nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not will be. Are being.

There's the unexpected consequences of following the mood of the times.

Ok...
And in what way are they being raised like battery chickens?

In some kind of pods in the centre of the earth with the lizard people/gays?

Or do you mean in a more metaphorical factory farm with is likewise far fetched and unsupportable?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

You're welcome to explain how I " only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed" because I have never said any such thing.

You are saying its not OK to say gays will go to hell, and also that the guy should be fired.
I'm saying its not OK in a commercial sense, because its bad for business.
But in a social media sense, it is OK to hold and express that religious belief (which was in fact the normal mainstream religious belief in western society up until recently).

King Mob wrote: »

So, pretty much exactly the same level as the illuminati and lizard people then...

King Mob wrote: »

the illuminati or lizard people from the centre of the Earth are soon to take over the world..

King Mob wrote: »

the Illuminati or the Lizard people.
What do you think it is? Who do you think is running it and why? To what end?

Why this obsession with lizards and lighting?

The herpetology forum is that way >

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

You are saying its not OK to say gays will go to hell, and also that the guy should be fired.
I'm saying its not OK in a commercial sense, because its bad for business.
But in a social media sense, it is OK to hold and express that religious belief (which was in fact the normal mainstream religious belief in western society up until recently).

Why this obsession with lizards and lighting?

The herpetology forum is that way >

Most people generally view such people as homophobic dicks tbh. It's generally not a view that's approved of.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

You are saying its not OK to say gays will go to hell, and also that the guy should be fired.

But where did I say he should be fired?
Or that I opposed free speech for that matter?

recedite wrote: »

I'm saying its not OK in a commercial sense, because its bad for business.
But in a social media sense, it is OK to hold and express that religious belief (which was in fact the normal mainstream religious belief in western society up until recently).

Sure. And people by the same token get to point out that belief is wrong and kind of horrible.

recedite wrote: »

Why this obsession with lizards and lighting?

The herpetology forum is that way >

I'm drawing the parallel between the idea of a "LGBT agenda" and the equally silly notion of conspiracy theories like the illuminati and lizard people.
I'm not seeing much of a difference between them, especially given antiskeptics claims above.
Thought that was clear...

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

Most people generally view such people as homophobic dicks tbh. It's generally not a view that's approved of.

Maybe its not approved of, but the question is whether he should be allowed to express his view, or even to think it.

King Mob wrote: »

But where did I say he should be fired?

I must have misunderstood you. No argument so.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm drawing the parallel between the idea of a "LGBT agenda" and the equally silly notion of conspiracy theories like the illuminati and lizard people.
I'm not seeing much of a difference between them, especially given antiskeptics claims above.
Thought that was clear...

Thanks for explaining. I had no idea what you were on about.
BTW, can you point me in the direction of the lizard marriage campaign, or the encouragement of schoolchildren to identify as illuminati in schools?

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question isn't whether it's a matter of choice. The question is whether a gay lifestyle / being born black or white is sinful or not.

Well the answers no for most normal people in both cases.

Going by some of the posters on boards it's possible to be gay and racist, and to be the opposite, racist but be pro gay rights. For some it's also possible just to out right dislike everyone who isn't like them.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Thanks for explaining. I had no idea what you were on about.
BTW, can you point me in the direction of the lizard marriage campaign, or the encouragement of schoolchildren to identify as illuminati in schools?

Well no. Cause such things dont exist.
Can you point to the leaders of this sinister agenda?
Can you point to any solid supported evidenced ill effects of this nefarious conspiracy?
Can you point to a final dispicible goal of this cabal?

If not, then its in the samr pile with the ramblings of Alex Jones and David Icke.
And as such people shouldnt be surprised when their claims of a LGBT agenda is met with the same uncomfortable looks towards an exit when someone brings up the masons.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Well no. Cause such things dont exist.

Not for lizards or illuminati, but they do exist for LGBT. Therefore there is an LGBT agenda but there is no lizard agenda.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Not for lizards or illuminati, but they do exist for LGBT. Therefore there is an LGBT agenda but there is no lizard agenda.

My Fabulous Gay Agenda

1. Watch Games of Thrones.
2. Watch it again in case I missed something the first time.
3. Be faaaabulous.
4. Feed the lizards.
5. Don't have any lizards. Check on-line where to buy lizards.
6. Feck that. Get lizard tattoo because tattoos are faaaabulos.
7. Coffee!!!

magicbastarder

have we reached 'have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?' nonsense yet?

SoundsRight

I'm pleased that he isn't backing down. A man has the right to express his beliefs. If some people get upset over it, that's on them. Would we really want to live in a world where people are constantly worried about upsetting someone's feelings?

Tell me how

SoundsRight wrote: »

I'm pleased that he isn't backing down. A man has the right to express his beliefs. If some people get upset over it, that's on them. Would we really want to live in a world where people are constantly worried about upsetting someone's feelings?

But where do you draw the line?
Do you think that someone should be entitled to express the belief that blacks are an inferior race?

If you sign up to the code of practice of an organisation, you have to abide by that practice.

SoundsRight

Tell me how wrote: »

But where do you draw the line?
Do you think that someone should be entitled to express the belief that blacks are an inferior race?

If you sign up to the code of practice of an organisation, you have to abide by that practice.

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

Ave Sodalis

It should be noted that Australia doesn't have protection for Freedom of Speech, outside of political communication.

Sean.3516

As someone who holds the belief that homosexuality is sinful, I have absolutely no problem with people engaging in any activity that has no extranalities for other people who aren’t voluntarily involved in that activity.

When people say religious ppl hate gays, that’s rubbish. Religious ppl have their own lives and just because they’ve signed onto certain standards for their own behaviour doesn’t mean we hate everyone who doesn’t believe in our standards.

The Trans issue is way way different though. These people who have a genuine problem that I sympathise with believe that gender and sex are disconnected and that their gender is whatever they wish to choose to identify with. This is pure fantasy and has no basis in reality, yet they’re entitled to believe this if they want.

What makes the T different from the LGB is that the LGB folks are attempting to use the law to ensure me and other ppl must capitulate to their beliefs by using female pronouns on biological men even though we disagree that they are women.

Is this not tyrannical and fascistic?

Tell me how

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

What year do you think it is?

Sean.3516

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

I disagree. Free speech since the inception of the concept has merely meant that the government will pass no law that abridges the right of the individual to express what’s on their mind at any given time. In other words the govt can’t limit speech, however private instituions have every right to ensure that their participants adhere to certain behaviour and this includes speech regualtions.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Not for lizards or illuminati, but they do exist for LGBT. Therefore there is an LGBT agenda but there is no lizard agenda.

Cool.
So again, who is behind this sinister agenda? Who is controlling it?
What is their goal in forwarding their agenda?
If you can't answer these questions, in what way does this gay agenda exist?

What ill effects will this agenda have?
If you can't point to any (or ones that you can support with actual evidence) why should we be concerned about it?

Is there a "black agenda"?
Is there a "straight agenda"?

bilbot79

Sean.3516 wrote: »

As someone who holds the belief that homosexuality is sinful, I have absolutely no problem with people engaging in any activity that has no extranalities for other people who aren’t voluntarily involved in that activity.

When people say religious ppl hate gays, that’s rubbish. Religious ppl have their own lives and just because they’ve signed onto certain standards for their own behaviour doesn’t mean we hate everyone who doesn’t believe in our standards.

The Trans issue is way way different though. These people who have a genuine problem that I sympathise with believe that gender and sex are disconnected and that their gender is whatever they wish to choose to identify with. This is pure fantasy and has no basis in reality, yet they’re entitled to believe this if they want.

What makes the T different from the LGB is that the LGB folks are attempting to use the law to ensure me and other ppl must capitulate to their beliefs by using female pronouns on biological men even though we disagree that they are women.

Is this not tyrannical and fascistic?

Pathetic to think homosexuality is sinful. What scant character a person must have, when they need to outsource their moral values to a religion.

Guy:Incognito

screamer wrote: »

There’s a lot more people on his list there that will burn in hell.... they’re not making a big deal of it though. Perspective is lost on some people and I’m very tired of the outrage brigade at this stage. Sticks n stones and all that......

Maybe we could add "people that dont read the thread" to the hell list.

Along with "people who think being gay is the same as being a thief, a liar, an alcoholic etc"

Guy:Incognito

I just wrote my own book . It's all up to date and caters to the realities of the world of today. It says that people who believe made up stories, are sinners. Theres no consequence for this, cos I just made up the contents of the book, so anyone that thinks my work of fiction could affect their lives, or even more bizarrely, their post life years, is delusional .

Youre a double sinner if you not only believe the made up stories, but live your life letting them put restrictions on your life. But again, that just means you wont be affected, twice.

smacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm outraged. I'm an atheist and I'm not going to hell.

I dunno though, why is this peak LGBT nonsense?

It isn't. It is and attempt to pass off depressingly common homophobia, bigotry, dubious Victorian morality and religious zeal as acceptable in today's society. I think it is proper order that he was fired and excluded from playing from the national team. Sports today are about inclusivity where players on a national team serve as role models for what others might aspire to. Expressions of bigotry and discrimination, while deeply reprehensible at a personal level, are genuinely damaging in this context and have no place.

Alan Quinlan's interview on the subject sums it up pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHlUdgAput4

SoundsRight

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I disagree. Free speech since the inception of the concept has merely meant that the government will pass no law that abridges the right of the individual to express what’s on their mind at any given time. In other words the govt can’t limit speech, however private instituions have every right to ensure that their participants adhere to certain behaviour and this includes speech regualtions.

He's an employee, not a slave. His bosses can't tell him to suppress his religious beliefs in his own free time. It would be like telling a gay person to hide their homosexuality.

sydthebeat

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

Well you are INCREDIBLY wrong then

LeinsterDub

SoundsRight wrote: »

He's an employee, not a slave. His bosses can't tell him to suppress his religious beliefs in his own free time. It would be like telling a gay person to hide their homosexuality.

Can his bosses tell him not to take performance enhancing drugs in his own free time?

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

He's an employee, not a slave. His bosses can't tell him to suppress his religious beliefs in his own free time. It would be like telling a gay person to hide their homosexuality.

Employees follow a code of conduct. Eg if my company ended up heavily associated with such views as a result of me. I could get fired. With sporting figures, expressing such views automatically associates it with the team. Which is a breach of their contract.

[Deleted User]

SoundsRight wrote: »

He's an employee, not a slave. His bosses can't tell him to suppress his religious beliefs in his own free time. It would be like telling a gay person to hide their homosexuality.

YES THEY CAN. And he's not a slave, as a slave would have to stay with them and not get paid. He can go off and go work for some other company who don't have such hangups regulations.

Russia or Georgia or some of those countries would probably sign him. Or perhaps South Africa.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I disagree. Free speech since the inception of the concept has merely meant that the government will pass no law that abridges the right of the individual to express what’s on their mind at any given time. In other words the govt can’t limit speech, however private instituions have every right to ensure that their participants adhere to certain behaviour and this includes speech regualtions.

That’s actually a limited version of free speech based on the US model. Unions actually campaigned for the rights of workers to free speech within corporations. The American protections are pretty weak, to be honest.

magicbastarder

SoundsRight wrote: »

He's an employee, not a slave. His bosses can't tell him to suppress his religious beliefs in his own free time. It would be like telling a gay person to hide their homosexuality.

they are not telling him to suppress his beliefs. you're mixing up the right to a belief and a right to free speech, and muddying it with employment law.

if i was publically pronouncing that some of my colleagues in work were sinners and would burn in hell, they would have a very good case for having me removed from my job.
let the chap spout off about how he thinks others are sinful; he can do that if it makes him feel warm inside. but the notion that he should be allowed do so without any care as to whether he remains employed is naive in the extreme.

Varta

"Sports today are about inclusivity where players on a national team serve as role models for what others might aspire to."
I disagree. Sport is about sport and no one has a right to hijack it to promote inclusivity or anything else. Players on a national team should be the best available players. End of. Why should sports people be singled out as role models?