Rumours and Stuff

[Glenneel]

The way I see it. He was asked not too and he went and did it again.
Izzy defense is he thinks he is doing something right and trying to help people. I doubt he would think homosexuality is genetics. I've heard blokes at work say Gay men are guys who just can't get laid so they just f**k each other.
Not everyone thinks the same. There are still people around who would like to bash gay people.

Can't understand all the gay hate. How do gays affect people who express the hate? I tend to think its all to do with religion. From what I've read from history gay men and women were accepted back then (Roman and Greek history) and its changed but not sure when and why. Maybe its to deflect from Jesus and the 12 apostles. One man with all his mates, and none seemed to be married. Very unusual in those days when most were married by a very early age.

 

[Glenneel]

Oh I don't think I'd have fired Izzy (I think he's odd on to win his appeal).

I tend to think he won't. He wasn't sacked for being religious, or his beliefs (as he wants everyone to believe), he was sacked because he breached a rule of the ARU.

 

[IFR33K]

When were are confronted with adversity our true colours are are revealed. Your comment has revealed yours.

Ty

 

[Glenneel]

Can you blame them? The anthem tells us that people who were born overseas are as Australian as people whose ancestors were here forty thousand years ago. They obviously disagree.

They apparently disagree with the word 'young' as in 'young and free'. One word. Did this effect Mitchell and Walker's performance on the nite? Both were non shows and Cleary wasn't much better. Three non performers in a SOO side makes it awfully difficult to win.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

@Barry O'Speedwagon what then do you make of Peter Beattie's pronouncement that he will not be welcome in RL. If his appeal is upheld and he is found to have been wrongly dismissed by RU.

Choosing not to hire someone, and terminating an existing contract are related, but different things.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes I agree that there is no intentional malice, however the (unintended) consequences was that it vilified homosexuality. Whilst a liar or an adulterer can “repent” and walk his path to salvation, a gay person does not have that choice.

Everyone has the choice not to have sex with people they shouldn't. In fact plenty of people don't even have that choice.

Dressing it up as love is also dishonest. They are two different things, and sex at least is not essential for happiness. If it was gay men would have lower rates of depression than straight men.

 

[Gronk]

Everyone has the choice not to have sex with people they shouldn't. In fact plenty of people don't even have that choice.

I think we need to break down the use of the word "shouldn't". At law (rules set by the consensus of our tribe), there is the age of consent, literal consent and sex within our species. Outside of that shouldn'ts are then subjective.

Dressing it up as love is also dishonest. They are two different things, and sex at least is not essential for happiness. If it was gay men would have lower rates of depression than straight men.

We are talking about homosexuality here, which is about the attraction with another of one's own sex. Physical sex between the same gender ≠ homosexuality.

 

[Snoochies]

Lust, not love is the issue and yes homosexuality that people are fighting for today is a lot different to what Paul was writing about 2000 years ago. I'm still learning more but maybe what Paul was getting as back then is to the root of what the original plan was whereas in Roman times, men who also had wives would often take boys to have sex with as well. Men were extremely dominant and even marriage back then wasn't equal, men ruled, wives submitted and were there to please their husbands and the blokes then would lust after other men as well. This is different than 2 men being attracted to each other trying to live a monogamous relationship.
Jesus made the stakes very high "even if you look at a woman with lust, you have committed adultery in your heart" Now their isn't one adult human in all of history that hasn't lusted and Jesus basically saying, we're not doing it the way it's meant to be and he started to draw people back to the original purpose, and this is where I think Paul is heading, getting men back to a monogamous relationship of love with their wife. But even in this context, Paul is speaking to people have 'have' come to faith, he's not shooting his mouth at the general public. He is saying that now you are a follower of Christ, these are the things you need to stop doing. He even mentions it's not for him to judge those outside the Church, he is to judge those inside.
I may be off the mark and even my own Christians hate my view but it's not all black and white. Gay and straight people are all screwed up one way or another but I find it's often my own Christian brothers and sisters who are also the liers, thieves and murderers and try and get away with it..
For the record, I'm a total screw up, it's why I need help.

Sorry for hijacking the rumours thread, maybe this should be taken elsewhere.

 

[84 Baby]

Here’s hoping we sign Folau and Matt Lodge! So many discussion points that I’m sure would have no impact on our charge to a premiership

 

[The EELiminator]

Here’s hoping we sign Folau and Matt Lodge! So many discussion points that I’m sure would have no impact on our charge to a premiership

they would have to make nrl 360 a three hour show to fit kenty's rants in

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Can't understand all the gay hate. How do gays affect people who express the hate? I tend to think its all to do with religion. From what I've read from history gay men and women were accepted back then (Roman and Greek history) and its changed but not sure when and why. Maybe its to deflect from Jesus and the 12 apostles. One man with all his mates, and none seemed to be married. Very unusual in those days when most were married by a very early age.

In non-monogamous societies poor men usually never married. They couldn't afford to support a wife and kids so they didn't have them. Did you know genetics shows that modern humans are descended from twice as many women as men? This is why.

Briefly in human history, under Christianity, the losers in life got to get married and pass on their loser genes. Now that the West is secular and people are (theoretically) free to f**k whomever they want it has returned to the old days when only powerful men fathered children (or got laid at all).

Is sex with a partner of your choice a human right? Sure it is. But only if you can find someone else who wants to. Otherwise 'love' is only something better men than you get to have. Or gay men.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think we need to break down the use of the word "shouldn't". At law (rules set by the consensus of our tribe), there is the age of consent, literal consent and sex within our species. Outside of that shouldn'ts are then subjective.

People decide every day whether to obey laws they deem unjust, or just inconvenient.

Is homosexual sex wrong in those parts of the world where it's illegal?

We are talking about homosexuality here, which is about the attraction with another of one's own sex. Physical sex between the same gender ≠ homosexuality.

Obviously. But we are what we do.

 

[hineyrulz]

Is Hugging some Nuts considered a homosexual act???


So many of you MERKINS!! Are going to Hell.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Is Hugging some Nuts considered a homosexual act???


So many of you MERKINS!! Are going to Hell.

Well, the hugger is ok, the huggee is in trouble.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I tend to think he won't. He wasn't sacked for being religious, or his beliefs (as he wants everyone to believe), he was sacked because he breached a rule of the ARU.

And the Courts and FWC have the power to determine that that 'rule' is invalid. Alternately they could decide that breach of that rule was not sufficient grounds for termination.

 

[oldmancraigy]

And the Courts and FWC have the power to determine that that 'rule' is invalid. Alternately they could decide that breach of that rule was not sufficient grounds for termination.

But did he even breach a rule?

I kind of hope he wins so that it's "ok" to sign him, and then he signs here for unders and is actually good.
Otherwise, who cares!

 

[oldmancraigy]

A lot of anthropological agumentation going on around here too...

 

[oldmancraigy]

Here is my atheist / agnostic view. It is not the notion of going to hell that is the hate speech factor. It’s the inference that adulterous homosexuals drunks liars thieves atheists and whatever an idolatrous merkin is - will get what they deserve in the end and will suffer because of their “failings”.

It’s about saying they don’t belong in society.

It’s about making you think they’re dangerous or living a life that is contrary to “good”.

It’s about convincing people of his kind to fear or loath others.

What really gets up most people’s nose Is the righteous judgement of others who are basically good people and valuable contributors to society. Hence the global “f**k you” retort to Izzy.

No wonder his employers warned him about his public utterances were damaging their brand.

So (just stirring the pot here, feel free to ignore):
are you suggesting that murderers, thieves, drunkards, sedition(ers?), adulterers are basically good for society?

I dunno man...

I don't think Folau should have posted what he posted - but what you said doesn't make a lot of sense either...

 

[Gronk]

People decide every day whether to obey laws they deem unjust, or just inconvenient.

Is homosexual sex wrong in those parts of the world where it's illegal?

It may be wrong and also illegal however that does not mean that they shouldn't do it. I would recommend not telling anyone if you wish to go down that path in Brunei, Afghanistan, Qatar, Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen.

 

[Gronk]

So (just stirring the pot here, feel free to ignore):
are you suggesting that murderers, thieves, drunkards, sedition(ers?), adulterers are basically good for society?

I dunno man...

I don't think Folau should have posted what he posted - but what you said doesn't make a lot of sense either...

It wasn't my assessment of "murderers, thieves, drunkards, sedition(ers?), adulterers", it was Izzy's. He said that if they don't cease, disist and repent, they will be living next door to George Pell in the afterlife.

Are they good for society ? if everyone on that list got culled in society there wouldn't be many of us left.