Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Bannasidhe · 03-12-2019 7:51pm

eagle eye wrote: »

If it was difficult to find I'd post a link but when it's easy to find I'm not going doing the work for others. In the time it took to quote my post and ask me to do it for them they'd have had it themselves.

You made the claim so the onus is on you to provide the evidence, not expect others to do your work for you.

salmocab · 03-12-2019 7:58pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You made the claim so the onus is on you to provide the evidence, not expect others to do your work for you.

It doesn’t matter if there are gangs of gays roaming around bashing people it wouldn’t make the other side of the coin okay, I don’t understand his argument anyway.

smacl · 04-12-2019 9:14am

eagle eye wrote: »

If it was difficult to find I'd post a link but when it's easy to find I'm not going doing the work for others. In the time it took to quote my post and ask me to do it for them they'd have had it themselves.

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

eagle eye · 04-12-2019 12:54pm

smacl wrote:

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

Well at least you tried.

When I get home this evening I'll put up a few links for you. Unable to do it on the phone.

Cabaal · 04-12-2019 12:56pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Well at least you tried.

When I get home this evening I'll put up a few links for you. Unable to do it on the phone.

Of course that doesn't for a second justify anything from anyone else as already pointed out.

:rolleyes:

eagle eye · 04-12-2019 12:58pm

salmocab wrote:

It doesnâ€™t matter if there are gangs of gays roaming around bashing people it wouldnâ€™t make the other side of the coin okay, I donâ€™t understand his argument anyway.

I didn't say it was OK to beat anybody. My comment was in response to a person talking about isolated pockets of religious extremists, I was just pointing out that you have those on both sides.

smacl · 04-12-2019 1:20pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say it was OK to beat anybody. My comment was in response to a person talking about isolated pockets of religious extremists, I was just pointing out that you have those on both sides.

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

Bannasidhe · 04-12-2019 1:37pm

smacl wrote: »

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

I'd also quite like to know where there are isolated pockets of gay extremists.

04-12-2019 1:46pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Your agenda is to bash religion.
As a non-religious person I find you every bit as bad as those who try force religion down your throat.

focusing on the uh less controversial aspect of the post

it is a false equivalence to hold that an atheist querying special status for religious beliefs is comparable to a person justifying any of their behaviours by referencing such beliefs.

its not a case of two opposing but equal cases. one is no case at all.

antiskeptic · 04-12-2019 2:39pm

smacl wrote: »

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

An aside question. Would clearing cookies be sufficient if your IP address identified you?

Niska · 04-12-2019 3:16pm

You could use a non-biased search engine (i.e. a search engine that does not take previous web usage and searches into account when compiling the search result) - like duckduckgo.com

Produced two "gay gangs attack straight man" results on the first page.

A Snopes fact check (Was an Atlanta Man Assaulted and Raped by Gay Gang the ‘Sweet Bloods’? - conclusion false) - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/atlanta-gay-gang-sweet-bloods/

and a newsbiscuit report - STRAIGHT MAN ATTACKED BY GANG OF VICIOUS HOMOSEXUALS - which appears satirical, but sometimes these days I can't tell anymore - http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/05/20/straight-man-attacked-by-gang-of-vicious-homosexuals/

smacl · 04-12-2019 3:40pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

An aside question. Would clearing cookies be sufficient if your IP address identified you?

If you always connect via the same static IP address, possibly. More typically you'll have a dynamically assigned IP address that is liable to change quite frequently, so your IP address can identify your service provider but not you individually. I'm on a LAN here with DHCP with a pair of static addresses going as far as the router so at best, IP will get you as far as the server though I think the server side firewall would even make that a bit awkward.

smacl · 04-12-2019 6:15pm

Niska wrote: »

and a newsbiscuit report - STRAIGHT MAN ATTACKED BY GANG OF VICIOUS HOMOSEXUALS - which appears satirical, but sometimes these days I can't tell anymore

Reading the description of the attack, I think we can safely say it is satirical

The victim told reporters that earlier that evening he had been the subject of a series of bitingly waspish remarks from what had either been two men and a woman, one man and two women, three very effeminate men or three very butch women. Their comments, which were of a ribald nature, were accompanied by a lot of ‘oohs’ and ‘ahs’ and high-pitched shrieking.

Bannasidhe · 04-12-2019 6:32pm

smacl wrote: »

Reading the description of the attack, I think we can safely say it is satirical

Sounds like he was attacked by the cast of a Carry On film.

smacl · 04-12-2019 6:35pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sounds like he was attacked by the cast of a Carry On film.

Indeed. Given we've now had two people carrying out a search, one returning nothing and the other returning two false positives, I think the assertion that this is something easily found with a search is utter rubbish. I look forward to EagleEye's posting of his reference on that basis.

eagle eye · 04-12-2019 7:12pm

smacl wrote: »

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

I never mentioned equivalence.

There is a great book on the subject I mentioned https://nyupress.org/9781479870028/the-gangs-all-queer/

smacl · 04-12-2019 7:43pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I never mentioned equivalence.

There is a great book on the subject I mentioned https://nyupress.org/9781479870028/the-gangs-all-queer/

So that's your easy to find source? With all of three ratings on Amazon. Looks like an interesting enough read from the comments on Goodreads but I'd hardly consider it a strong reference for the assertion that there are gay gangs out there beating people up.

Bannasidhe · 04-12-2019 8:10pm

smacl wrote: »

So that's your easy to find source? With all of three ratings on Amazon. Looks like an interesting enough read from the comments on Goodreads but I'd hardly consider it a strong reference for the assertion that there are gay gangs out there beating people up.

From that link

Some are still closeted to their fellow gang members and families

Can it be a gay gang while members are in the closet??

Seem to me this book is primarily about gay members of gangs rather than gay gangs.
And yes, of course there are gays in gangs. There are gays everywhere - as we have been telling people for decades now.

milehip · 04-12-2019 8:33pm

[quote="Niska;111933364"

and a newsbiscuit report - STRAIGHT MAN ATTACKED BY GANG OF VICIOUS HOMOSEXUALS - which appears satirical, but sometimes these days I can't tell anymore - http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/05/20/straight-man-attacked-by-gang-of-vicious-homosexuals/[/quote]

That's obviously a piss take.

eagle eye · 04-12-2019 8:56pm

Bannasidhe wrote:

Seem to me this book is primarily about gay members of gangs rather than gay gangs. And yes, of course there are gays in gangs. There are gays everywhere - as we have been telling people for decades now.

It's about both, and it's really an academic book. It's excellent.

Bannasidhe · 04-12-2019 11:02pm

eagle eye wrote: »

It's about both, and it's really an academic book. It's excellent.

It may be excellent but an academic sociological text discussing the case study of a specific place that states many gang members are closeted is hardly proof of your assertion that gay gangs are going around beating (presumably straight) people up.

eagle eye · 04-12-2019 11:36pm

Bannasidhe wrote:

It may be excellent but an academic sociological text discussing the case study of a specific place that states many gang members are closeted is hardly proof of your assertion that gay gangs are going around beating (presumably straight) people up.

It's not about closeted gang members, it's about some of them. It's about out in the open gay members of gangs too and about gay gangs.

Bannasidhe · 05-12-2019 1:01am

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not about closeted gang members, it's about some of them. It's about out in the open gay members of gangs too and about gay gangs.

It is, and I quote

The Gang’s All Queer draws from interviews with over 50 gay gang- and crime-involved young men in Columbus, Ohio, the majority of whom are men of color in their late teens and early twenties, as well as on-the-ground ethnographic fieldwork with men who are in gay, hybrid, and straight gangs.

You said, and again I quote:

You do realise that there are gay gangs nowadays who beat people up?

as some sort of equivalence to religious extremists.
As 'evidence' you have produced a sociological study of 50 young men in Columbus Ohio who are gang members.

That's it. Men who are in gangs are violent. Hardly hold the press shock horror news.
Some of those men are gay. Again, this is to be expected. It is estimated that 10% of the population is homosexual.

The issue is from this you have extrapolated there are 'gay gangs going around beating people up' and presented it as if this happens frequently and globally. You are going to need more evidence than interviews with 50 young gang members in Ohio to demonstrate this is a correct assertion.

There are, however, frequent attacks on gay people by religious extremists frequently and globally. I can provide a hell of a lot more evidence for that than a single academic book.

pauldla · 05-12-2019 2:00am

C'mon, give eagle eye some slack. It's a book! It has the words 'gay' and 'gang' on the cover! It obviously supports the argument he was making earlier...don't let his desperate three-minute google search be in vain....

robindch · 05-12-2019 3:31am

eagle eye wrote: »

It's about both, and it's really an academic book. It's excellent.

If you like that, here's a twitter account which regularly posts links to similar books and papers in the genres of anthropology, sociology, gender studies and queer studies:

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview

It's gripping stuff.

Cabaal · 05-12-2019 8:45am

pauldla wrote: »

C'mon, give eagle eye some slack. It's a book! It has the words 'gay' and 'gang' on the cover! It obviously supports the argument he was making earlier...don't let his desperate three-minute google search be in vain....

eagle eye has dug a nice hole, it must be hard to dig up though :pac::pac:

eagle eye · 05-12-2019 12:23pm

Cabaal wrote:

eagle eye has dug a nice hole, it must be hard to dig up though

I haven't dug any hole. People, who clearly struggle with comprehension, are attributing things to my posts which aren't there.

Bannasidhe · 05-12-2019 1:10pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I haven't dug any hole. People, who clearly struggle with comprehension, are attributing things to my posts which aren't there.

Alternatively you threw a wide claim out there and when asked to provide some evidence to support that claim the only thing you could find was a very narrow study published in one academic book.

eagle eye · 05-12-2019 3:21pm

Bannasidhe wrote:

Alternatively you threw a wide claim out there and when asked to provide some evidence to support that claim the only thing you could find was a very narrow study published in one academic book.

There's no alternatively, you are just making things up that are not in my post and going with it.

Bannasidhe · 05-12-2019 3:49pm

You began with the claim that anyone who doesn't agree with "the" LGBT are afriad to speak out - i.e that the victims of homophobia are the homophobes ... (where have we heard that before??)

eagle eye wrote: »

Gay people were afraid to admit it 25 years ago. Now the LGBT have anyone who doesn't agree with them afraid to admit it in case they'd lose their jobs.

eagle eye wrote: »

If they admitted at work that they believe that actively sexual gay people are sinners do you think they'd face sanction?
It'd be wrong if they did.

eagle eye wrote: »

See the thing is that there are many religious people out there who believe in the Bible and believe that if you have sex with the same gender that you are sinning.
If somebody critics their beliefs and calls them homophobic they don't lose their jobs over it.
It's one-sided, the religious are now where the gay people were 25 years ago.
It was wrong then and it's wrong now too.

You then expnded that to claim there are gay gangs going around beating people up as if this is common.
The comparison you were implying was questioned by quite a few posters

eagle eye wrote: »

You talk about mis-treatment of gay people and the crazed views of some people and actions of some. You do realise that there are gay gangs nowadays who beat people up?

pauldla wrote: »

Did that happen inside your head or outside your head...?

salmocab wrote: »

It doesn’t matter if there are gangs of gays roaming around bashing people it wouldn’t make the other side of the coin okay, I don’t understand his argument anyway.

smacl wrote: »

Given your reticence to support your claim, curious type that I am, I decided to google it myself. The first page of my results is below, next three pages are the same and all cover news about attacks against LGBT community. I thought the results could be partially a function of media bubble so repeated the test on another rarely used PC after clearing cookies and browsers and got the same results. This leads me to believe your claim is specious, unless of course you're willing to support it. Maybe your story is easier to find if you've a history of visiting certain sites regularly, but it certainly doesn't stick out.

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say it was OK to beat anybody. My comment was in response to a person talking about isolated pockets of religious extremists, I was just pointing out that you have those on both sides.

smacl wrote: »

Well, if you're going to imply some kind of equivalence there, perhaps you could come back with the Google search string that shows three unbroken pages of gay gangs beating up straight people.

smacl wrote: »

Indeed. Given we've now had two people carrying out a search, one returning nothing and the other returning two false positives, I think the assertion that this is something easily found with a search is utter rubbish. I look forward to EagleEye's posting of his reference on that basis.

smacl wrote: »

So that's your easy to find source? With all of three ratings on Amazon. Looks like an interesting enough read from the comments on Goodreads but I'd hardly consider it a strong reference for the assertion that there are gay gangs out there beating people up.

Cabaal wrote: »

eagle eye has dug a nice hole, it must be hard to dig up though :pac::pac:

Now, apparently I am making things up...

eagle eye wrote: »

There's no alternatively, you are just making things up that are not in my post and going with it.

You tried to draw an equivalence between the very real persecution of homosexual people and religious people being 'afraid' to air their views.
When you were called out on that you announced this 'gay gangs' as if it was some kind of trump card.
Again, many questioned you on this. Some
went looking for evidence as you were reluctant to supply any.

Finally - we got a link to an academic book publisher and their publication of a text discussing 50 young gay (an unknown number of whom are in the closet) gang members in Ohio.

And I am making things up?!?! I don't think so.

eagle eye · 06-12-2019 5:21pm

I had a long response written out and it got wiped. I left it for a while thought about it and I'm not going to bother.
I live my life free of hang ups about who is what. If I meet you and you are a nice person you will be my friend if you wish to be. It doesn't matter what color, creed or sexual orientation you are. I look at everybody as an equal. I am willing to have a chat about the issues you bring up but I'm not getting into a heated debate about anything.
I'm not a fan of any organisation that tries to bully people. The catholic church and the LGBT would both fall into that category in my opinion. Both of them do a lot of great work but they have members who have become leaders and push things too far I think.
I'll leave you to argue away about who is right and who is wrong. I think history and heritage can be learned from but it should not be used as a tool to beat someone with. We need to be looking forward and not back. I think the younger people today are a lot more open minded about things than my generation ever will be. I think the fact that I traveled quite a bit and lived abroad helped me to grow out of the pre-conceived beliefs that were given to me by my parents, teachers and peers.
Anyways I'll keep my own views to myself as regards this subject from now on because this site is becoming more and more like Twitter etc. and I want nothing to do with that.

smacl · 06-12-2019 6:15pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not a fan of any organisation that tries to bully people. The catholic church and the LGBT would both fall into that category in my opinion. Both of them do a lot of great work but they have members who have become leaders and push things too far I think.

LGBT is not an organisation so this is yet another false equivalence, the term refers to individuals most of whom are not members of any LGBT organisations. As with your gay gangs beating people up could you provide some references of LGBT organisations bullying people to support your assertion that this happens.

Cabaal · 08-12-2019 5:24am

smacl wrote: »

LGBT is not an organisation so this is yet another false equivalence.

Don't be stupid!
Of course LGBT is an organisation!
it has a building with a large lobby that we always hear about.

Now who's wrong?
:pac:

AllForIt · 26-12-2019 10:14pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Don't be stupid!
Of course LGBT is an organisation!
it has a building with a large lobby that we always hear about.

Now who's wrong?
:pac:

Actually, you jest, but the Left has claimed LGBT as part of their own.

It boils my gut that the left expect that if one is gay like myself that one is automatically on the left of politics.

So, it is a bit like the 'LGBT' is an organization or a building.

edit: I'd love to elaborate on this more but not now. I'm not saying I'm right wing.

Bannasidhe · 27-12-2019 2:11pm

AllForIt wrote: »

Actually, you jest, but the Left has claimed LGBT as part of their own.

It boils my gut that the left expect that if one is gay like myself that one is automatically on the left of politics.

So, it is a bit like the 'LGBT' is an organization or a building.

edit: I'd love to elaborate on this more but not now. I'm not saying I'm right wing.

And yet we have a government that certainly cannot be described as left where there are 2 openly gay members - one of whom is leader of the country.

Milo Yiannopoulos is also most certainly not left of anything.

While 'Gay Rights' may have initially been a campaign coming from left - as are most campaigns advocating civil rights of minorities - it has, in a western context, been adopted by many political movements on the right.

In Ireland both FG and FF (latter a bit wishy washy granted), and in the UK the CP supported Marriage Equality.
In Belgium New Flemish Alliance and Flemish Interest (has far right tendencies) support LGBT rights.
In Canada the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party participated in Toronto Pride.
In France surveys have shown 15% of LGBT people supported the National Front in 2013 - more than heterosexuals where the figure was 13%.
In The Netherlands the Right-wing Pim Fortuyn List party was lead and founded by the openly gay Pim Fortuyn.

The Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland supports LGBT rights, as does The Log Cabin Republicans in the U.S.

So no, 'The' LGBT is not either an organisation or a hive mind.

AllForIt · 29-12-2019 7:16am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet we have a government that certainly cannot be described as left where there are 2 openly gay members - one of whom is leader of the country.

Milo Yiannopoulos is also most certainly not left of anything.

While 'Gay Rights' may have initially been a campaign coming from left - as are most campaigns advocating civil rights of minorities - it has, in a western context, been adopted by many political movements on the right.

In Ireland both FG and FF (latter a bit wishy washy granted), and in the UK the CP supported Marriage Equality.
In Belgium New Flemish Alliance and Flemish Interest (has far right tendencies) support LGBT rights.
In Canada the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party participated in Toronto Pride.
In France surveys have shown 15% of LGBT people supported the National Front in 2013 - more than heterosexuals where the figure was 13%.
In The Netherlands the Right-wing Pim Fortuyn List party was lead and founded by the openly gay Pim Fortuyn.

The Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland supports LGBT rights, as does The Log Cabin Republicans in the U.S.

So no, 'The' LGBT is not either an organisation or a hive mind.

I was talking about the social expectation that if one gay then one feels behoved to be on the left of politics.

You talk about Milo, that nutter, but in even mentioning him, you infer that anyone who is gay and even slightly right, is akin to him.

I abstained in the abortion ref. That wasn't a no, but I wouldn't reveal that to my lefty gay friends. I could do without the argument or the bad feelings. Personally it was something I'm not passionate about either way so I left it.

But don't you get what I mean about 'the' LGBT? Really? Of course it's a thing now and I'm not happy about it one little bit.

In fact I'm quite disturbed about it. Some 10 years ago being gay is okay and now it seems to be about something different altogether. I think the Left is responsible for that.

All I see is the Left bitching about anyone who is white and male. And anyone who doesn't fit into that demographic are the best ppl you could ever meet.

It's nuts what's going on frankly. And I think that my life as a gay man will suffer rather than flourish because of it.

Bannasidhe · 29-12-2019 2:41pm

AllForIt wrote: »

I was talking about the social expectation that if one gay then one feels behoved to be on the left of politics.

You talk about Milo, that nutter, but in even mentioning him, you infer that anyone who is gay and even slightly right, is akin to him.

I abstained in the abortion ref. That wasn't a no, but I wouldn't reveal that to my lefty gay friends. I could do without the argument or the bad feelings. Personally it was something I'm not passionate about either way so I left it.

But don't you get what I mean about 'the' LGBT? Really? Of course it's a thing now and I'm not happy about it one little bit.

In fact I'm quite disturbed about it. Some 10 years ago being gay is okay and now it seems to be about something different altogether. I think the Left is responsible for that.

All I see is the Left bitching about anyone who is white and male. And anyone who doesn't fit into that demographic are the best ppl you could ever meet.

It's nuts what's going on frankly. And I think that my life as a gay man will suffer rather than flourish because of it.

What I am reading is that you feel isolated within the group you hang out with as your politics are different to theirs and that, somehow, this is the 'fault' of 'the Left'.

Which is, imo, a rather insulting view of those you call friends as it implies they have been 'taken over' and do not genuinely believe in left wing politics.

Also, your knowledge of the LGBT fight for recognition is astoundingly poor.
The rights that exist are there because of 'leftys', those rights you enjoy today.

But that does not behove you to anything more than a bit of acknowledgement of the debt you owe the 'leftys' - and yes, the non-white gender queers who didn't have the 'luxury' of 'passing' who literally fought on the streets for your freedoms because I'll tell you this - weren't no white men being dragged into paddy wagons in Christopher Street the night it kicked off.

And yes, there were white men marching in the Pride parades, alongside the men of other colours, the dykes, the gender fluid, the transgendered - all getting spat at and abused and you know what - those white men were 'leftys'.
Some of them were straight - they marched because they saw and injustice and wanted to change it. They didn't abstain as they 'didn't feel passionate about it' - which is another way of saying I couldn't be arsed as it doesn't affect me personally.
Just like the dykes who took up the battle against AIDS to care for our gay brothers.

I know because I was there. 10 years ago. 20 years ago. 30 years ago.

And now I have to listen to privileged pups who are befitting from the battles others fought whinging that they don't like the politics that won them their rights. :rolleyes:

My advice to you - if you don't like the lefty gays - go get yourself some righty ones. There are plenty of them out there who will happily whine along with you.

Odhinn · 31-12-2019 10:45pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...............

My advice to you - if you don't like the lefty gays - go get yourself some righty ones. There are plenty of them out there who will happily whine along with you.

...from the "safety" of the closet.

Annasopra · 01-01-2020 1:33am

Odhinn wrote: »

...from the "safety" of the closet.

Or not but happy enough to throw all marginalised ones under the bus

robindch · 26-01-2020 2:40pm

The Church of England is having one of its periodic spasms about marriage equality. To celebrate this, Andrew Graystone has produced this small guide to what's in and what's out, so to speak.

https://twitter.com/AndrewGraystone/status/1220806222758236160

gmisk · 28-01-2020 4:37pm

He has been given a contract by Catalan dragons...I always knew someone would be desperate enough to sign him alas

smacl · 28-01-2020 4:48pm

gmisk wrote: »

He has been given a contract by Catalan dragons...I always knew someone would be desperate enough to sign him alas

Seems to have gone down in Super League circles like a lead baloon; https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/catalan-dragons-slammed-for-signing-israel-folau-1.4153995

gmisk · 28-01-2020 4:54pm

smacl wrote: »

Seems to have gone down in Super League circles like a lead baloon; https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/catalan-dragons-slammed-for-signing-israel-folau-1.4153995

Not surprised tbh

Wigan warriors announced a pride day for their match in March against them, pretty boss move! I wonder if other teams will follow suit

Bannasidhe · 28-01-2020 5:12pm

smacl wrote: »

Seems to have gone down in Super League circles like a lead baloon; https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/catalan-dragons-slammed-for-signing-israel-folau-1.4153995

Catalans Dragons have been widely condemned for their signing of controversial Australian outside back Israel Folau.

The 30-year-old dual-code international, who has not played since being sacked by Rugby Australia last May for making homophobic comments on social media, has joined the Super League club on a 12-month contract.

The signing brought an angry response from Halifax forward Keegan Hirst, an openly gay professional rugby league player, while Super League’s executive chairman Robert Elstone says it lets down many people in the sport.

Elstone reveals many informed voices within the game were against the signing and Wigan demonstrated their opposition by announcing their round six match against Catalans would be named Pride Day.

The signing of Folau, who sparked a storm in April by posting a photo to Instagram that claimed “hell awaits” gay people, prompted a strong reaction from Hirst.

“I’m shocked and disappointed at the signing of IzzyFolau,” Hirst said on Twitter. “Our great game is tasked with fighting against homophobia and standing up for the values it puts such high stock in.

“It shows none of the bravery, camaraderie or integrity rfl expects from its players, staff and fans.”

Folau, who played for Melbourne and Brisbane before switching codes, was told he would not be allowed to return to the NRL but the Rugby Football League has confirmed it will not prevent his registration with the Dragons, saying the moral responsibility for deciding whether to sign a player sits with individual clubs.

Elstone said: “Super League deplores the homophobic comments Israel Folau has made in the past, which squarely contradict our sport’s core values.

“I have sought the opinion of informed voices connected to our game and the majority share my disappointment that one of our clubs has chosen to sign him.

“There is a strong feeling that the decision to sign him lets down many people connected to our sport.

“I made Catalans Dragons aware of those views.

“However, Super League does not have the authority to veto the registration of players and is satisfied by the due diligence carried out by The Rugby Football League.”

Dragons chairman Bernard Guasch said: “We want to give Israel a new opportunity to shine on the pitch.

“We do not support or agree with Israel’s previously expressed and controversial views which are based upon his sincerely held religious belief.

“We do not share or condone those views and we are totally committed to our club and our sport being open and welcoming to everyone.

“We do not believe that those views should be publicly expressed, especially by a high-profile sports person.

“We have a signed agreement with the RFL. Any transgression will trigger an immediate termination of Israel’s contract and a substantial fine for the club.”

Folau said: “I acknowledge the views expressed by Super League and the Rugby Football League.

“I’m a proud Christian, my beliefs are personal, my intention is not to hurt anyone and I will not be making further public comment about them.

Bit of an about face by Folau - how come suddenly his beliefs are personal and won't be shared?
Were they not personal when the ARU asked him to keep them to himself but he felt he had the right to continue to express them?

smacl · 28-01-2020 5:24pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bit of an about face by Folau - how come suddenly his beliefs are personal and won't be shared?
Were they not personal when the ARU asked him to keep them to himself but he felt he had the right to continue to express them?

And yet he's still sharing the same old nonsense on his Instagram page. I wouldn't say it will be too long before he's given the heave ho, wonder what his team mates make of it all?

robinph · 28-01-2020 5:27pm

The club having signed up agreeing to an allegedly hefty fine if Folau makes any further statements is a pretty risky move, assuming the potential fine is actually substantial. Think I'd be getting Folau to pay you that money for the fine up front himself before signing him and then give him the money back x months after he leaves if he still manages to keep his mouth shut for the duration.

Bannasidhe · 28-01-2020 5:36pm

smacl wrote: »

And yet he's still sharing the same old nonsense on his Instagram page. I wouldn't say it will be too long before he's given the heave ho, wonder what his team mates make of it all?

I think one thing Folau has demonstrated is he feels he is the exception to any rules/agreements he decides he doesn't wish to follow - from Biblical restrictions on tattoos and working on the Sabbath to contracts he has signed.

seamus · 28-01-2020 5:37pm

^^
It could indeed be some form of contractual clause where if he makes it to the end of a period without incurring such a fine, he gets a fixed bonus. But if he does incur the fine, he loses the bonus and the club have a break clause. That's what I would do if I was them.

Cabaal · 02-02-2020 10:31am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think one thing Folau has demonstrated is he feels he is the exception to any rules/agreements he decides he doesn't wish to follow - from Biblical restrictions on tattoos and working on the Sabbath to contracts he has signed.

Likepretty much every Christian then ðŸ˜‰

feargale · 03-02-2020 11:36pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Likepretty much every Christian then ðŸ˜‰

Clearly a man of discriminate judgement :rolleyes:

Lazy thinking is alive and well.

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Comments