Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

Cabaal wrote: »

Really?
You are now going to suggest being gay and being a paedophile are the same thing?

Have you no bloody shame what so ever?

Nice deflection.
But no I did not say they were the same thing. The RCC describes both as intrinsically disordered, which is much the same as what I said the other day; both are aberrant in some way, in that they both deviate from normal sexuality.

I went on to make a further distinction, putting paedophiles in a category with psychopaths, being people who are harmful to society. Predators.
AFAIK no religion makes that second distinction. Gays are not necessarily harmful to society.

But now that you mention it, there does seem to be an unhealthy level of crossover. Why is this 11 year old so popular among gay men?
What's your attitude to gay paedophiles?

Nobelium

recedite wrote: »

The RCC describes both as intrinsically disordered, which is much the same as what I said the other day; both are aberrant in some way, in that they both deviate from normal sexuality.

Just for the purposes of criticizing them accurately - their CCC refers to the acts as being intrinsically disordered rather than the person. Other acts are considered intrinsically disordered as well, including wank1ng . . . if that's your thing.

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

What about paedophiles? Is it OK to criticise them for being born paedophile?

The RCC views both gays and paedophiles as being "intrinsically disordered" but is quite prepared to shelter both, if they commit to not acting on their sexual impulses.
Folau seems to be following along similar lines with his message of hope and repentance.

BTW I'd also dispute that we are "not born atheist"; maybe we are, but its mostly only the individuals born with a large dose of scepticism that remain so. And the poor things can't help themselves for being born so sceptical.

I'd say we are naturally born agnostic. It's the default position on everything from food to porn. You don't know what you like until you know more about it. You can't have an informed belief/non belief from birth.

Paedophilia is clearly genetic to some extent but the reason why so many priests are paedophiles probably has more to do with the dysfunctional nature of the church's relationship with sex. It's not normal to abstain from all forms of sex, it's no wonder people get messed up.

Having said that, I honestly can't find myself to have that much rage towards paedophiles. I mean, they are bastards who should control their urges but their urges aren't their fault. They need to be removed from society to protect the innocent, something you can't say about being gay but ultimately most of the rage should be reserved for the learned men who left them in a position where they could commit further crimes.

A lot of this also applies to my views on drug addiction. Addiction in general really.

theological wrote: »

The dating for the Gospel of Thomas seems to range from anywhere from 40AD to 250AD which makes certainty highly doubtful.

Delicious Ironing :rolleyes:

troyzer wrote: »

Paedophilia is clearly genetic to some extent

There are some indicators that there are some genetic pre-cursors, but that evidence is absolutely drenched in a wave of confirmation bias at this point in time as it hasn't been verified by similar testing to confirm that an equal portion of the population with similar genetic traits do not have paedophilic tendencies.

There is far more convincing evidence coming from the CBT field pointing towards them not progressing through puberty in a typical fashion and not developing emotionally beyond the early pubescent stage.

I wont go into the implications of what this would mean for an organization that uses guilt, shame and sin in an effort to explain sexuality to young people, nor the great harm that such an organization could do by employing people with an already distorted view of sexuality as something unclean or sinful to influence young people. :mad:

troyzer wrote: »

but the reason why so many priests are paedophiles probably has more to do with the dysfunctional nature of the church's relationship with sex. It's not normal to abstain from all forms of sex, it's no wonder people get messed up.

It is definitely a factor. It attracts men who find justification and reason in sex being sinful and dirty. Then it gives them a position and authority to spread that viewpoint to the vulnerable.

Again, just to frame that, there are plenty of good honest humans that are devoted in their faith and serve a useful and honest position in the clergy. Their inaction and silence (and often protection) about the abuses that were perpetrated leaves their good acts shattered in fragments on the ground around them. Cleaning house and rebuilding from that is the challenge facing the church today.
Not getting homosexuals to convert or repent, certainly not by further alienating those that are prepared to acknowledge the value of the church by defending the clownish behavior of Israel Folau or the Westboro Baptists or any other organization that is clearly just looking for attention.:(

Nobelium wrote: »

Just for the purposes of criticizing them accurately - their CCC refers to the acts as being intrinsically disordered rather than the person. Other acts are considered intrinsically disordered as well, including wank1ng . . . if that's your thing.

The CCC? Are they the people who make the rugby clothing? :pac:
You are right about the ****.

Anyway, the homosexual act is "intrinsically disordered" but the inclination is also "objectively disordered" apparently.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

I'm not seeing any substantial difference between this and what Folau said.

AngryHippie wrote: »

There are some indicators that there are some genetic pre-cursors, but that evidence is absolutely drenched in a wave of confirmation bias at this point in time as it hasn't been verified by similar testing to confirm that an equal portion of the population with similar genetic traits do not have paedophilic tendencies.

There is far more convincing evidence coming from the CBT field pointing towards them not progressing through puberty in a typical fashion and not developing emotionally beyond the early pubescent stage.

So, cutting through the bullcrap here, are you saying they choose to be paedophiles or not?
And if not, how is that any different to a homosexual saying they did not choose to be homosexual?

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

You think that shows respect, compassion, and sensitivity. ?

I'd hate to see or hear it when you get a bit preachy or rude.....:rolleyes:

recedite wrote: »

So, cutting through the bullcrap here, are you saying they choose to be paedophiles or not?
And if not, how is that any different to a homosexual saying they did not choose to be homosexual?

They do choose their victims because they are emotionally unwell and undeveloped to the point where they are not capable of connecting with an adult.

It is very very different to a homosexual, most of whom manage to work their way to a mature emotional position on their sexuality despite society.

I cannot believe you have the gall to compare the two. I'm done responding to you until you take a step back from that comparison as it has vile implications and shows exactly where you are prepared to steer what was an amicable discussion.

AngryHippie wrote: »

They do choose their victims because they are emotionally unwell and undeveloped to the point where they are not capable of connecting with an adult.

It is very very different to a homosexual, most of whom manage to work their way to a mature emotional position on their sexuality despite society.

I cannot believe you have the gall to compare the two. I'm done responding to you until you take a step back from that comparison as it has vile implications and shows exactly where you are prepared to steer what was an amicable discussion.

No, I didn't ask whether they choose their victims, I asked whether they chose their sexuality.

You say they are "unwell". That implies they will get better soon. That, unfortunately, is just not true. They are what they are.

AngryHippie wrote: »

You think that shows respect, compassion, and sensitivity. ?

I'd hate to see or hear it when you get a bit preachy or rude.....:rolleyes:

Folau says "God loves you and is giving you time to turn away from sin and come to Him". If not hell awaits.
The RCC says "These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives.." but the implication is still there that if they don't, then hell awaits. How is RCC hell any different?

recedite wrote: »

No, I didn't ask whether they choose their victims, I asked whether they chose their sexuality.

Sexuality is a sexual attraction to a sex. i.e Male or Female
They are in some cases indiscriminate, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Again.

recedite wrote: »

You say they are "unwell". That implies they will get better soon. That, unfortunately, is just not true. They are what they are.

It was a euphemistic way of stating that they are too sick, too broken, too messed up to fulfill a role in normal human society, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Again.

recedite wrote: »

Folau says "God loves you and is giving you time to turn away from sin and come to Him". If not hell awaits.
The RCC says "These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives.." but the implication is still there that if they don't, then hell awaits. How is RCC hell any different?

I'm done responding to you until you take a step back from that comparison above.

Anyway, just to wrap the basic points here; homosexuals say they are entitled to be offended by Folau because they are born that way, unlike atheists drunks, fornicators etc..
I merely point out that there are probably genetic predispositions to most of these things at some level.

Those who are 100% homosexual did not choose their sexuality, just like paedophiles did not choose theirs. But that's not a reason for society to accept such behaviours. As excuses go, its a red herring.
If we accept homosexual behaviour its because its between consenting adults and is not harming anyone else.

If the LGBT agenda starts interfering with kids, devaluing marriage or shutting down free speech, then the rest of us are perfectly entitled to react against it.
Cheers.

troyzer

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, just to wrap the basic points here; homosexuals say they are entitled to be offended by Folau because they are born that way, unlike atheists drunks, fornicators etc..
I merely point out that there are probably genetic predispositions to most of these things at some level.

Those who are 100% homosexual did not choose their sexuality, just like paedophiles did not choose theirs. But that's not a reason for society to accept such behaviours. As excuses go, its a red herring.
If we accept homosexual behaviour its because its between consenting adults and is not harming anyone else.

If the LGBT agenda starts interfering with kids, devaluing marriage or shutting down free speech, then the rest of us are perfectly entitled to react against it.
Cheers.

That's a fairly twisted interpretation.

Being gay and being atheist are nothing like each other. You can't handwave it by saying that both of them have a genetic component without qualifying it. Being gay objectively is genetic with a potential nurturing component. Your religion is either something you develop during your life or something you are born into by coincidence of geography.

We don't accept paedophilia because it harms innocent people. It should be said that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Adult males taking catamites was extremely common in many cultures. As a modern society, we have decided that children are too young to consent and we value the innocence of childhood. This is a classic example of secular, moral relativism by the way.

Being gay doesn't harm anyone. It's a relationship between two people of the same sex, often loving and deeply committed. There is no objective, real world reason to be opposed to that.

Devaluing marriage is a red herring. The definition of marriage has constantly evolves through time. You're still allowed to have your Christian version of marriage in a Christian church. I would support your right to exclude gay marriages from that church incidentally.

I have no idea what you mean by interfering with kids though I do agree that the drag kid is child abuse. Kids shouldn't be sexualised in any context.

However, I do think there's a role in normalising gay relationships to kids. I grew up watching Disney princesses and princes, I don't see an issue with it being more representative of how societies actually work. Life, love and families are complicated. You don't have to get into the nitty gritty but I do think the world will be a better place when nobody gives a **** about the "gay agenda" anymore.

Unfortunately, that day won't come until we make it clear to bigots that their views are backwards and while you can shout them all you want, we're not letting you have a platform of being an idol to millions of Australians and rugby fans all around the world. Folau doesn't have a birthright to represent the Tahs or Wallabies don't forget.

He's allowed to have his backwards views, he's not allowed to have them free of consequences.

Young LGBT Australians are five times more likely to commit suicide. These are real people and real lives. They live in a world where people have a debate over whether or they're not disgusting filth, an abomination destined for eternal fires. A lot of these kids are repressed and live in ultra conservative households. It is important to send a signal to these vulnerable kids that we as a society do not ignore the bigotry of people who hate them. Just like we'd call for the sacking of racists, misogynists, homophobes and yes, people who hate Christians.

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, just to wrap the basic points here; homosexuals say they are entitled to be offended by Folau because they are born that way, unlike atheists drunks, fornicators etc..
I merely point out that there are probably genetic predispositions to most of these things at some level.

Those who are 100% homosexual did not choose their sexuality, just like paedophiles did not choose theirs. But that's not a reason for society to accept such behaviours. As excuses go, its a red herring.
If we accept homosexual behaviour its because its between consenting adults and is not harming anyone else.

If the LGBT agenda starts interfering with kids, devaluing marriage or shutting down free speech, then the rest of us are perfectly entitled to react against it.
Cheers.

You should come over to the dar.. I mean, light, side

troyzer wrote: »

That's a fairly twisted interpretation.

Being gay and being atheist are nothing like each other. You can't handwave it by saying that both of them have a genetic component without qualifying it. Being gay objectively is genetic with a potential nurturing component. Your religion is either something you develop during your life or something you are born into by coincidence of geography.

We don't accept paedophilia because it harms innocent people. It should be said that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Adult males taking catamites was extremely common in many cultures. As a modern society, we have decided that children are too young to consent and we value the innocence of childhood. This is a classic example of secular, moral relativism by the way.

Being gay doesn't harm anyone. It's a relationship between two people of the same sex, often loving and deeply committed. There is no objective, real world reason to be opposed to that.

Devaluing marriage is a red herring. The definition of marriage has constantly evolves through time. You're still allowed to have your Christian version of marriage in a Christian church. I would support your right to exclude gay marriages from that church incidentally.

I have no idea what you mean by interfering with kids though I do agree that the drag kid is child abuse. Kids shouldn't be sexualised in any context.

However, I do think there's a role in normalising gay relationships to kids. I grew up watching Disney princesses and princes, I don't see an issue with it being more representative of how societies actually work. Life, love and families are complicated. You don't have to get into the nitty gritty but I do think the world will be a better place when nobody gives a **** about the "gay agenda" anymore.

Unfortunately, that day won't come until we make it clear to bigots that their views are backwards and while you can shout them all you want, we're not letting you have a platform of being an idol to millions of Australians and rugby fans all around the world. Folau doesn't have a birthright to represent the Tahs or Wallabies don't forget.

He's allowed to have his backwards views, he's not allowed to have them free of consequences.

Young LGBT Australians are five times more likely to commit suicide. These are real people and real lives. They live in a world where people have a debate over whether or they're not disgusting filth, an abomination destined for eternal fires. A lot of these kids are repressed and live in ultra conservative households. It is important to send a signal to these vulnerable kids that we as a society do not ignore the bigotry of people who hate them. Just like we'd call for the sacking of racists, misogynists, homophobes and yes, people who hate Christians.

His position is that homosexuality is aberrant. Men have not been designed/evolved to have sex with men. Nor women with women. Now they can have sex with each other. You can also use the back of a fork to open a beer bottle. But it's aberrant

Now you can, as he has stated, tolerate the aberrance where it does no harm to others. Consenting adults and all that.

But his objection is centred on the normalising of the aberrance. Kids should not be taught that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, if it is aberrant. No more than any other aberrant behaviour ought be normalised.

The question isn't about proving what harm normalising can cause - when spannering on the norm you don't necessarily know what the outcomes might be over time. Science isn't good at predicting the future - as it's significant underestimating of the rate of climate change testifies to.

It's no big secret that women typically have a mothering self-sacrificial instinct that far exceeds that of a man. They care about nourishment, about dry clothes about not getting cold, about their childs emotional development. A gay man cannot have that mothering instinct which is born, in part, from the fact that she bore the child. The child is a part of her in a way it can't be for a dad.

It's no secret either than boy children, at the age of around 6 turn from their mother's apron strings and take more intense interest in their dads. Why? They realise they are boys and want to download the software necessary to become men themselves. And their dad's, hopefully, if often not, are the ones to provide that software.

A gay man cannot teach a boy how to be a man. He can teach him how to be a gay man (if the child is gay). But only that. He cannot teach his child how to fully relate to a woman because he has not fully related to a woman. The straight children of gay couples are denied lines of developmental "code" that gay people cannot provide them

Now I know the real world often doesn't hold to the ideal mom and dad. Neverthless, that is the potential. And a kid has a right to that potential. Homosexuals cannot ever provide that potential.

How is a woman supposed to be a dad?

sydthebeat wrote: »

why do you think you should have an opinion into what other people do in the privacy of their own homes??

The LGBT agenda is long since expanded it's horizons beyond their own homes.

recedite wrote: »

And now heterosexual men are marrying each other for tax reasons.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wedding-for-tax-reasons-3758560-Dec2017/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pensioner-85-to-marry-his-male-carer-to-avoid-inheritance-tax-bill-36413129.html

That's marriage equality for you - the LGBT lobby has succeeded in reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator; money.

Which ties in neatly to the unforeseen circumstances that arise when you go spannering on things.

Turtwig

MOD:

The identity of "manhood" and "male" parenting has little to do with thread. This thread is about Israel Folau not whether gays make sufficient or insufficient parents.

As for the discussion on pedophilia. Please remember that's it a sensitive topic and where possible use other analogies to make a point. Homosexuals have spent years being contrasted to child abusers. There surely is little need for any associations, no matter how remote, in this thread?

Cabaal wrote: »

Lobby.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

They lobby. Hence lobby

Whats your point exactly?
Marriage was always about money, property, livestock and power

It wasn't for the two heterosexual men when it wasn't possible for them to get married.

I noticed my thoughts once, when interviewing candidates for a job, that one guy had a wedding ring on and the next guy didn't. I found myself veering towards the guy with the wedding ring.

The wedding ring spoke of a person prepared to commit, to take on the responsibility and self-sacrifice of kids, to be someone who had other significant priorities outside work (thus balanced, thus a better bet).

He could have had a crap marriage and beat his wife. He might not have or wanted kids. The other guy could have been married but happen not to be wearing his wedding ring. And could have had a bunch of kids for all I knew.

The point isn't the facts in their case. The point is what marriage has come to mean, such as to cause those taughts to arise.

Marriage is sacred. Not in the religious sense. But in the sense of what it makes of and says about, a person.

It's far more than your diminished view. And society thinks so too.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He cannot teach his child how to fully relate to a woman because he has not fully related to a woman. The straight children of gay couples are denied lines of developmental "code" that gay people cannot provide them

Can you explain what you mean by "fully relate" to a woman?
I'm not sure I know what this means, are you talking about relationship advice, sexual advice or are you talking about the more subtle learned habits and traits that come from observing two people in a relationship your entire life.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now I know the real world often doesn't hold to the ideal mom and dad. Neverthless, that is the potential. And a kid has a right to that potential. Homosexuals cannot ever provide that potential.

How is a woman supposed to be a dad?

I don't necessarily agree with you there. Plenty of good humans out there that were raised by single mums and dads because the other half of the relationship never showed up.
There are also plenty of good humans out there that survived the grief and loss of having two parents only to be tragically separated by death or circumstance and being raised by one.

I think every child has a right to be raised by loving people who will nurture, support and provide for them, but I also think that any human who connects and loves the child is more than capable of stepping up and providing those needs, different isn't wrong. Its just different. Part of what makes up the amazing tapestry of humanity.

theological

robinph wrote: »

Are you able to tell the difference between the statements "I don't think that you should have sex before marriage" and "all of group X will go to hell".

One is OK and we can have a debate about, the other is hate speech.

God's spoken (2 Peter 1:20-21, Hebrews 1:1-2). What's "OK" (and what isn't) is based on what He's said (Isaiah 5:20).

By rejecting Him, we condemn ourselves (John 3:18). I should go to hell for my own sin (John 3:36). Seeing this is the first step to seeing the good news and accepting Christ.

He sent His Son to endure the cross. We can be forgiven and have eternal life (Romans 3:23-24). That's love (1 John 4:10).

God's right to judge our hate speech towards Him. He offers undeserved kindness to us Jesus despite how we've treated Him if we repent (Romans 5:8-9).

Saying hard, costly truths for the salvation of others is love speech. Being silent while people are headed for hell is hate speech.

We don't agree with you. That's "OK". Berating Christians for holding to the gospel is boring. We've heard it all before.