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

robinph

recedite wrote: »

Its the question nobody seems to be able to answer.

Seeing as Google seems to be defeating you:

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/articles/item/israel-folau-and-rugby-australia-s-code-of-conduct-hearing-the-likely-legal-arguments

Cabaal

eagle eye wrote: »

That's not even closer see to the same thing. You are born black, no action is involved.
It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that he was saying will send you to hell not the fact that a person is gay.

You are born gay same as you are born atheist, but yet he wants both to go to hell.
:rolleyes:

He didn't say you'd go for hell for having gay sex like you are trying to suggest, now you just creating stuff out of thin hair that simply didn't exist in his twitter post.

So as I've said, we simply we not be having this conversation if he posted gay people should go to hell.

We'd all agree that he would be racist, but yet its acceptable to some for him to make the same comment about gay people....says a lot about people defending his post.

Cabaal

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know what age you are but 30 years ago if you were gay in this country you were told to keep your mouth shut and don't tell anybody.

Wow, just wow

It was a little more then being told to shut up, it was illegal

Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 criminalised buggery, which made sexual activity between two men illegal, and section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 criminalised gross indecency between men. The catholic church approved of these laws.

It took David Norris going to the European Court of Human Rights to get force change in what was still a country sadly in the grip of the catholic church.

This only changed in 1993 (thats less the 30 years ago for those that can't count)

Perhaps when you talk about being told to shut up you are referring to teachers in state funded schools who until very recently they were told to shut up and not tell anyone they worked with they were gay in case they might be sacked.
:rolleyes:

recedite

robinph wrote: »

Seeing as Google seems to be defeating you:

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/articles/item/israel-folau-and-rugby-australia-s-code-of-conduct-hearing-the-likely-legal-arguments

Its a good article, but its only speculation. It does show that this is a legal quagmire, and far from a straightforward case.
Of note here is the fact that originally RA said they were terminating his contract because he had breached the players contract. But now they have rolled back on that, apparently because he has not breached it.

Rugby Australia will not, it appears, be relying on any express or specific term in the player’s contract; rather, their arguments will be premised on the general and standard contractual clause that players employed by Rugby Australia must abide by the Code

If he has breached a players code of conduct (which is not proven either) that is a far less serious matter than a breach of the main contract, and it would not normally be a sacking offence.

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

If he has breached a players code of conduct (which is not proven either) that is a far less serious matter than a breach of the main contract, and it would not normally be a sacking offence.

and yet the tribunal determined he had provided a "high level" breach of the code of conduct, for which termination of the contract was the result.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

We have had posters on this thread saying the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic church is homophobic hate speech.
Is there a penalty for that?
Its a fine line between saying that the doctrine is homophobic hate speech, and saying people who subscribe to the doctrine are homophobes.
I'm not sure that line in the sand even exists, in reality.

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia

At the 2015 Synod on the Family, Archbishop Charles Chaput said that the phrase "intrinsically disordered" turns people off and "probably isn’t useful anymore." While making clear that any new language adopted should make clear the Church's teaching, he said that this particular phrase should be put "on the shelf for a while, until we get over the negativity related to it." In 2019, Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin said it was "unfortunate language" and expressed his hope that the Church would adopt different language that was "less hurtful."

If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

eagle eye

sydthebeat wrote:

go find out for yourself

You are the one saying it so prove it.

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

You are the one saying it so prove it.

It's Australian Rugby saying he breached the terms of his contract.

sydthebeat

eagle eye wrote: »

You are the one saying it so prove it.

it been reported in numerous sources... just click on any link that i gave you :rolleyes:

youre the one looking for an exact clause of a contract

Professor Moriarty

smacl wrote: »

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia

If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

In 1999, an openly gay man became Anglican Bishop of Edmonton. Poor man is going to burn in Hell for eternity though.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

and yet the tribunal determined he had provided a "high level" breach of the code of conduct, for which termination of the contract was the result.

They did. But lets just say, that finding was "a bit of a stretch".

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

They did. But lets just say, that finding was "a bit of a stretch".

Who are you quoting there?
Can you provide a link to that statement?

Or maybe you were actually at the tribunal and you are giving your own opinion.....

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In 1999, an openly gay man became Anglican Bishop of Edmonton. Poor man is going to burn in Hell for eternity though.

RCC has lots of gay clerics too. Officially they are supposed to be celibate, in which case they do not breach the doctrine.

You can't just ask somebody whether they are sexually active, but if they are married its a default assumption. Which is why same sex marriage is not permitted in the Anglican communion and why those who have married in civil ceremonies are in a tricky situation once they leave their own parish...

Married gay bishops will be invited to a global gathering of the Anglican Church for the first time — but have been told not to bring their spouses.

The day these openly gay clerics are accepted as married and in an open sexual relationship is the day the worldwide Anglican communion will split apart.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

..you are giving your own opinion.....

Of course I am giving my own opinion. This is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia

If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

according to catechism **** is also "intrinsically disordered", and sexual pleasure is termed "morally disordered" when sought for itself. They are going to have to sort that wording out as well

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

Of course I am giving my own opinion. This is a discussion forum, isn't it?

But you quoted something?? What did you quote?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The Catholic church have themselves acknowledged that the wording of the catechism is problematic. From our friends on Wikipedia
If you read the rest of the article it would seem that the Catholic church is backing away from its historically homophobic position at a rate of knots. A large part of the Anglican church are already well ahead of them in this regard.

Your interpretation is highly selective. A few clerics are named there who don't like the phrase "intrinsically disordered" and would prefer different words to be used.
I don't see any change mentioned whatsoever, in the historic RCC doctrine.

recedite

sydthebeat wrote: »

But you quoted something?? What did you quote?

I used inverted commas to indicate a somewhat sardonic or mocking tone, when using a particular turn of phrase.

Nobelium

Folau posted a screenshot of a meme which listed various groups, including “homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves”, bearing the words, “WARNING: HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT. ONLY JESUS SAVES”. Rugby Australia immediately denounced the post as homophobic.The next day, Rugby Australia announced their intention to terminate his contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Folau

I wonder if he had left out the word homosexuals would he have gotten away with it, and why should he have ?

sydthebeat

Nobelium wrote: »

I wonder if he had left out the word homosexuals would he have gotten away with it, and why should he have ?

Yes he would, as none of the others are a grouping that suffers discrimination for who they are.... But are rather a decription for what they do.

Nobelium

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yes he would, as none of the others are a grouping that suffers discrimination for who they are.... But are rather a decription for what they do.

True, an important distinction. If he had said sodimisers for example, would he have gotten away with it, and why should he ?

recedite

Nobelium wrote: »

If he had said sodimisers for example

Or "practising homosexuals".
Somehow I think the outcome would have been the same, but the argument against him would have been that little bit more flimsy.
This is a clash within society whose time has come.

smacl

sydthebeat wrote: »

none of the others are a grouping that suffers discrimination for who they are.... But are rather a decription for what they do.

Not sure I agree with that. I'm an atheist which doesn't actually involve doing anything. I was also born an atheist and in my childhood have been bullied for being an atheist.

Nobelium

recedite wrote: »

Or "practising homosexuals".
Somehow I think the outcome would have been the same, but the argument against him would have been that little bit more flimsy.
This is a clash within society whose time has come.

It also seems that Folau is nontrinitarian, so he rejects mainstream Christian doctrine.

smacl

Nobelium wrote: »

True, an important distinction. If he had said sodimisers for example, would he have gotten away with it, and why should he ?

But if by sodomy you're talking exclusively about penetrative anal intercourse, that is a different group of people to homosexuals. What about gay women, gay men who only engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation and heterosexual couples who have anal sex?

Edit: Just looked it up and apparently sodomy includes oral sex with a member of the same or opposite sex, so I'd imagine on that basis it is very common among heterosexuals as well.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

sodomy noun
sod·omy | \ ˈsä-də-mē \
Definition of sodomy
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex
also : copulation with an animal

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

But if by sodomy you're talking exclusively about penetrative anal intercourse, that is a different group of people to homosexuals. What about gay women, gay men who only engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation and heterosexual couples who have anal sex?

probably covered under fornicators, sexual immoral and sodimisers

smacl

Nobelium wrote: »

probably covered under fornicators, sexual immoral and sodimisers

So on that basis, by homosexuals there is no reason whatsoever to presume he implied practicing homosexuals as this was already well covered. It would seem to me he was explicitly referring to those who simply are homosexual rather than how they act, much the same as for atheists.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

So on that basis, by homosexuals there is no reason whatsoever to presume he implied practicing homosexuals ..

I disagree. He didn't say "celibate homosexuals" and he didn't say "practicing homosexuals" either.

So you can't infer either, but most people would assume the latter. Certainly in a religious doctrine or scriptural context it would be the latter.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I disagree. He didn't say "celibate homosexuals" and he didn't say "practicing homosexuals" either.

So you can't infer either, but most people would assume the latter. Certainly in a religious doctrine or scriptural context it would be the latter.

Not so. If any kind of sexual activity a homosexual person might engage in is already covered by fornication the only reason to include homosexuals separately is on the basis of a sin other than fornication. If not simply being a homosexual, what sin would that be exactly?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Not so. If any kind of sexual activity a homosexual person might engage in is already covered by fornication the only reason to include homosexuals separately is on the basis of a sin other than fornication. If not simply being a homosexual, what sin would that be exactly?

That's a very jesuitical argument. Technically its true, but mainly its misleading.
Fornication is cheating on your partner. From a biblical perspective, your partner is assumed to be married to you and of the opposite sex.
If gays are capable of being monogamous and/or faithful to their partner (and I'll assume you won't argue with that) then "fornication" is not the right word to use for their relationship. Even though they would not be married in the eyes of the church.