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

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Well, he can have free speech and be unemployed alright.
Or he can keep his job and lose the free speech.

People shy away from employing openly homophobic bigots. That's hardly news.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Well, he can have free speech and be unemployed alright.
Or he can keep his job and lose the free speech.

He can work for an organisation who don't have a stated anti-discrimination policy.
A Church perhaps?
See how they deal with him if he goes off message.

Guy:Incognito

recedite wrote: »

Well, he can have free speech and be unemployed alright.
Or he can keep his job and lose the free speech.

So if he (or anyone else) starts naming his bosses in Australian Rugby on twitter calling them ***** or whatever, they shouldnt be able to sack him cos "free speech"

Could you walk in to your job and tell the boss hes a wanker everyday without issue? (or pick another person doing it to save us the merrigoround of you answering by telling us you are the boss/the boss is your mate etc and not answering the question)

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Saying that gay people deserve any type of torture for being gay is bigotry.

Did he say they deserve it. Or did he say they would go to hell if they didn't repent.

I'm sure you can appreciate there's a difference?

sydthebeat

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did he say they deserve it. Or did he say they would go to hell if they didn't repent.

I'm sure you can appreciate there's a difference?

How do you repent from being gay??

Please be specific

splinter65

I’m actually a bit thrilled that as an idolater I too am included on his list of the damned.
In fact I’d imagine that he’d say my idolizing will have me in hell 1/2 hour before any gay people.
Incidentally, as far as I know, for this guy, celibate gays are NOT going to Hell.
Fair play to that man for saying it as he sees it.

splinter65

sydthebeat wrote: »

How do you repent from being gay??

Please be specific

You beg the Lord for forgiveness for your lustfull sinful acts and thoughts and remain forever celibate in body and mind and spend the rest of your days doing good works and living a frugal life.

sydthebeat

splinter65 wrote: »

You beg the Lord for forgiveness for your lustfull sinful acts and thoughts and remain forever celibate in body and mind and spend the rest of your days doing good works and living a frugal life.

So you go to hell if you deny yourself.

Sounds like a loving god alright.

splinter65

sydthebeat wrote: »

So you go to hell if you deny yourself.

Sounds like a loving god alright.

Your not understanding.
If you repent, you might not go to hell after all...
But you have to repent to have any chance at all.
This is Pentecostal evangelical “Christianity”.
It’s really not very old. Couple of 100 years at the most. They take the Bible literally. Literally, literally. The entire Old Testament.
They’re full of hatred and condemnation and judgement.
The people they hate most in the world are Catholics. It’s a visceral erupting volcano of hatred.
But they’re entitled to their opinions beliefs and feelings like everyone else in the free world, thank God.

Kiwi in IE

Leviticus 19:28 (NKJV) You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

It seems Israel Folau is happy to ignore the instructions of ‘the lord’ when it suits.

splinter65

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Leviticus 19:28 (NKJV) You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

It seems Israel Folau is happy to ignore the instructions of ‘the lord’ when it suits.

I’d say he’s one of the “born again”. Or even a convert. In any religion the converts are the most enthusiastic.

Guy:Incognito

splinter65 wrote: »

. They take the Bible literally. Literally, literally. .

Every single word? Id be very surprised if theres not a bit of compromising by them on bits that dont suit, like good hypocritical bible bashers.

splinter65

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Every single word? Id be very surprised if theres not a bit of compromising by them on bits that dont suit, like good hypocritical bible bashers.

No, there’s no hypocrisy. They live very rigid lives. That’s their choice though. It’s not for me or you to tell them what to do.
Google Mennonites there for a bit of background to this type of thing.

eviltwin

If God created gay people then I'd imagine that's not a mistake and ergo he's fine with it. Same with masturbation, if it's so wrong why make it so pleasurable?

splinter65

eviltwin wrote: »

If God created gay people then I'd imagine that's not a mistake and ergo he's fine with it. Same with masturbation, if it's so wrong why make it so pleasurable?

Catholics are fine with homosexual people, it’s gay sex that’s not acceptable.

eviltwin

splinter65 wrote: »

Catholics are fine with homosexual people, it’s gay sex that’s not acceptable.

Why are Catholic people so interested in what consenting people do in private?

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

No, there’s no hypocrisy. They live very rigid lives. That’s their choice though. It’s not for me or you to tell them what to do.
Google Mennonites there for a bit of background to this type of thing.

There is a wee bit where Falou is concerned - or at least picking and choosing.
He 'converted' to Assemblies of God (he was raised a Mormon) in 2011 but in 2014 he appeared on the cover of an Australian LGBTI magazine promoting the Bingham Cup (a 'Gay/inclusive' rugby tournament).

As for being 'strict' about adhering to the tenets of a fundamentalist Christianity - unlike many devout Christians he decided to play on a Sunday - because he says " ... but I won't be doing that," Folau said of standing down from Sunday football. "I have a different view and perspective of the way I play sport." https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/israel-folau-says-playing-on-sunday-is-an-expression-of-his-religious-faith-20160513-gouvq4.html

SoundsRight

The news reports say his contract didn't have any restraints on his use of social media. I expect to see him in the gold jersey again soon. It's not like the ones he upset even watch rugby anyway.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did he say they deserve it. Or did he say they would go to hell if they didn't repent.

I'm sure you can appreciate there's a difference?

Not really seeing one.
But again splitting hairs and ignoring my other point from the same post.

Maybe you guys can point to some examples of what you think bigoted statements really are.

robindch

mcmoustache wrote: »

Why is it that any time some bigot says something bigoted and experiences some consequences from an organisation that it gets spun into a free speech issue?

It happens because:

1. A majority of people seem to believe there's a universal right called "free speech" which permits anybody to say anything, anywhere, regardless of content or consequences.

2. The minority of people who hold hateful opinions believe that they can say what they like, and if called out, will wordsalad about their right to unrestricted "free speech" being infringed.

Basically, it's a way of allowing oneself to say whatever you like without consequences and without having to go to the usual trouble of justifying one's opinion. And when one's opinion is simply hate-speech, basically, there's no other defence beyond the assumed right of unrestricted "free speech" to start with.

[Deleted User]

SoundsRight wrote: »

The news reports say his contract didn't have any restraints on his use of social media. I expect to see him in the gold jersey again soon. It's not like the ones he upset even watch rugby anyway.

Who doesn't watch rugby?

Dante7

Why wasn't he castigated about saying us atheists are going to hell? Religion (or lack of) is equally protected in law to the same extent as sexuality. Why is it just about the gays?
Also, in the initial reports about his outbursts it was also mentioned that he criticised the change of law in an Australian state about the changing of birth certs to allow modifying of gender. So what. It's a perfectly valid query. But gays burning in hell and being gender critical are obviously equivalent for the progressives. Atheists burning in hell don't deserve a mention. When Muslims say that gays or atheists should die, we don't hear a peep.

[Deleted User]

Dante7 wrote: »

Why wasn't he castigated about saying us atheists are going to hell? Religion (or lack of) is equally protected in law to the same extent as sexuality. Why is it just about the gays?
Also, in the initial reports about his outbursts it was also mentioned that he criticised the change of law in an Australian state about the changing of birth certs to allow modifying of gender. So what. It's a perfectly valid query. But gays burning in hell and being gender critical are obviously equivalent for the progressives. Atheists burning in hell don't deserve a mention. When Muslims say that gays or atheists should die, we don't hear a peep.

Do you know of any Muslim sport stars who expressed the same opinion on their social media platform of choice, were warned not to do it again by their employer and still went ahead and did so?

Ave Sodalis

Dante7 wrote:

Why wasn't he castigated about saying us atheists are going to hell? Religion (or lack of) is equally protected in law to the same extent as sexuality. Why is it just about the gays? Also, in the initial reports about his outbursts it was also mentioned that he criticised the change of law in an Australian state about the changing of birth certs to allow modifying of gender. So what. It's a perfectly valid query. But gays burning in hell and being gender critical are obviously equivalent for the progressives. Atheists burning in hell don't deserve a mention. When Muslims say that gays or atheists should die, we don't hear a peep.

Atheists don't believe in hell. It would be like threatening you with the Bogeyman. However, not every gay person is atheist, and the LGBT community is still very much a vulnerable community. They still are open to hateful acts against them, and being tortured for eternity is a very real threat for some people.

Basically, being threatened with hell isn't going to worry an atheist. It can cause hurt to someone who is gay when there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

Catholics are fine with homosexual people, it’s gay sex that’s not acceptable.

The only Catholics that have a problem with gay sex are the ones that have a problem with homosexuals.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

Who doesn't watch rugby?

I don't. I'm an atheist, too. So going to hell on the double.

eagle eye

Ave Sodalis wrote:

Basically, being threatened with hell isn't going to worry an atheist. It can cause hurt to someone who is gay when there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.

What about a drunk, adulterer and all the rest of those he said will go to hell?

[Deleted User]

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Atheists don't believe in hell. It would be like threatening you with the Bogeyman. However, not every gay person is atheist, and the LGBT community is still very much a vulnerable community. They still are open to hateful acts against them, and being tortured for eternity is a very real threat for some people.

Basically, being threatened with hell isn't going to worry an atheist. It can cause hurt to someone who is gay when there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.

nobody thinks that this is about a serious increase in risk of anyone going to hell asca result of his comments

this is 100% about his expressing the sentiment

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

this is 100% about his expressing the sentiment

Ergo, its about freedom of speech.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

What about a drunk, adulterer and all the rest of those he said will go to hell?

There is an argument to be made that condeming alcoholics to eternal for suffering from alcoholism, the term "drunks" is vague and nonspecific. It could just be a judgey term for anyone who drinks at all.

However gay people here are being condemned for being themselves.
They are being compared to liars and relationship cheats.
The reason their condemnation is being singled out as particularly awful is because
1)they are a distinct minority.
2) their "sin" cannot possibly be taken as a bad thing no matter how generous you are with the labels. There is nothing morally objectionable or harmful about about being gay or having gay sex.
3) they are the only people whose sin isnt a choice.
4) they are often a target for bigotry and hateful comments.
5) homophobic sentiment is a large problem in many sports including rugby.
6) this guy was warned previously for making similary hateful comments about gay people.

Instead of asking "what about...?", could you perhaps detail the point you are trying to make?

Why do you think people are making a big deal about these comnents? Do you believe they are wrong to do so?