, the answer to your question is Not All people that profess to be doing the work of God are always shouting out about the fire and brimstone elements.  That's the generalisation of religion that is virtually the only time it enters today's popular media circus.  The BAD that Religion does.  The Intolerance.  The Divisiveness.

If that's the only portrayal of Religion that gets airtime, then that's virtually the only concept of religion that will exist in the minds of those young enough not to have lived long enough to know that's not a fully accurate portrayal.
Religion was at the forefront of science advancement and in the 'General' education of the masses down through history.  It was at the front end of conquest and colonialism ( both as established religion AND as pagan belief systems [also Religions for those who criticise 'religion' and champion a move back to 'pagan' ideals]) but also left to do much of the groundwork of humanitarianism in extremely poor parts of the world deserted by the Kings, Queens, Emperors, Presidents and Prime Ministers of secular colonial governance.
Today too, in the midst of grim parts of the world, where everything goes, it's not only secular charities that do all the 'good' things in the world.  There are still Religious people who do the quiet and heartfelt work of trying to help the needy without any warnings that the needy brought their own misfortune on themselves.

But that's not sexy news...it's boring news and it doesn't fit in with the approved message that Religious beliefs ruined the world.  No, religious beliefs of all kinds civilised the world, grew cities, allowed man to seek the abstract and spiritual in his consciousness, which of course allowed the brain to grow and develop the skills of abstract thought in the sciences.
No, what ruined the world, if we think it ruined, was man himself...his greed, his lust for territory, to spread his seed at the expense of others.  The impulse of evolution ruined the world.... of which religion is but a small but intrinsically important part.  There was no evolution of man without religion.

tigertattie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:BTW:

With all this 'Phobia' related media content on the airwaves in the last ten or so years - I think it's important that all commentators should know the definition of the word as I do believe the definition of it has been hijacked by the political wings of all 'ISMS' and 'ISTS'.

The meaning of the word is Fear - not hate.
If I have Arachnophobia I fear spiders...I don't hate them.
If I have Agoraphobia then I fear physical spaces that make me uncomfortable.

Should people who run out of a room that they see a spider in lose their job?

But at least it's now clear that I don't have Drunkophobia after all, thank God.  I don't fear belligerent drunks.  I just hate them

Now there is a debate we can all get behind.

You are an arachnaphobic Agrophobe. You live in a ground floor one room studio flat (nice and cosy), but then you see a spider.

Do you stay inside with the spider or run outside away from it!!!

It's very simple.

You get onto a Right Wing radio chat show pronto and blame the black, homosexual Muslim woman owner for renting the flat to you in the first place.  You set up a Go Fund Me page for the PTS.  You write a best seller.  You tunnel yourself out of the flat so that you can fly first class to go on the Ellen show and dance your butt off whilst complaining that the white, heterosexual Mid-western KKK female flat owner denied you the ability to attend The World is Ending-Stop the Planes! march in London, that you were going to fly in to London to attend straight from your backpacker hippy low carbon footprint holiday home in Indonesia.

But what about the spider?

tigertattie wrote:But what about the spider?

Do Spiders vote?

F**k him. Deport him to Cambodia for evading tax on six of his eight legs.

Does idolatry include having a massive following on social media...methinks Israel will be warming his toes on Hades fire for some time...oh well if it gets chilly the gays can keep him toasty until Satan throws another #### on the fire

Hmmmm.... seems to me you got too much detail on how Hades works, Pie. Sounds like you've already bought your Penthouse down there.
Ravishing nightlife planned I'll bet.

The more I reflect on Folau the more I want him reinstated back into this game of inclusion, brother and sisterhood, engagement, etc etc.

Then he can learn that even this sport is greater than his archaic anachronistic fundamentalist interpretation of the Christian religion and he can shut his cake hole.

Israel Folau "I am sorry I didn't know I wasn't allowed an opinion".

Pie "Of course you are allowed an opinion - just as long as it agrees with mine".

Sharkey06 wrote:Israel Folau "I am sorry I didn't know I wasn't allowed an opinion".

Pie "Of course you are allowed an opinion - just as long as it agrees with mine".

My opinion of you is unprintable

As in Lady Chatterley's Lover unprintable, or...?

Oh that deep, deep book that wot does intellectualise porn? "Now where's them petticoats, luv, until I gets me to the deepest meanings of this here novel."

Never read it.

So guilty but awaiting his punishment.

Israel Folau found guilty of breaching Rugby Australia's code of conduct - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48184011

This whole saga has been rather blown out of proportion for me.

Folau obviously wrote some things that have drawn the attention of the social media police but I still fail to see what he wrote about his interpretation of what God thinks as being grounds for dismissal.


Every day and in every way, each one of us will be guilty of saying something or posting something on social media that will offend others. I just choose to read/respond to things I wont to and ignore what I do not like. The world needs a good shake up...

It's a picture of today's society.

Far too many people take it upon themselves to outraged by the slightest thing on behalf of others. I am all for people airing their beliefs, as long as they do not try and force anything on me.

I take massive offence when I get a vegan telling me how wrong I am to eat meat whilst they have a watch with a leather strap, or a pair of leather shoes.

I take massive offence when people who chose to be gender neutral tell me wrong I am for not taking them seriously or considering their needs.

I take massive offence when when I see people vandalising and causing harm in the name of extinction and climate control.

I take massive offense when somebody is preaching hate in the name of religion.

we all have our beliefs, and there is a way to "advertise" your beliefs, but we must remember that your belief is not a fight to make others believe the same as you.

I respect vegans, I respect what they are about, I respect gender neutrals and what they believe, I respect people who stand up in the face of extinction and climate control, and I respect all other religions that are different to mine.

I do not think Israel Folau has done anything wrong, I think he is being subjugated by the mass hysteria in society today that take offence with anything they see as unorthodox.

If he is sacked, then I hope it is for breaching his contract with his employers, and not because the world wants justice.

I am of a religious background, but I would never dream of trying to force my beliefs on anybody, as I think it would offend people, and that is all Israel Folau is guilty of, trying to force his beliefs on others.

I do not see how he tried to force his beliefs on people. I read it as this is what Folau interoperated what I feel God will do.


I guess we all interpolate things differently.

Folau has been found guilty of breaching the Code of Conduct written into his contract. 

Without seeing his contract or the ARU's disciplinary process, or indeed if last years breach is taken into account, it is impossible to tell if this is a sackable offence.

By all accounts it was explained very clearly when he signed and extremely lucrative contract what the Code of Conduct required. If he disagreed with it he should have objected at the time. However he wanted the money. Then proceeding to do exactly what he had been told not too either makes him very stupid and out of a job with no compensation or very clever and very rich. We shall see.

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25

I assume that the code of conduct would have had a process by which he would have to receive multiple written warnings before they can actually sack him.

Collapse2005 wrote:I assume that the code of conduct would have had a process by which he would have to receive multiple written warnings before they can actually sack him.

Not necessarily, you can go straight to gross misconduct in the right circumstances.

BigGee wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I assume that the code of conduct would have had a process by which he would have to receive multiple written warnings before they can actually sack him.

Not necessarily, you can go straight to gross misconduct in the right circumstances.

Reading the reports I didn't get the sense that's what we were dealing with here though?

LondonTiger wrote:Folau has been found guilty of breaching the Code of Conduct written into his contract. 

Without seeing his contract or the ARU's disciplinary process, or indeed if last years breach is taken into account, it is impossible to tell if this is a sackable offence.

By all accounts it was explained very clearly when he signed and extremely lucrative contract what the Code of Conduct required. If he disagreed with it he should have objected at the time. However he wanted the money. Then proceeding to do exactly what he had been told not too either makes him very stupid and out of a job with no compensation or very clever and very rich. We shall see.

Matthew 19:24
Mark 10:25

I think he was a Mormon when he signed the contract? Which is curious given that they can have multiple wives.

He may not get the sack, he has been found guilty but we don't know what the sanction will be yet.

The fact that they are taking so long to come up with it suggests it is not black and white and they want to get it watertight against a likely appeal.

Where would it leave RA if he is not dismissed, would they pick him again after all that they have said or leave him on the side-lines counting his money. You would imagine that would not be a very attractive option for both parties.

It's said up there that Folau is guilty of trying to force his beliefs on others.  Let's go with that.  Let's say the word 'guilt' can be used when describing what Folau engaged in.  So it's fundamentally wrong to force your belief on others in the way that Folau chose to do so.  If we are being honest in that opinion and fair in the interpretation then there will be no variance in our attitude to offenders.

We're right back to Lord's points.  Folau wrote some tweets.  He engaged in social media 'publication'.  He chose a modern way to communicate his thoughts to the world.  He has his beliefs.  It's interpreted as 'force'.

So....in virtually All net social media encounters where the topic of religion is discussed, either as an exclusive topic or one that comes in to broader discussions of music or films or indeed sport etc. .....;  in virtually all those kinds of discussions that I've observed or contributed to (and I've been there from the beginning when the net was just flickering to life back in the Stone Age 20th century) there is always the die hard aetheists who turn up to add their opinions.  

Now I don't mind their pontificating but that's what their opinions are - their version of their truth, their words typed onto a page that pushes their 'beliefs' - and in those more heated debates, those non-belief believers aren't too shy of loading their beliefs with ridicule and insult and yes, at times downright 'hatred' of those that profess to have religious belief.  

Are all the 'devout' aetheists of the world who write about their beliefs (which necessarily includes a dismissive attitude to religion) both in social media platforms and more formally on radio, TV and in book form, are they not as guilty as Folau?  If I were to accept that Folau is 'guilty' then yep, I'd also easily drop vocal aetheists in with him to share the guilt.  And if they are as guilty as he of trying to 'force' their beliefs on others then will their places of work bring them to account?  For example, will that famous vocal aetheist, Richard Dawkins be brought to heel by his academic profession for avidly chasing down religious belief with the fervour of a Lion hunting a gazelle?  Is he not actively trying to displace religious belief with his own version of truth/belief?  Is he not actively abusing the beliefs of religious people when he continually writes his tut tut put-down missives?

Same for all the other catagories mentioned above by Lord.  Should active and vocal proponents of modern gender politics, whichever version they champion, get away without sanction for writing to 'force' their beliefs on me.  Indeed, many of the new 'religions' - be they gender identity ones or climate change ones, or anti meat ones - they not only want to be free to do the same as Folau (using social media to promote their beliefs) they actively want a world where LEGALLY everyone would be Compelled/Forced to comply with their world view or face sanction of losing a career or even going to jail.

Did Folau appeal for or demand that the Australian government back up his belief systems with hard law and oppressive taxes so that 'Deniers' be punished in the courts?  So which 'religions' are forcing their political agendas down legal routes and wanting Punishment for deniers here and now in this world - not even waiting for Heaven to intervene?

Btw...the Aussie Union are being hypocrites too....or trying to be if they get away with it.  What they want is public admonishment to satisfy the screaming mob...but also they know they are foot shooting themselves in the lead in to a WC by sacking Folau.

Money money everywhere in the decision making of these pretend moralists.  The talk/discussions were really negotiations to try to concoct the best financial outcome for themselves, and they need Folau to be on board on the decision to hang him so that he can come straight back in, head bowed submissively, willing to put things to right by owning up to his Sin and then helping his Nation lift a WC.
That's what's going on behind the scenes in my eyes - trying to find a publically acceptable route back in for Folau...but not to save Folau's moral soul - nope.  Just for them - just to put their WC hopes back on track..... mammon the beautiful.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I am of a religious background, but I would never dream of trying to force my beliefs on anybody, as I think it would offend people, and that is all Israel Folau is guilty of, trying to force his beliefs on others.

No he isn't, he is offering people a route to salvation. Nobody on here knows if he is right or wrong. We can believe whether he is right or wrong, but nobody knows the truth.

As long as you stick to your beliefs, you should find satisfaction when you reflect on what you believe in.

You will have to explain to me where you have interpreted in Folau's message, where he is telling everybody he is right, and that everybody must believe the same as him. But at least you have now put all the hate agenda's on this topic behind you.

Israel Folau loses Asics sponsorship deal after breaching code of conduct - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48198396

Well he's being hit the pocket already.

Apologies billy. I've carelessly left out the appropriate quotation marks. Should have been:

'I am of a religious background, but I would never dream of trying to force my beliefs on anybody, as I think it would offend people, and that is all Israel Folau is guilty of, trying to force his beliefs on others.'

Brilliant comment that LD. Let no one say you ever take up a contradictory position purely because it appears someone is stating something.

Folau thinks he’s bigger than John Lennon

ebop wrote:Folau thinks he’s bigger than John Lennon

Very good Ebop.

ebop wrote:Folau thinks he’s bigger than John Lennon

He is, at 6'4 and 16 stone he's considerably bigger. John Lennon weighs nothing.

This is all very irreverent but bones do have weight. So come on, be upstanding. Let's keep the thread up to date on scientific fact here. Let not it degenate into airy fairy figure-of-speech gobbledygook stuff.

SecretFly wrote:This is all very irreverent but bones do have weight.  So come on, be upstanding.  Let's keep the thread up to date on scientific fact here.  Let not it degenate into airy fairy figure-of-speech gobbledygook stuff.

It's well known than John Lennon had no skeletal system at all and was actually more akin to a terrestrial jellyfish. In every picture you see of him he's being either supported by friends and colleagues or a rudimentary wooden frame.

...or lying in bed!

You're right. You're on to something. He wasn't a god at all. He was an amoeba.

SecretFly wrote:...or lying in bed!

You're right.  You're on to something.  He wasn't a god at all.  He was an amoeba.

Yes the famous "lie in" was just because Yoko has sprained a wrist whilst painting in a vigorous manner and couldn't carry his glutenous mass very far.

LordDowlais wrote:It's a picture of today's society.

Far too many people take it upon themselves to outraged by the slightest thing on behalf of others. I am all for people airing their beliefs, as long as they do not try and force anything on me.

I take massive offence when I get a vegan telling me how wrong I am to eat meat whilst they have a watch with a leather strap, or a pair of leather shoes.

I take massive offence when people who chose to be gender neutral tell me wrong I am for not taking them seriously or considering their needs.

I take massive offence when when I see people vandalising and causing harm in the name of extinction and climate control.

I take massive offense when somebody is preaching hate in the name of religion.

we all have our beliefs, and there is a way to "advertise" your beliefs, but we must remember that your belief is not a fight to make others believe the same as you.

I respect vegans, I respect what they are about, I respect gender neutrals and what they believe, I respect people who stand up in the face of extinction and climate control, and I respect all other religions that are different to mine.

I do not think Israel Folau has done anything wrong, I think he is being subjugated by the mass hysteria in society today that take offence with anything they see as unorthodox.

If he is sacked, then I hope it is for breaching his contract with his employers, and not because the world wants justice.

Yea agree, for me it’s been a learning curve in terms of what’s acceptable these days in society.
Maturity and tolerance all round is for me what’s lacking the most. On both or it seems all sides of the argument. For one if they think sacking him and thinking that’ll be the end of the issue they’d be dreaming.
Quite clearly, it’s not as simple as teaching the usual party drunk player a lesson.

God loves a sinner come to redemption

Taylorman wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:It's a picture of today's society.

Far too many people take it upon themselves to outraged by the slightest thing on behalf of others. I am all for people airing their beliefs, as long as they do not try and force anything on me.

I take massive offence when I get a vegan telling me how wrong I am to eat meat whilst they have a watch with a leather strap, or a pair of leather shoes.

I take massive offence when people who chose to be gender neutral tell me wrong I am for not taking them seriously or considering their needs.

I take massive offence when when I see people vandalising and causing harm in the name of extinction and climate control.

I take massive offense when somebody is preaching hate in the name of religion.

we all have our beliefs, and there is a way to "advertise" your beliefs, but we must remember that your belief is not a fight to make others believe the same as you.

I respect vegans, I respect what they are about, I respect gender neutrals and what they believe, I respect people who stand up in the face of extinction and climate control, and I respect all other religions that are different to mine.

I do not think Israel Folau has done anything wrong, I think he is being subjugated by the mass hysteria in society today that take offence with anything they see as unorthodox.

If he is sacked, then I hope it is for breaching his contract with his employers, and not because the world wants justice.

Yea agree, for me it’s been a learning curve in terms of what’s acceptable these days in society.
Maturity and tolerance all round is for me what’s lacking the most. On both or it seems all sides of the argument. For one if they think sacking him and thinking that’ll be the end of the issue they’d be dreaming.
Quite clearly, it’s not as simple as teaching the usual party drunk player a lesson.

Thanks for once again confirming the need for maturity pie, you never disappoint

Anyone who thinks intolerance in society is something new, has forgotten even recent history.

It wasn't so long ago people could be abused, and discriminated against, for being born out of wedlock, getting divorced, even having long hair (men), or wearing trousers (women). I'd add being a woman, gay or coloured to that but discrimation against those three groups hasn't gone away.

Mary Whitehouse used to complain whenever Christian values weren't upheld on television. She protested critical coverage of the Vietnam War because she argued it promoted pacificism She got threats to society like Alice Cooper's "School's Out" banned from TV, and tried to do the same to Chuck Berry's "My Ding-a-Ling".

When John Taylor to play a Baa-Baas match against South Africa, in opposition to apartheid, he was called a communist, and pointedly ignored for selection in the future.

Much of the intolerance, abuse and discrimination of old was so widespread and normal, we barely noticed it at the time. It had virtually no consequences. What has happened over the years is that holding these attitudes now often does carry social consequences. The pushback against intolerance is not a pernicious new form of intolerance.

Seems to presume that there is only one direction on intolerance though - and this is the complication and sticking point.

So the present.  
Now you can be discriminated against for expressing your religious beliefs.  
Now you can be discriminated against for being a Trump 'right-wing' Nation before Globalism supporter (Facebook and Twitter banning)
Now you can still be discriminated against for turning up in torn jeans to a 'dress-code' event.  
Now (and in the past) you can be discriminated against for having an alternate view on specific sciences, methodologies and conclusions (popular biologist David Bellamy lost his career when he ridiculed the new shiny Global Warming model).
Now you still get discriminated against if you're a woman - even in territory that's meant to be a sanctuary (Hollywood). You still have female stars paraded like meat at awards ceremonies, with their expensive 'dresses' shimmering like birds of paradise as they are forced to pause and pose to satisfy the lust of the media, their agents and their producer bosses.  [The men still get to do it their way.  If they feel like posing, they'll pause - if they don't, they'll just grunt their way in or go round the back entrance]
Women are still discriminated against in Women's magazines...by their own sex, over and over again.  "Women want this in bed not that" "Which bitch hasn't had cosmetic surgery yet and why?"
Now you get criticised for telling 'edgy' jokes ( edgy being always the periphery of PC acceptable)...yet still ultra safe PC comedians get to be described as 'edgy' to sustain the illusion that they are  outsiders and rebels.
In Mary Whitehouse's time there was lashings of nudity and suggestiveness on TV and in the movies - now it and much worse has been shifted to the net to allow the illusion that somehow we have a much more controlled 'diverse' and 'respectable' world.
In Mary Whitehouse's time we had public events where mostly anyone that wanted to attend got to attend (safely), either by paying or by having a kindly security man raise the barbed wire to let you in (   ). Now every event is strictly curtailed by the No-Fun police and prohibitive Insurance costs. In many events you can't even turn lights off for ambience lest some idiot chooses to fall in the darkness and collect their 3million quid for the sprained ankle and PTS!
We think we live in a more tolerant world now, or some of us do.  But it's only an illusion.  Those who were perhaps once suppressed or oppressed now have many tools available to them to have turned the tide.  Now they oppress, in their own way but no less directed by hate, misunderstanding and bitterness.
It's just us.  Survival of the fittest.  It's still the battle.  For now, the PC brigade are winning but the tide will of course turn again.  It's inevitable - it's fate.

SecretFly wrote:...Now you can be discriminated against for expressing your religious beliefs...

That's hardly "Now" though, Fly. Religious persecution has existed as long as religion itself. Even smaller Christian denominations have been regularlly attacked or undermined.  Arthur Conan Doyle famously wrote a vitriolic account of Mormonism, while doctors in the UK are legally allowed to ignore Jehovah's Witnesses' requests for no blood transfusions. Christian Scientists have faced prosecution over their religious aversion to doctors.

Folau is facing nothing of the sort. He is expressing his religious beliefs and having them thoroughly interrogated. Sometimes roughly, especially by those he says are going to hell, sometimes not. He's facing no more discrimination than I would if I was a primary school teacher and started to use my social media account to show me binge drinking every night.

I do find it interesting that you rarely, if ever, find a someone who didn't have a problem with homosexuality, but then found God, and changed to believing it was a sin. It's amost always the case that personal discomfort or disgust precedes the religious justification.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...Now you can be discriminated against for expressing your religious beliefs...

That's hardly "Now" though, Fly. Religious persecution has existed as long as religion itself. Even smaller Christian denominations have been regularlly attacked or undermined.  Arthur Conan Doyle famously wrote a vitriolic account of Mormonism, while doctors in the UK are legally allowed to ignore Jehovah's Witnesses' requests for no blood transfusions. Christian Scientists have faced prosecution over their religious aversion to doctors.

Folau is facing nothing of the sort. He is expressing his religious beliefs and having them thoroughly interrogated. Sometimes roughly, especially by those he says are going to hell, sometimes not. He's facing no more discrimination than I would if I was a primary school teacher and started to use my social media account to show me binge drinking every night.

I do find it interesting that you rarely, if ever, find a someone who didn't have a problem with homosexuality, but then found God, and changed to believing it was a sin. It's amost always the case that personal discomfort or disgust precedes the religious justification.

It's discrimination.  ,
'Do not profess your belief system in public.'
That's discrimination.  

And to compare binge drinking so casually to religious convictions is a bit like comparing binge drinking to advocacy of homosexuality.  Do homosexuals still get scrutinised in the West for impure thoughts and urges by voyeur bosses checking up their social media accounts?  
Binge homosexuality!  Binge Christianity!  - well, it's a new way of looking at the debate for sure

SecretFly wrote:...Do homosexuals still get scrutinised in the West for impure thoughts

I believe I addressed that point earlier in this thread, Fly.

https://www.606v2.com/t68657p150-israel-folau#3798792

If you think coming out as gay is not regarded as a professional penalty in some walks of life, then you are kidding yourself. I mentioned in that earlier post that anti-miscegenation laws were still on the books in parts of the US until 1967, and that happens to be the same year the UK decriminalised homosexuality. Changing the law didn't flick a switch and change public opinion in either case, however. I'm ashamed to say I used homphobic slurs when I was younger without a second thought, and no-one ever took to me task for it. If being gay had instantly been accepted, then the US Military wouldn't have had Dont Ask Don't Tell laws on the books until 2011.

There are openly gay people who have achieved success in their chosen fields, but considerably more who fear personal or professional embarrassment for coming out even today.

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...Do homosexuals still get scrutinised in the West for impure thoughts

I believe I addressed that point earlier in this thread, Fly.

https://www.606v2.com/t68657p150-israel-folau#3798792

If you think coming out as gay is not regarded as a professional penalty in some walks of life, then you are kidding yourself. I mentioned in that earlier post that anti-miscegenation laws were still on the books in parts of the US until 1967, and that happens to be the same year the UK decriminalised homosexuality. Changing the law didn't flick a switch and change public opinion in either case, however. I'm ashamed to say I used homphobic slurs when I was younger without a second thought, and no-one ever took to me task for it. If being gay had instantly been accepted, then the US Military wouldn't have had Dont Ask Don't Tell laws on the books until 2011.

There are openly gay people who have achieved success in their chosen fields, but considerably more who fear personal or professional embarrassment for coming out even today.

Most people if they were being honest probably would haver to admit to this too.

It seems to be kind of trendy to be gay now though. There are even a number of straight men out there that pretend to be gay for some reason like David Walliams.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...Do homosexuals still get scrutinised in the West for impure thoughts

I believe I addressed that point earlier in this thread, Fly.

https://www.606v2.com/t68657p150-israel-folau#3798792

If you think coming out as gay is not regarded as a professional penalty in some walks of life, then you are kidding yourself. I mentioned in that earlier post that anti-miscegenation laws were still on the books in parts of the US until 1967, and that happens to be the same year the UK decriminalised homosexuality. Changing the law didn't flick a switch and change public opinion in either case, however. I'm ashamed to say I used homphobic slurs when I was younger without a second thought, and no-one ever took to me task for it. If being gay had instantly been accepted, then the US Military wouldn't have had Dont Ask Don't Tell laws on the books until 2011.

There are openly gay people who have achieved success in their chosen fields, but considerably more who fear personal or professional embarrassment for coming out even today.

Most people if they were being honest probably would haver to admit to this too.

It seems to be kind of trendy to be gay now though. There are even a number of straight men out there that pretend to be gay for some reason like David Walliams.

He annoys me. He comes across all camp and interested in men when he isnt. I take that as either

A) he's pushing that persona to be an entertainment "luvvie" and he feels he'll get on in the world of Tele further with this perception.

or

B) He's taking the michael out of the homsexual sterotype of being all "look at me" and sashaying around the room.

To me, "camping up" is no different to that of the now socially unacceptable stylings of the golliwog

I think people should be worried about his stat of mind.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48251832

TightHEAD wrote:I think people should be worried about his stat of mind.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48251832

In his mind he is right.

He believes what he said is Gods work, so would naturally think that the opposite is Satan's work.

This is a non story. Some might call it fake news.

LordDowlais wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I think people should be worried about his stat of mind.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48251832

In his mind he is right.

He believes what he said is Gods work, so would naturally think that the opposite is Satan's work.

This is a non story. Some might call it fake news.

It may be a nothing much story but surely a long way from fake news? Unless they have made up the quotes, it is what Folau said and as a continuation of an ongoing story that may bankrupt the ARU is most definitely news.

Well Folou is seeing it through properly anyway. There's surely no way back for him.