The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Was Izzy Folau moral? > Comments

Was Izzy Folau moral? : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 1/7/2019

Both sides can claim ( and fully believe) that they are virtuous, that they in the right, and the opposing viewpoint is in the wrong.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Aries54,

<<As usual the bible thumping hypocrites are tying themselves in knots cherry picking bits from their sacred text which support their political / social agenda of the moment, (something they are very skilled at) thus ensuring the survival of their particular brand of faith.>>

To whom are you referring? Am I the guilty hypocrite who cherry picks verses from the biblical text?

Or, is this fallacious reasoning of the Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association). See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association.

I do wish you would engage in a debate of the issues, as I tried to do from a biblical perspective. When you use logical fallacies like this, we cannot have a rational discussion.
Posted by OzSpen, Monday, 1 July 2019 7:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter (the author),

.

It appears that sex has been commonly practised independently of reproduction throughout the animal kingdom since time immemorial. It is, by no means, an exclusivity of humankind. It is a perfectly natural phenomenon.

It is also commonplace for heterosexual married couples to practise various forms of birth control, including annal sex, which is, by no means, an exclusivity of homosexual couples. Both practise some form of sterile sex – sometimes the same.

Also, marriage contracts in Australia do not impose any obligation to procreate. Nor is procreation one of the principal purposes of marriage. Many people procreate outside marriage and many people who are married neither procreate, nor contemplate doing so. A significant number of married persons cannot procreate either at the time of the marriage or subsequently – an obvious example being a post-menopausal woman. Similarly, it is inappropriate and incorrect to suggest that consummation is in any way a requirement to the creation of a valid marriage. Subsequent to the passage of the Marriage Act (1961), inability to consummate a marriage ceased to be a ground for making a declaration of nullity.

I think it is worth noting that Izzy Folau's message relates to sexual relationships and behaviour that are perfectly legal when practised by freely consenting adults in Australia.

His message proferrs a menace which some of those who feel concerned may take seriously. I should not be at all surprised if that menace were to be sanctioned by a court of law – independently of any contractual engagement he may have made with his employer not to repeat such behaviour following a previous incident.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 2:29:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is this a case of whether Isaiah Folau was moral, or whether homosexuality is moral. There is a difference. On the grounds of morality, does that excuse the actions or Ruby Australia? Can anyone be fired based on a slippery defination of morality?

Let's look at a practical approach. Not based on whether people will be offended or angered, but solely on whether people are harmed, or placed in danger. If a moral ambugitey doesn't harm someone else then everyone can disagree on it and voice their disagreements on it and no actual harm is caused outside of being angry and offended by everyone involved who get anger at each other.

When a moral ambugitey crosses the threshold of actually being a danger to others, then yes, stand up against it. Take extra actions if it is needed. The moral ambugitey of taking drugs can and should be a line crossed in employment. Because in any job it compromises their ability to work, and their ability to be safe or make good judgements. In Rugby and any other sport taking drugs goes the opposite direction of cheating the sport such as taking steroids. These are moral issues that can and do affect the workplace they are involved in and so should be fireable offenses. Speaking out against homosexuality does not harm homosexuals or pose a danger to them, all it does is cause anger or offense. It doesn't affect the game of rugby at all either.

Morally speaking this is a non issue when compared to the consquences that were handed out. It's comparable to drinking excessively as being immoral, but as long as the person only does it on their time off and they aren't driving or causing fights the moral issue only affects the person and their liver. Morally speaking they shouldn't be fired even if the employer hates drunks.

Speaking out in one's privite time on an issue that you don't agree with their stance on is not a fireable offense. Unless there shows some actual harm or danger in motion.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 3:16:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, the absolute right of a free people living in a democracy to discuss any social issue without the fear of legal sanction is the keystone of democracy. How can the people of any democratic society decide for themselves whether any issue is right or wrong unless they are free to discuss the issue among themselves?" Even a pseudo "progressive" like yourself should be smart enough to figure that one out. However, every totalitarian of every political and religious stripe would agree with your previous statement. You had better start figuring out which side you are on. Are you with the democrats or the totalitarians? Are you a real liberal or are you a reactionary ideologue determined to shut down free speech on any topic that you consider must not be discussed?

I once met a recently arrived Yugoslav migrant who expressed to me utter amazement that in Australia, people could make derogatory remarks about political leaders and not get banged up in jail for doing so. Apparently, criticising political leaders in Yugoslavia at the time was their version of your "hate speech." According to Mark Steyn, in the days of the Soviet Union, over a million people were in gulags for telling jokes about the Politburo.

Australia is supposed to be a free country, that means we are supposed to have free speech. And you want to turn the clock back to totalitarianism? Free speech in western countries is a done deal. If you keep trying to impose political censorship then you are going to make enemies of the real intellectuals and the real liberals, which just happens to be what is happening, right now.

Libel, slander, contempt of court, and the Official Secrets Act form no part in political debate and have never been considered free speech. If Australia keeps section 18c, then stop calling Australia a free country, because it is no longer that, and we have taken our first giant leap towards totalitarianism.

You are on the wrong side of history with this one, Foxy.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 4:40:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

Lets leave out the personal attacks.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom
of speech is limited by the rights of others - for
example their right to maintain their good reputation
and their right to privacy.

All democratic societies put various limitations on what
people may say. They prohibit certain types of speech
that they believe might harm the government or the people.
We have laws covering libel and slander, laws that offend
public decency, urging violence, and many more.

In the case of Folau - it's a simple matter of his
breaking his employment contractual agreement. The
code of conduct that he signed. The courts have thousands
of such cases up before them currently - with people claiming
"unfair dismissal." It will be up to the courts to
decide whether Folau has a case.

We shall have to wait and see what the decision will be.
He had many warnings, including in writing - that he was
entitled to his views - but he was not entitled to express
them in a public sphere.

He did not keep his contractual
agreement - and continued despite the warnings to act
as he pleased. When you sign a contract and get paid $4 million
a year to keep that contract - and then you continue to go
against it - there's something wrong with your mentality.

Perhaps Folau has brain damage as a result of rugby?
His lawyers should know better
and advise him. I doubt if he will win this case. The law
is pretty straightforward.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 10:57:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

<<Lets leave out the personal attacks.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights.>>

Then what do you do in the very same post? You stated:

<<Perhaps Folau has brain damage as a result of rugby?>>

Even though you include a question mark, yours is still a personal attack on Israel through a question.

Please be consistent with your own standards.
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:57:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy