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

Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

homer911

I'm surprised by the lack of discussion on this topic here, perhaps its been well covered on twitter, but I'm not a user.

The secular world seems intent on punishing two rugby players for expressing a respectful opinion about something they have been brought up to believe. I wish I had half the courage to speak up about things I am required to tolerate as a Christian in a secular world

http://www.christiansinsport.org.uk/news.asp?itemid=7695&itemTitle=Folau%2C+Vunipola+and+the+intolerance+of+the+culture+of+tolerance&section=0001000100190024

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

smacl

recedite wrote: »

What kind of help? Conversion therapy?

Whatever works. Your comparison between normal sexual desires and those that involve rape and/or molestation of children is reprehensible. If someone has problem with people being gay, that is clearly their problem as a homophobe and they that are behaving in a socially unacceptable manner.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote:

normal sexual desires.

Being homosexual is not normal. It's abnormal. It is not wrong and I have no problem with it, but to say it is normal is wrong.

Might not be politically correct to say so but it's true.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

That's right. I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into denying the truth.
The truth being that paedophiles cannot help being the way they are.
And for the avoidance of doubt, no I do not believe they should be allowed to practice their own peculiar sexual preferences. Being born with a certain sexual preference does not mean you have a god-given right to practice it.

This all stems from certain posters in this thread asserting again and again that homosexuals are in a special category because they are born with a certain sexual preference, and that justifies itself.

You seem to be floundering with some pretty basic stuff here. The underlying principal here is who is harmed, not who might take offence based on their entirely dubious moral stance. Pedophilia is castigated as it involves molesting children. Abusing children is bad, Rec, got it? Consensual homosexual activity, just like consensual heterosexual activity, is acceptable on the basis that it harms nobody. It is entirely fine and nobody else's business.

You do have to wonder by times at some people's deep fascination with gay sexual activity and the notion that it is bad. What even causes that level of distraction?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Whatever works..

Ahh.. so I see you eventually came back to us - with nothing.

Because there is no cure. Paedophiles just have to learn to suppress their innate sexual desires. If religion can help them to deal with their intrinsically disordered personality traits, then that is a good thing IMO.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

There is no shame in pointing out facts. If I said that straight people are born that way sexually inclined and paedophiles are born that way sexually inclined would you say shame on me for comparing the two?

Yes I would. We are talking about consenting adults as far as hetero/homosexuals are concerned.
We are talking about fiends who abuse children with paedophiles.

eagle eye

Deleted User wrote:

Being homosexual is not normal. It's abnormal. It is not wrong and I have no problem with it, but to say it is normal is wrong.

In your little mind it might not be normal is what you mean, not as a statement of fact because you don't think for everybody.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

You seem to be floundering with some pretty basic stuff here. The underlying principal here is who is harmed, not who might take offence based on their entirely dubious moral stance. Pedophilia is castigated as it involves molesting children. Abusing children is bad, Rec, got it?

You could say the same about drunks. As long as they are consenting adults, and they don't put anyone else in danger (eg by driving a car) society allows it.
Folau also allows it, but he attempts to show them an alternative way, based on bible teachings. Drunks are of course completely free to ignore Folau's advice. As are the atheists, fornicators, and homosexuals.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote:

Yes I would. We are talking about consenting adults as far as hetero/homosexuals are concerned. We are talking about fiends who abuse children with paedophiles.

I'm aware of that. But are you denying that paedophiles are born that way?

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

You could say the same about drunks. As long as they are consenting adults, and they don't put anyone else in danger (eg by driving a car) society allows it.
Folau also allows it, but he attempts to show them an alternative way, based on bible teachings. Drunks are of course completely free to ignore Folau's advice. As are the atheists, fornicators, and homosexuals.

It's not for Folau to allow. He can "advise" all he wants but he can't allow or disallow consenting adults engaging in legal activities.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Being homosexual is not normal. It's abnormal. It is not wrong and I have no problem with it, but to say it is normal is wrong.

Might not be politically correct to say so but it's true.

homosexuality is "abnormal" in the very same way red haired people are "abnormal" in that its a small percentage of the population that fit the description.

homosexuality is "normal" in the fact that the percentage of people identifying as homosexual in societies where it is accepted is statistically regular and consistent.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Being homosexual is not normal. It's abnormal. It is not wrong and I have no problem with it, but to say it is normal is wrong.

Might not be politically correct to say so but it's true.

What exactly are you basing this on?
Also, just because you believe it, does not make it fact.

If you are claiming its fact please provide the evidence to support your claim.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote:

What exactly are you basing this on?

The meaning of the word normal.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote:

If you are claiming its fact please provide the evidence to support your claim.

The majority of people are heterosexuals.
It never said there was anything wrong with homosexuality, I just said it wasn't normal.

the usual, typical, or expected state or condition

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

The majority of people are heterosexuals.
It never said there was anything wrong with homosexuality, I just said it wasn't normal.

the usual, typical, or expected state or condition

you said it was "abnormal"... which infers something worrying or undesirable.

That description of homosexuality is homophobic.....

so are you homophobic?

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

you said it was "abnormal"... which infers something worrying or undesirable.

That description of homosexuality is homophobic.....

so are you homophobic?

No. I certainly am not.

Unfortunate that you took it that way but I understand how it could happen. I should have simply said "not normal".

I was going by this definition:

"deviating from the normal or average"

but I can see how you could be mistaken and will cheerily agree that abnormal was not the wisest of words to use and clarify that I meant nothing except "not normal".

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's not for Folau to allow. He can "advise" all he wants but he can't allow or disallow consenting adults engaging in legal activities.

That's right. And yet he has been sacked. He's the one who has been disallowed.

If his advice is no longer acceptable in contemporary society, then it means scripture is no longer acceptable in polite society. That's a fairly serious thing, given that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all hark back to similar scriptures.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

will cheerily agree that abnormal was not the wisest of words to use and clarify that I meant nothing except "not normal".

good

its these small faux pas's that we need to get out of society so that homosexuals are not viewed upon with discrimination and fear.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

its these small faux pas's that we need to get out of society

How about "intrinsically disordered"? Is that an acceptable term to use for a condition that deviates from the norm?

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

The majority of people are heterosexuals.
It never said there was anything wrong with homosexuality, I just said it wasn't normal.

So anything not the majority eh?

More people speak Mandarin Chinese then any other single language in the world. By your logic everyone else is abnormal as you could consider Chinese is the expected language.

Ireland has a majority white population, by your logic any other race in Ireland is abnormal.

Less then 2% of the world population has red hair (approx 150million odd), Using your logic anyone with red hair is abnormal.

Asia has by far the bulk of the worlds population (approx 60% majority), does that also mean anyone not born in Asia is abnormal based on your logic?

A minority of anything does not make that thing abnormal.
Try harder next time
:rolleyes:

Now, answer my question again,
What exactly are you basing your believe that being homosexual is not normal on?

Try using some factual data next time.

recedite

Having red hair and speaking the Irish language is certainly not "normal" in China

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

How about "intrinsically disordered"? Is that an acceptable term to use for a condition that deviates from the norm?

do you refer to red headed people as "intrinsically disordered"... or green eyed people? or people with attached earlobes???

because all these are a deviation from the norm....

and if you do not refer to these, and a vast myrid of other natural deviations, as "intrinsically disordered"... but you do refer to homosexuality in that manner...
then that is a discrimination and a sign of homophobia

treat every "natural deviation" the same

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote: »

More people speak Mandarin Chinese then any other single language in the world. By your logic everyone else is abnormal as you could consider Chinese is the expected language.

Ireland has a majority white population, by your logic any other race in Ireland is abnormal.

Less then 2% of the world population has red hair (approx 150million odd), Using your logic anyone with red hair is abnormal.

Asia has by far the bulk of the worlds population, does that also mean anyone not born in Asia is abnormal?

A minority of anything does not make that thing abnormal.
Try harder next time
:rolleyes:

Now, answer my question again,
What exactly are you basing your believe that being homosexual is not normal on?

Try using some factual data next time.

No need for all the aggression there.

I've clarified that abnormal was probably an incorrect term to use due to the negative connotations it has. It was unintended and I have corrected myself.

But yes, technically all the questions you asked above are all examples of things not being "the norm".

I'm basing my belief that because of the majority or people that live on the planet are heterosexual, anything that deviates from that, is not normal.

That is factual data. What factual data can you give me to show me I am wrong?

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

do you refer to red headed people as "intrinsically disordered"... or green eyed people?

No I don't.
Do you regard the term "intrinsically disordered" when applied to homosexual behavior as some kind of homophobic hate speech?
Or do you accept its use?

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

No need for all the aggression there.

Aggression?
You must have skin as thin as a spider web if you think my post was aggressive.

You are the one calling people abnormal and you have the cheek to call my post aggressive, it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

But yes, technically all the questions you asked above are all examples of things not being "the norm".

Seems based on your logic I can now refer to anyone who voted no in the repeal the 8th ref as abnormal. :pac:

That is factual data. What factual data can you give me to show me I am wrong?

You made the claim, its for you to back it up.
If you'd rather not support your claim then you are welcome to retract it.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

Being homosexual is not normal. It's abnormal. It is not wrong and I have no problem with it, but to say it is normal is wrong.

Might not be politically correct to say so but it's true.

You might want to revisit you dictionary there, as the word abnormal often carries negative connotations. From our friends at Merriam-Webster

abnormal adjective
ab·nor·mal | \ (ˌ)ab-ˈnȯr-məl , əb-\
Definition of abnormal (Entry 1 of 2)
: deviating from the normal or average
a person with abnormal [=exceptional] strength
abnormal powers of concentration
often : unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way
abnormal behavior
abnormal test results
abnormal noun
Definition of abnormal (Entry 2 of 2)
: an abnormal person

I'd suggest the word your're looking for is atypical. So while being gay is atypical, it is less so than having red hair or blood type AB.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

No I don't.
Do you regard the term "intrinsically disordered" when applied to homosexual behavior as some kind of homophobic hate speech?
Or do you accept its use?

i consider it homophobic because its a derogatory term in its use to describe homosexuals, simply because they deviate from the norm.

that phrase is not used to describe green eyed people, or red heads.... but they are simple deviations from the norm too.

therefore if you use a derogatory phrase to describe homosexuals whos only fault is 'deviating from the norm', then that is the absolute essence of discrimination.

i absolutely do not accept "intrinsically disordered" is a common phrase used to describe something atypical.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

No I don't.
Do you regard the term "intrinsically disordered when applied to homosexual behavior as some kind of homophobic hate speech?
Or do you accept its use?

It is hate speech.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote:

Seems based on your logic I can now refer to anyone who voted no in the repeal the 8th ref as abnormal.

You could. I have clarified that because of the negative connotations towards abnormal, not normal should be used but fill yer boots

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote:

You might want to revisit you dictionary there, as the word abnormal often carries negative connotations. From our friends at Merriam-Webster

I've addressed that and retracted it.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

i consider it homophobic...

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is hate speech.

So the Catechism of the Catholic church is a hate speech document then.
I'll actually defend your right to hold that belief, and to express it.

The Catechism wrote:

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

The Catechism wrote:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

But I'll also defend the right of anyone else to say out loud that they believe in the Catechism of the Catholic church.

Free speech is all about agreeing to differ. Its the intolerance of Free Speech that I oppose, and that intolerance is something that is slipping into contemporary "progressive" and "liberal" society.
Folau was sacked because he directly quoted the bible and expressed a fairly standard religious belief.