*...gay people were destined for hell “unless they repent of their sins and turn to God”...*

This was a standard position in society until quite recently.

Let's gat back there!

" Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)"

Wasn't Alan Jocye in charge when Qantas became partners with Emirates. The hyprocrisy of the god deniers knows no bounds. I suppose that's why they are happy to sexualise and indoctinate young kids in the name of 'safe' schools. What a spiteful nasty lot they are.

Everyone has a right to a view, but not their own facts! And wherever one looks there at folks blindly refusing to see. XXX Why, because they are brainwashed and can't accept their alternative reality could be wrong. And the truth they espouse says any normal heterosexual that knowingly and willingly enters into a homosexual activity or relationship, has a case to answer. XXX However, no book condemns someone born that way. Nor can we expect of them something impossible for us, celibacy. Or a loveless life for the term of their natural life! XXX The brainwashed can't be cured of their particular affliction and given that's so, have fought wars over erroneous belief! Where millions of innocent lives were the "acceptable" collateral damage. XXX Richard Bramston tells a story, where he gave a highly placed flat earth society official a free space flight. When they landed Richard expected the individual not to reject that which he saw with his own eyes? Only to be confounded by the following observation. The graphics and special effects were very realistic and should prove popular. XXX Folau, who I regard highly as a sportsman and a very fair minded, play the ball not the man, player, might do well to google, Alan sanders geneticist. If only to see some hard scientific evidence that his views are fundamentally flawed and inherently wrong! XXX Even so, I don't expect him, #1/ to look at the hard medical EVIDENCE and #2/ or accept the EVIDENCE. However, if he does, will simply reject it in favour of his rusted on, religious brainwashing!? XXX Alan B.

Shades of 1984. We are now expected to change our beliefs to suit whatever agenda happens to be dominant at present.
It’s not just people of religious beliefs who don’t accept homosexual behaviour, many people have that same belief based on biological grounds. In fact, taking into account the whole population of the world, more people would be against homosexuality than in favour of it. And who gives anyone the right to control our personal beliefs?
I saw an article where someone is now suggesting sex dolls should have the right to say no. Yes, seriously. The rights of robots are now being discussed. So, what happens if some other minority group gains traction and demands our promotion of an activity we can’t personally accept? For instance, supporters of beastiality, of which there are many.
Where do we draw the line and demand that all people’s personal beliefs are equally valid as long as we don’t try and force them onto other people?

Good move Graham, let's get this "SSM" issue back where it belongs! XXX Front and centre in the front page headlines just so we can further incense the mum and dad electors over just how bigoted and destructively divisive some of their preferred conservative candidates are! XXX If only to convince them, the only way to resolve this cruelly regurgitated SSM issue is to put any candidate who rejects the majority view exposed in the "postal survey" into the political wilderness and the dustbin of political history! XXX As for Folau and fellow travellers, poor ignorance personified fools, all one can say is, forgive them Father for they know not what they do! XXX Alan B.

Alan B,

What is this XXX business; over indulgence in XXXX?

I think Qantas and Rugby Australia need to chill for a moment.

According to this idiot, most of us are going to hell for one reason or another. But creating an atmosphere in which people are too scared to voice their opinions eventually backfires.

It’s worth noting, however, that if a white rugby player said that all black people were going to hell for being black, then their censuring would not be so controversial.

Yes A.J. And left handed folk as well given they knowingly choose to be left handed. XXX After all, in Identical twins, one who chooses to be right handed proves that the left handed one chose to be thus so.XXX Today I'm using by choice, a left handed keyboard and a left handed, bald head comb just to prove how silly the choice argument is! XXX ttbn. XXX's now replace the paragraph spacing I used to use but has been removed by an unknown third party to make my commentary less readable or understandable. XXX Alan B.

Folau has publicised his position before. His belief system affects absolutely no-one but himself. Condemning people from indoctrination or ignorance displays the intellect of the one judging because it is always about themselves. Meanwhile, Folau is very good at chasing other men around a field for something that looks like a testicle - then showering together before the hotel gang bang with a token woman present. Sounds pretty gay to me.

Folau has the right to free speech. That right is not being taken away from him. However, with rights come responsibilities. One of those responsibilities should be a responsibility not to insist on inflicting your bigoted ideas on others.

It is perfectly within the rights of Qantas or any other sponsor to not sponsor a sport because activities within that sport are incompatible with the image the company wants to project. Rugby Australia has two options: to look for another sponsor or to ask that Folau keep his bigoted ideas to himself if he wants to continue to play at that level.

Folau can continue to say whatever he likes - he might just have to do so while pursuing some other activities.

Religionists routinely are still killing hundreds of people every year including homosexuals for their behaviour. Rugby authorities are happy with there drug dependant players sex antics and talk morality! Ditto the AFL management. As for cowboy corporate Australia and all their shenanigans. Well excuse me if I could not give the proverbial rats bottom about what they all think.
Mind you a sex doll that says "No" now that really is a bridge too far for me.

Perhaps more interesting is the question of whether Folau thinks gay people actually deserve to be tortured for an eternity. Luckily, in my experience, when Christians are asked this question, most will tap dance around it indefinitely.

If Folau were to be of the opinion that gay people deserve to be tortured for an eternity, and expressed that view, then I would support his sacking. It’s what most of us would expect if he were to, say, express the view that Jews should be exterminated - even if we do like to pretend that the two are somehow different.

Isn’t it funny how expressing the latter is contemptible, while expressing the former is just religious freedom?

Just read your bigoted post Agronomist. You obviously have a problem with evangelical Christians or you wouldn't label them bigots. So, in a slightly more enlightened spirit than your own post, what gives you the right to inflict your opinion on others while Folau lacks that right(in your view)?

And please explain why you think employers have the right to dictate what their employees think about things that have nothing to do with their employment. Should your employer be able to withdraw your wage because you obviously approve of homosexual behaviour?

It’s quite interesting how certain topics can trigger such angry responses. Many people have value systems that don’t fit the common consensus but no one really cares. For instance, I could declare that sex before marriage is sinful in my view and divorce is very bad for children, so shouldn’t be allowed and guess what? No one would give a damn. People would just shrug their shoulders and say who cares what you think.
But say that you believe homosexuality is wrong and immediately you get labelled and cast as some religious fanatic who hates gays.
That raises questions I don’t think people want asked.

Big Nana,

The difference in the reactions between this scenario and your hypothetical scenario are understandable.

Firstly, there are differences between saying that certain people will go to hell for who they inherently are and saying that certain actions are simply sinful. The first difference is that the former is not a choice while the latter two are. The second difference is that most Christians nowadays don’t believe that divorce and sex before marriage are sins that will condemn an individual to hell because most of them are guilty of at least one of them. The heterosexual Christian majority, on the other hand, know they will never be gay so they are happy to go with what the Bible says in that instance.

Secondly, most people are taking Folau to mean that gay people are deserving of hell simply for being born the way they are. While this is a reasonable assumption, it is, in my experience, not the case for most Christians, which is why I raised the question in my last post.

AJ, why did you bring religion into this? I never mentioned religion specifically because many people hold these type of views without being religious.
And nowhere did I mention hell or punishment. My example was just that some people believe homosexual behaviour is wrong.
I wasn’t referring to any specific views held by a certain person, I was just speaking generally.
As for not having a choice, people always have a choice. You can choose not to divorce or not to have sex before marriage or not to have sex with someone of the same sex.
Once again, these are just general examples, to point out the massive difference in response.

Graham,

You have provided a penetrating and honest assessment of the Folau statement about homosexuality and lack of religious freedom in Australia. I commend you for this incisive critique of what is going on with Rugby Union, Qantas and other opponents of Folau's statement.

However, I consider Folau could have stated it more sensitively. He could have explained it like the apostle Paul did: All people who do wrong and do not repent of their sins will not enter God's kingdom. This includes those who worship idols, commit adultery, practise homosexuality, are thieves, greedy people, drunkards, liars and cheats. All of these sinners will not enter God's kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

The good news is that such Corinthian believers were like that but had been cleansed of that filth and changed through faith in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11).

Folau is a sportsman and not a theologian or pastor. What he said, although offensive to some, is consistent with what the Scriptures conclude about all unforgiven sinners, including homosexuals.

All Christians should be permitted in a democracy that promotes free speech and freedom of religion, to be able to engage in plain talk about their Christian faith.

Big Nana,

Because religious belief is presumably the motivation behind Folau’s comment.

<<... why did you bring religion into this?>>

Furthermore, you spoke of sin, and sin is a specifically religious concept.

<<I never mentioned religion specifically …>>

You didn't have to.

<<... because many people hold these type of views without being religious.>>

Yes, but they are somewhat of topic. You seem very keen to make them a part of the discussion, though.

<<And nowhere did I mention hell or punishment.>>

I know, and as I explained, this omission of yours is partly why your analogy failed.

<<My example was just that some people believe homosexual behaviour is wrong.>>

But you compared them to a religious person (i.e Folau), using a specifically religious concept (i.e. sin), so I cannot take any responsibility for the confusion in this instance, sorry.

<<As for not having a choice, people always have a choice.>>

Incorrect. People cannot choose their sexuality. You may be able to switch back and forth as you please, but most of us aren't bisexual.

Land rights for Left-Handed Lesbian Aboriginal Harp Seals !

"Just read your bigoted post Agronomist."

Fabulous GrahamY. Although I do think it might help if you read it again.

"You obviously have a problem with evangelical Christians or you wouldn't label them bigots."

Indeed I do have a problem with evangelical Christians. The problem I have is they want to insist everyone behaves like they say people should and they are intolerant of all alternative behaviours. The latter is why I call them bigots.

"So, in a slightly more enlightened spirit than your own post, what gives you the right to inflict your opinion on others while Folau lacks that right(in your view)?"

I didn't say this. It is why I suggest you should read my post again. I spoke about responsibilities as well as rights. It is about how and where I voice my opinion. I have no "right" to voice my opinion on this blog. You could ban me for saying certain things.

"And please explain why you think employers have the right to dictate what their employees think about things that have nothing to do with their employment."

I wrote nothing about thinking. How can an employer control what you think? I wrote: "Folau can continue to say whatever he likes - he might just have to do so while pursuing some other activities."

Yes, if I say things publicly that embarrass my employer or risk a serious financial impact on their business, I would expect that they would call me in for a dressing down.

Agronomist,

<<Indeed I do have a problem with evangelical Christians. The problem I have is they want to insist everyone behaves like they say people should and they are intolerant of all alternative behaviours. The latter is why I call them bigots.>>

Is it OK with you that your anti-evangelical statement (as illustrated here) is behaviour that others should emulate?

Seems to me you engage in a self-defeating argument. You oppose one kind of bigotry (evangelical Christians) and support a non-evangelical perspective, which is just as bigoted as the other one.

//All Christians should be permitted in a democracy that promotes free speech and freedom of religion, to be able to engage in plain talk about their Christian faith.//

And so should everybody else. Anybody should be free to criticise another's opinions as offensive and wrong, even if said opinions are somebody's deeply held religious beliefs.

As for the notion that sponsors voicing their concerns over how their brands are being represented represents some sort of closet fascism: what a load of bollocks. He who pays the piper call the tune; if sponsors don't like the tune being played they're well within their rights to say so. It's not like they're being forced to sponsor anybody; they'll only do it as long as they think it is in their best interests. Don't they have a right to free speech to say that they don't want to be associated with certain views?

So far I think the most sensible words I've read on this subject was this comment from Peter Fitzsimons:

“He’s had his free speech, I’ve had my free speech and millions of Australian’s have had their free speech. Mate, Pull your bloody head in.”

Probably mostly a storm in a teacup. Folau doesn't speak for Rugby Australia and Rugby Australia made it clear that they don't share Folau's views on gays. Qantas hasn't threatened to pull their sponsorship in any reports I've seen.

Rugby Australia certainly has the right to call a player in and tell them that they are a business trying to appeal to a broad community and anti-gay statements don't help that. Especially since they are paying him $1.5 million/yr. He can make up his own mind what tweets he sends out in future. I know of a business paying a young graduate $30,000/yr who didn't like the casual clothes she wore to work saying that it reflected poorly on the business when clients came to the office. She protested, similar to Folau's defenders, that she was a free person who did her job well and the clothes she wore had nothing to do with the job. She didn't get much support from her co-workers. Scroll forward 20 years and she is now a big shot with the full corporate business suit look, 7 days a week.

As mentioned by another poster we can reasonably assume that Folau also believes that Jews and Muslims are going to hell for eternity if they don't recognise the true faith. It is difficult to believe that there would be as much support if he had tweeted that, as there has been for his anti-gay tweet.

The most important take-away from this affair is probably "It doesn't really matter much what Israel Folau says."

Toni Lavis,

Freedom of speech is only supposed to go one way. We saw that with the Yassmin Abdel-Magied hoo-ha, and we see it in calls for prison sentences for flag burning.

It’s so easy to portray your side of politics as the champions of free speech when it’s your side of politics that are making all the offensive and ignorant remarks.

There are a number of aspects of this case that most people are ignoring:

1 Sponsors can do whatever they want, but Alan Joyce if he wants PC compliance should consider sports that more closely align with his vision for Quantas such as knitting.

2 Folau, only offered his opinion when directly asked, so this cannot be considered hate speech or harassment. If he was fired, he could sue his employers for wrongful termination.

If Folau had stated something like he believes same sex marriage is morally wrong, he would not have got into trouble I think. A view held by many Churches, which is well understood. The Bible says, he who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.

Regardless of religion or non-religion, or political views; once very aggressive comments are made they will be jumped on, and chances are the aggressive views reinforce the views of those having an alternative religion or political views.

Like all hypocritical religious bigots, the heavily tattooed Folau chooses to focus on the "abomination" of homosexuality while overlooking another abomination in Leviticus 19:28, which says,”You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.”

He also stops short of the Biblical instruction for gays that "they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them".

Perhaps he either doesn't want to publicly admit sympathy for the execution part or is just another token pew-packer who conveniently uses and hides behind religion to justify his own prejudices.

Also, why does he play sport on the Sabbath?

ShadowMinister - knitting is not a sport. Weak attempt at feminising gays - the stereotype does not hold true in many cases. Matthew Mitchum, Ian Thorpe, Ian Roberts - two are gold medal winners and one a rugby player - all in sports. There are many who do not come out because of the judgement by the likes of yourself and Falou. They pend their lives tolerating such ignorance while achieving great things.

Herenow,

Clearly, the point I was making went right over your head. my experience of playing competitive sports for decades, is that all male teams are not places for the sensitive or the politically correct. One time I was playing after recovering from an ankle injury and a teammate kindly offered me the use of his grandma's zimmer frame, I suggested that he sexually depart, and after the game, we had a couple of beers together.

If Alan Joyce who probably hasn't tackled anything bigger than a glazed doughnut is expecting sensitivity and tact from people hired for their brawn, (or alternatively silence) then choosing a hard hitting contact sport is a poor choice.

Anyone who derives a certain humour from contemplating the dilemma faced by pontifical politicians in forming laws on freedoms could be called a cynic.

Freedom of expression cannot include the "right not to be offended" yet we have law in place enshrining that right.

With admirable detachment, Israel Folau has expressed his religious opinion in public, a practice from which some people earn a good living. It therefore becomes apparent if allowance is made for expression then it must be made for criticism in light of genuine provocation.

With this in mind we can examine Folau's choice to dedicate his life and mind to what in reality is a phantom, a spirit, a fist full of Phlogiston and draw the inevitable conclusion that here is a substantial part of a life and an intellect wasted in futile pursuit. That futility will be visited upon his defenseless children. It is the conscious choice to grovel, to surrender and to corrupt innocence that offends.

But then, perhaps Folau's "choice" is that same physical phenomenon that predisposes one to homosexuality. It would be unbearably ironic if it were.