Israel Folau cops backlash for gay marriage tweet

By Vince Rugari, Vince Rugari is a Roar Guru

Tagged:
 ,

359 Have your say

Popular article! 6,488 reads

    Wallabies superstar Israel Folau has sparked a Twitter backlash by revealing he will not support the push for same-sex marriage.

    Folau tweeted on Wednesday afternoon: “I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions. but personally, I will not support gay marriage.”

    He was immediately inundated with dozens of replies criticising him for his stance.

    Folau is believed to be the first high-profile sportsperson to have publicly announced their opposition to same-sex marriage.

    It comes after numerous sporting organisations – including the Australian Rugby Union, the NRL, Cricket Australia and Football Federation Australia – declared their support for a ‘yes’ vote in the government’s postal survey.

    The 28-year-old was raised as a Mormon and is a devout Christian after his family converted in 2011.

    Folau credits his relationship with God as one of the reasons for his athletic prowess and his success in the NRL, AFL and rugby union.

    His views are in stark contrast to Wallabies teammate David Pocock, who has taken the year off rugby but will be back in the Test ranks alongside Folau next year.

    A passionate campaigner for a variety of social issues including homophobia and marriage equality, Pocock famously declared four years ago that he would not tie the knot with his partner Emma Palandri until gay people were legally permitted to do the same.

    As recently as last month, Pocock was using his Twitter account to encourage people to check their enrolment to ensure they are able to vote.

    Wallabies coach Michael Cheika and captain Michael Hooper also met with politicians in Canberra earlier this week to show their support for same-sex marriage, with the team currently stationed in the nation’s capital ahead of Saturday’s Test match against Argentina at GIO Stadium.

    Folau’s tweet didn’t only draw criticism, however, with many in support of his right to make his state his opinion among the 132 replies, 45 retweets and 172 likes within the first hour of it being posted on Twitter.

    © AAP 2018

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (359)

    • September 13th 2017 @ 4:49pm
      Kitch said | September 13th 2017 @ 4:49pm | ! Report

      Good on him! It’s what he believes and he’s not getting stuck into people who believe otherwise as they are toward him!

      • Roar Rookie

        September 13th 2017 @ 8:49pm
        Brett Susan said | September 13th 2017 @ 8:49pm | ! Report

        Good on him for bigotry and exclusion of rights based simply on sexual orientation? Are you nuts?

        • September 13th 2017 @ 11:01pm
          Jack Russell said | September 13th 2017 @ 11:01pm | ! Report

          Bigotry? He seems to be quite tolerant of other people’s opinions if his tweet is any indication. Haven’t seen anything to suggest he’s a bigot.

          Bigotry doesn’t mean someone that doesn’t agree with you – you do know that don’t you? And I say that as someone that fervently disagrees with Folau on this matter. But I respect his right to have that opinion, even if I have no respect for the opinion itself.

          • September 14th 2017 @ 12:19pm
            Stin said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:19pm | ! Report

            It’s not a matter of opinion. The vote is not an expression of one’s opinion. It’s a matter of equality. It’s not religious. It’s civil equality.

            • Roar Guru

              September 14th 2017 @ 12:47pm
              stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:47pm | ! Report

              Stin: It is also not a matter of civil equality if what you are asking is that we change the marriage laws from between a man and a woman, to between anyone and anyone.

              There is no civil equality and never has been. It is a total state of flux.

              Ask any man who has been divorced and denied the ability to see his kids via made up AVO’s and other means. Many find the fight to hard and just give up. But that doesn’t matter compared to SSM does it?

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:50pm
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

                Pointless comparison. No different to the old “if they can put a man on the moon why they can’t they do something about x”

                Opponents of marriage equality are frantically constructing straw men and diversionary tactics because they don’t have a leg to stand on in opposing the central question

              • September 14th 2017 @ 1:11pm
                Stin said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:11pm | ! Report

                It’s terrible for all those fathers – I sympathise. But Marriage is a public/civic institution. And successful institutions evolve. Stronger relationships between partners of any persuasion strengthen the civil community.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 9:29pm
                gatesy said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:29pm | ! Report

                Mate – inappropriate – this is a Rugby website and the article was about Izzy making a comment – this is not the place to debate same sex marriage – it’s the place to debate Rugby

        • September 14th 2017 @ 5:24am
          MH01 said | September 14th 2017 @ 5:24am | ! Report

          What a silly reply. If don’t agree with something , it does not mean your are against it and support the other side! Selfish attitude much ?

          • September 14th 2017 @ 6:28am
            Train Without A Station said | September 14th 2017 @ 6:28am | ! Report

            Voting against means you’re against it…

          • September 14th 2017 @ 7:31am
            Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 7:31am | ! Report

            Folau seems to believe that the legal rights available to a person should depend upon that person’s sexual orientation.

            How is that not bigoted ?

            • September 14th 2017 @ 8:06am
              Unanimous said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:06am | ! Report

              He didn’t say any such thing.

            • September 14th 2017 @ 8:14am
              Jameswm said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:14am | ! Report

              Getting married and having legal rights are completely different. Ever heard of de facto laws?

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 8:50am
                Wal said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:50am | ! Report

                De facto laws require far greater burden of proof before offering protection,

                In order for a couple who is in a same-sex relationship to prove they are legal de facto relationship, the following factors must be taken into account:

                the length of the relationship
                the nature and extent of common residence
                the existence of a sexual relationship
                the dependence, interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support
                the ownership, acquisition, and use of property
                the degree of a mutual commitment to a shared life
                the care and support of children the performance of household duties
                the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
                Same-sex relationships may also be legally registered in the States as evidence that a couple is in a committed relationship, although this is not mandatory. In both State and Federal law, proving a couple is in a de facto relationship is dependent on a number of factors, which may include the opening of joint bank accounts, purchasing property together, photographs, recognising each other as the next of kin, or listing the person as an emergency contact.

                And you can go through all of this and have a family member challenge the legitimacy of your relationship, and lose all of your spousal rights.

                Check my post later on that highlights some of the other areas of the law that currently discriminate against SS couples.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 9:42am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:42am | ! Report

                Getting married IS a legal right.

            • Roar Guru

              September 14th 2017 @ 9:47am
              stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:47am | ! Report

              Rucking oaf: So lets take a couple of examples. Should anyone from any country be allowed to play for Australia? If you agree then your argument that you are not bigoted (by your defintion) is correct, if you disagree then you are saying that a legal right to play for Australia is only open to Australians. Isn’t this a form of discrimination?

              Now where do we go with this after your bigotry argument wins? Do we allow people who are only attracted to children the right to have sex with them? These people could argue that they are a discriminated minority as well? They could argue that it is bigoted to argue that, because their sexual orientation is different, they should be jailed for their ‘weakness’? How about poligamy? Child marriage within the Muslim community? and so it goes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

              I can see no reason why the church and others should be forced by law, against their beliefs to accept gay marriage just because we,as a nation, are focused on minority issues.

              There are 3 gay couples I know and none of them want this legislation. Why do you want it?

              Israel Folau is totally within his rights and morally correct within his beliefs.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 10:10am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:10am | ! Report

                Hey stillmissit

                “Should anyone from any country be allowed to play for Australia”

                Lesse now – Cooper is originally from New Zealand; Kerevi from Fiji; Pocock from Zimbabwe; Genia from PNG etc etc. Heck fox sports reported that nearly half the squad for the June tests were born overseas.

                So yep I’d say that anyone from any country should be allowed to play for Australia. Provided of course that they are good enough to be selected and meet the eligibility criteria.

                Child marriage – you mean like when we let 12 year old girls get married in this country ? Did the Church object to that then?

                “There are 3 gay couples I know….” Ahh well with an extensive survey like that who are we to disagree. Hang on a sec I know dozens of straight couples who want the legislation to pass. Maybe legislation in this country should be decided on something other that a few people you and I know.

                And what is it with the polygamy and sex with children? Why is that near the top of the list for SSM opponents. All you needed to do was throw in bestiality and you’d have the bigoted red-herring trifecta.

                “I can see no reason why the church and others should be forced by law, against their beliefs to accept gay marriage….”

                Me neither I can’t see any reason at all. In fact I don’t see what the church has to do with the debate in the first place. I just did a quick search of the Marriage Act and I couldn’t find one reference to church So why don’t we just sideline the church and get on with it ?

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:33am
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:33am | ! Report

                Rucking oaf: thank for the reply. This issue interests me as we have put a massive amount of parliamentary time into dealing and arguing about this minority issue.

                Yet we have the second highest level of personal debt in the world, our total debt is pushing 3/4 of a trillion dollars”from a base of 40m in surplus only 10 years ago and there is no debate about dealing with that. Yet we have time to discuss a minority issue within a minority only because they are well organised and noisy.

                I will be voting NO as yoiu may well have guessed, due to it being a non-issue to the majority of Australians and if you are looking at undoing wrongs in the law there are plenty of more deserving but less noisy recipients.

                I repeat my question to you “Why are you voting YES?

              • September 14th 2017 @ 12:22pm
                Stin said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

                Vote YES if you believe in equality. As I said above – its not a vote to express your opinion. It’s a vote on people be able to have equal civil rights. Simple really.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:43am
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:43am | ! Report

                Stillmissit – it’s not the fault of gay people that our parliament is so emotionally gutless and insecure as to not be able to resolve this in a ten minute vote.

                Of course we are well organised, it’s a huge issue for our community. Voting no won’t make it go away either. Not like we’ll accept this like the spineless republicans and go away for twenty years. We won’t have to though, we will win a thumping majority in November and shame the government into action.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 10:45am
                northerner said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:45am | ! Report

                @stillmissit: first, let me say that I am a proponent of free speech so I have no issue with Folau stating his views. He has every right to do so.

                Second, I happen to think he’s wrong. And I would be prepared to debate the matter with him. But I would never try to shut him down by calling him a bigot.

                Third, I think you’re wrong, too. Equality is never, ever a “minority issue.” I’d have much preferred it if the government saved us all a lot of angst and simply enacted some form of marriage equality without bothering with surveys and plebiscites, and while ensuring the protection of religious beliefs. But ultimately, marriage is a civil, not a religious, arrangement and it should be available to all.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:48am
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:48am | ! Report

                Paul D: Love the way you accept our democracy(sarc.). Intolerance of democracy is as bad as the issue you are fighting.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 10:49am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:49am | ! Report

                Hey stillmissit,

                Hmmm could it possibly be that the parliament has spent so much time on this issue because the parliamentary opponents of SSM have spent so much time trying to delay and obscurate the issue as best they can.

                After all a simple vote in the parliament could have put this to bed months ago. Why was that not done ? I don’t recall the proponents for SSM objecting to the idea.

                IF this issue has been unnecessarily draw out it’ the King Canutes of the “no” campaign that have been dragging the chain.

                Secondly I dunno about you but I expect my parliamentarians can do more than one thing at once. I think that they should be able to “walk and chew gum” at the same time,

                It might surprise you to know that there can be more than one piece of legislation going through parliament at the same time, or that the government of the day can simultaneously deal with more than one issue.

                Debt and SSM could both be addressed if there was the political will to do so, imagine that.

                “… a non-issue to the majority of Australians…. ”

                Firstly why a postal survey then ?

                Secondly this is based on what ? Dd you discuss this with another 6 friends of yours? How do you know this is a non-issue to the majority? You have some polling or other information to support this ?

                I would guess that this is just your supposition. You’ll happily deny a legal right to people based on nothing but an untested supposition of yours.

                There might well be a good reason to vote no for SSM but this isn’t one of them.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:58am
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:58am | ! Report

                I have tremendous respect for our democracy stillmissit.

                Unlike you I think the best of it too. Australians are good people who will vote about 65-70% for gay marriage and the parliament will respect their view.

                Democracy is all about majority in action and I am very confident the majority will vote in our favour on this, it is the right thing to do at this time and place to catch us up with the rest of the world

              • September 14th 2017 @ 10:58am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:58am | ! Report

                Hey Paul D,

                I dunno – I’m a bit cynical but I can’t imagine the size of the vote needed to move the likes of Abbott.

                There is a reason that the “no” campaign wanted this postal vote so badly.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:59am
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:59am | ! Report

                Northener: Where is it written that we should all be equal ? There is the idea of all being equal in front of the law but we all know that is BS, ask anyone who has been in a court with a reasonable case but insufficient money (excluding some minorities who get massive court cases fought for them via legal aid or pro bono).

                Have a look around the world and tell me where equality lies? I cannot see it and I have been around a fair while.

                This is a BS socialist idea which according to the pigs in Animal Farm is “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 11:00am
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:00am | ! Report

                We won’t shift Abbott, he’s araldited to his homophobic position. But we’ll shift enough MP’s who actually have an open mind and care for more than just their narrow blinkered white middle aged view of the world

                Abbott is a relic. The only thing he’s united the Australian public on is their furious desire for him to retire from public life

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:43pm
                PeterK said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:43pm | ! Report

                Paul D – Nice example of r@cism and agism.

                Identity politics and labeling at its best, lets not judge or value people as individuals

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:48pm
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:48pm | ! Report

                You can quantify 23 million people as individuals if you want, I’m all about broad strokes

                CBF with pleasantries for anyone who’s avowedly voting no and has no interest in changing their minds

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:55pm
                PeterK said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:55pm | ! Report

                broads strokes is another name for labeling , identity politics is it?

                That if you are white heterosexual male you are less worthy of respect and rights, and they are all the same and all have some sort of priviliege

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 1:04pm
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:04pm | ! Report

                I don’t get into any of that. I just take the view that if two people love each other they should be allowed to marry and never mind what anyone else says.

                I do my own thing and I leave other people to do their own. I’m a fierce libertarian and self-responsibility advocate

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 1:10pm
                PeterK said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:10pm | ! Report

                doesn’t seem like it when you write

                But we’ll shift enough MP’s who actually have an open mind and care for more than just their narrow blinkered white middle aged view of the world

                you accept they have an open mind but assume they all have the same world view / perspective of life , one that is narrow minded and defined by their race and age

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 1:25pm
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:25pm | ! Report

                If they’re going to vote no I don’t care about their reasons.

                I don’t hate them for it, I won’t abuse them for it, I’m just utterly indifferent to their rationale

              • Roar Guru

                September 15th 2017 @ 7:35am
                Edward Pye said | September 15th 2017 @ 7:35am | ! Report

                Playing for Australia has no correlation to equal marriage rights. Someone who is not from Australia can go and play rugby for the country that they qualify for – there is no discrimination there. Marriage is the only institution that allows different legal rights to married couples. Thus it provides no other option to people who aren’t allowed to do it.

                Secondly, not sure if you know this, but pedophilia is a crime – we don’t allow pedophiles to marry kids because there is a moral obligation to protect our youth. There is no such moral imposition with gay marriage – these are consensual relationships between adults and they affect you in absolutely zero ways.

                Your church doesn’t have to believe in equal rights, you can continue thinking that discrimination is okay, but people with good morals are well within our rights to tell you that your beliefs are idiotic.

            • September 14th 2017 @ 10:03am
              Jack Russell said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:03am | ! Report

              How is it bigoted? Bigotry is intolerance of other people’s opinions.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 10:36am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:36am | ! Report

                Hey Jack,

                Because the basis seems to be that the legal rights available (ie to marriage) should be dependent on a persons sexual orientation.

                But I guess if your definition of bigotry is narrow enough it’s just discrimination.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:45am
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:45am | ! Report

                Jack Russell, it is also a slavish attachment to your own opinions and beliefs and complete disregard for those who hold differing opinions.

                It is a word that is badly used and often over used, yet there is no shortage of bigots around and they are often those calling others bigots!

              • September 14th 2017 @ 1:23pm
                anopinion said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:23pm | ! Report

                According to the Cambridge dictionary: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:

                I would say Folau’s tweet shows bigotry

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 3:01pm
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 3:01pm | ! Report

                anopinion: I think you should go back and read a bit more. Folau holds reasonable beliefs and shows no sign of “who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:”

                You can put a dictionary in someones hands but if they missunderstand what is written – what can you do?

              • September 14th 2017 @ 3:14pm
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 3:14pm | ! Report

                “Folau holds reasonable beliefs….”

                So discrimination based on sexual orientation is a reasonable belief now.

                I’m thinking maybe somebody else needs to consult a dictionary now and then.

            • Roar Guru

              September 14th 2017 @ 9:30pm
              gatesy said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:30pm | ! Report

              Mate – inappropriate – this is a Rugby website and the article was about Izzy making a comment – this is not the place to debate same sex marriage – it’s the place to debate Rugby

        • September 14th 2017 @ 10:26am
          Ian said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:26am | ! Report

          Why is he a bigot? For having a contrary opinion? Why can he not hold to marriage being between a man and woman without being accused of being a bigot? You have highlighted the nature of the problem-anyone in the SSM debate who exercises a contrary opinion is a bigot. So much for tolerance…

          • Roar Guru

            September 14th 2017 @ 10:51am
            stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:51am | ! Report

            The number of people who demand tolerance but never hand it out is growing exponentially in the Western world.

            Their ego’s have them by the throat and it is squeezing the common sense out of them.

            • September 14th 2017 @ 11:55am
              Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:55am | ! Report

              Why be tolerant of bigotry or discrimination.

              I guess Rosa Parks should have just tolerated standing on the bus…………………..

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:27pm
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:27pm | ! Report

                Rucking Oaf: The idea of what is discrimination and bigotry is a question that few in the SSM debate seem to have considered. I think to their detriment. Calling those who disagree with them bigots is bigotry, claiming discrimination when the law is not what you want it to be is another form of bigotry.

                This one of the reasons why you may lose this postal vote. Australians don’t take kindly to being called bigots for what they believe is true. The abuse the SSM supporters have handed out to anyone who disagrees with them is very ugly and mostly unwarranted.

                Reminds me of the label of “Denier” attached to anyone who disagrees with their climate change view.

                In fact it seems to be the standard tactic of the left in any argument ie attempt to take an imagined high moral ground and abuse anyone who disagrees with them.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:33pm
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:33pm | ! Report

                Labelling all pro-gay marriage proponents as frenzied abusers etc is no different to saying everyone against gay marriage is a failed applicant for the Spanish inquisition.

                The vast majority of Australians I feel are people who see this as a double standard and will vote to see it erased from history. Not because of any burning ideological crusade but because they feel it is the right thing for this country to do.

                I place as little credence on the scribblings of someone like Rodney Croome as I do Lyle Shelton. Both are biased and untrustworthy.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 1:27pm
                anopinion said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:27pm | ! Report

                Daer stillmissit,
                When you said “The abuse the SSM supporters have handed out to anyone who disagrees with them is very ugly and mostly unwarranted.” I could not help but compare their struggles to those of gay people through history.

                Won’t someone please defend the poor opponents of same sex marriage?

              • September 14th 2017 @ 1:46pm
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:46pm | ! Report

                Hey stillmissit,

                It’s reading a bit like “I don’t like black people but how dare you call be racist”

                Seems to be a standard tactic of the right / conservatives to squeal like stuck pigs when confronted with the consequences of their actions or statements.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 3:08pm
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 3:08pm | ! Report

                Rucking Oaf: I tend to see the squealing like stuck pigs from the left mainly. The right has no idea how to defend itself against emotional outbursts and thus the rise of ‘snowflake’ culture in universities.

                I was hoping that this discussion would offer some insights but all I have read I have heard tossed out by the ABC over the last year.

                You still have not told me why you are voting yes? Please refrain from ABC cliches I think there has been enough of those on this thread.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 3:11pm
                Train Without A Station said | September 14th 2017 @ 3:11pm | ! Report

                I tend to see the squealing like stuck pigs from the left mainly

                Go read the comments an article supporting immigration, Australia Day changes, etc. then. Plenty of squealing like stuck pigs from the right.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 3:12pm
                Paul D said | September 14th 2017 @ 3:12pm | ! Report

                I am voting yes because I feel it is the right step for this country to take in terms of bringing about greater unity and harmony for Australians. That’s my view.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 3:18pm
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 3:18pm | ! Report

                “The right has no idea.”

                Well on this topic anyway if you’d just stopped there you might have had something.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 4:51pm
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 4:51pm | ! Report

                “You still have not told me why you are voting yes?”

                Actually I still haven’t told you how I’m voting at all or indeed if I am voting.

                But so far I’m yet to see 1 single good reason to vote no.

        • September 14th 2017 @ 11:50am
          Charlie Turner said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:50am | ! Report

          First world problem. I was intending to vote yes as I can’t stand the religious right but ill considered comments like yours mean I don’t want to stand with the radical left either. I think I’ll just make a paper plane instead.

      • September 14th 2017 @ 12:00am
        Skankhunt42 said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:00am | ! Report

        Its called freedom of speech I’m sick of it being thrust down my throat. I will burn my Wallabies stuff getting involved in this nonanse!

        • September 14th 2017 @ 7:56am
          Train Without A Station said | September 14th 2017 @ 7:56am | ! Report

          I suggest you look up what freedom of speech means…

        • September 14th 2017 @ 10:56am
          valhalla said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:56am | ! Report

          curious ….. have noticed over the years that folk opposed to any issue concerning gay rights often use the phrase ‘shoved/thrust down my/our throats…..’ when commenting on said topic ….. is this deliberate?

    • Roar Rookie

      September 13th 2017 @ 4:54pm
      piru said | September 13th 2017 @ 4:54pm | ! Report

      Who would you take in a fight between Poey and Folau?

      Folau has the reach, but could he do enough damage to Pocock or more importantly, withstand the inside power!?

      No surprise that Israel feels the way he does, he’s known to be religious – he’s allowed his opinion.

      • Roar Guru

        September 13th 2017 @ 5:02pm
        Machooka said | September 13th 2017 @ 5:02pm | ! Report

        True right piru… and alternatively had Izzy tweeted he was voting YES then that would’ve been more news worthy methinks 🙂

        • September 13th 2017 @ 9:15pm
          Fionn said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:15pm | ! Report

          100% agree with both of you.

      • September 13th 2017 @ 11:22pm
        Jeffrey said | September 13th 2017 @ 11:22pm | ! Report

        Folau has the reach and the skill. Poey has the roids. Don’t know, might be a split decision.

        • September 14th 2017 @ 12:16am
          Skankhunt42 said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:16am | ! Report

          Poey wouldn’t fight because he would be on a left wing crusade about violence

          • September 14th 2017 @ 8:01am
            Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:01am | ! Report

            Yeah what a left everybody knows that the world needs more violence !

          • September 14th 2017 @ 9:31am
            Jeffrey said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:31am | ! Report

            Honestly, Poey’s sanctimonious and holier than thou behaviour and his call out on the homosexual slur made by the opposition player annoys me no end. Folau I am ok with. He doesn’t claim to be better than anyone and has never taken the moral high ground the way Poey has. He just doesn’t want the ARU’s blanket statement to represent his views.

            • Roar Rookie

              September 14th 2017 @ 10:43am
              piru said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:43am | ! Report

              Why is it ok for Folau to have an opinion but not Pocock?

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 11:04am
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:04am | ! Report

                piru: OPinions are one thing actions are another and Pocock is all action and little reflection about others opinions.

                Great player BUT – Still I am looking forward to having his left wing A back in the Wallabies. Now there is tolerance for you!!!!

              • Roar Rookie

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:30pm
                piru said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:30pm | ! Report

                Words like sanctimonious and holier than thou are often thrown at left wing people.

                It seems to me that expecting the government to enforce your particular faith’s idea of something is far more sanctimonious / holier than thou than just wanting everyone to be treated equally.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:45pm
                Train Without A Station said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:45pm | ! Report

                Well said.

                The “freedoms” that the right wing generally want to protect impact others.

                The left wing generally just fights for the freedom of choice, providing you don’t impact others.

              • Roar Rookie

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:32pm
                piru said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:32pm | ! Report

                And yes it will be good to see him back – one of the only 7s to have gone head to head with Richie McCaw and come out on top in the individual battle.

    • September 13th 2017 @ 5:14pm
      Gormon Kinchley said | September 13th 2017 @ 5:14pm | ! Report

      Take it outside, God boy.

      • September 13th 2017 @ 6:03pm
        Evan Askew said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:03pm | ! Report

        Haha!

    • September 13th 2017 @ 5:57pm
      Justin Kearney said | September 13th 2017 @ 5:57pm | ! Report

      Folau comes across as an unintelligent man. Good footballer but thick. His views on anything are really not important.

      • Roar Guru

        September 13th 2017 @ 6:02pm
        PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:02pm | ! Report

        as a matter of interest would you have made that same comment if he tweeted he was voting YES?

        • September 13th 2017 @ 9:40pm
          Council said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:40pm | ! Report

          I doubt it, as he would be fronting a view that is based on equality and genuine human decency.

          Instead of the views of some imaginary friend and a very old boom that someone made up.

      • September 14th 2017 @ 9:53am
        Charlie said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:53am | ! Report

        Aren’t important, what sort of bigotry are you portraying Justin Kearny

    • September 13th 2017 @ 6:02pm
      double agent said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:02pm | ! Report

      Don’t quite understand why ARU NRL and AFL make statements supporting same sex marriage. I always thought they were just administrators of sports. Have we got to hear their opinions on other non sport related topics? These guys don’t do much of a job organising sport I’m surprised they’ve got the time to be spruiking on unrelated matters.

      • September 13th 2017 @ 6:15pm
        Rhys Bosley said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:15pm | ! Report

        I am a SSM supporter but agree with you and if the ARU hadn’t put him in the position by taking a side, I question whether Izzy would have made his statement. The ARU is just a sporting body, they have no right to speak on behalf of all their employees on unrelated moral issues. Frankly I think they could do with just concentrating on how they treat people, like Western Australians, before taking the high moral ground in this way.

        • Roar Guru

          September 13th 2017 @ 6:46pm
          PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:46pm | ! Report

          it is not that clear, at least to me.

          Since the ARU have publicly supported the Sydney Convicts then it is consistent for them to support them in the vote.

          • September 13th 2017 @ 7:02pm
            Rhys Bosley said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:02pm | ! Report

            The Pirates are a Rugby team, that is the ARU’s core business. Every trendy cause unrelated to rugby is not.

            • September 13th 2017 @ 9:41pm
              Council said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:41pm | ! Report

              They are specifically a gay rugby team.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 6:43am
                Rhys Bosley said | September 14th 2017 @ 6:43am | ! Report

                Yeah, so what? It is great that it is supported, but doesn’t mean the ARU then needs to take a position on every non-rugby related matter.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 12:24pm
                bigbaz said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:24pm | ! Report

                serious question Can you play for them if you are not gay?

              • Roar Rookie

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:27pm
                piru said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:27pm | ! Report

                I don’t know.

                Why would you want to?

              • September 14th 2017 @ 12:50pm
                bigbaz said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

                well piru, it could be that you are mates with a couple of the players and want to join them just like what happens in “straight” teams, surely not a hard thing to understand or in your world are gays only allowed to have gay friends?

        • September 13th 2017 @ 8:12pm
          Brando Connor said | September 13th 2017 @ 8:12pm | ! Report

          As I understand it AFL, NRL, ARU, FFA sports teams are an area where there are few openly gay people. Jason Akermanis a former AFL player wrote an article several years back saying roughly “if you are gay and playing footy stay in the closet”. Not because he was particularly against homosexuals but because he didn’t think the team culture could handle it. Ian Roberts one of the few openly gay NRL players wrote a rebuttal explaining the impact of this attitude on closeted gay players. Maybe these associations are saying they are trying change and be excepting of people with different sexual preferences. Possibly next they will promise to suspend anyone who makes the comment in the change rooms “Dont drop the soap boys is about!”

          • September 14th 2017 @ 6:46am
            Rhys Bosley said | September 14th 2017 @ 6:46am | ! Report

            Then address the actual relevant issue of homophobia in sport, rather than jumping on the SSM bandwagon. The former is probably the more challenging anyway, while the latter risks creating the public perception of ticking a box, while doing nothing meaningful.

            • September 14th 2017 @ 8:03am
              Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:03am | ! Report

              “… homophobia in sport, rather than jumping on the SSM bandwagon..”

              Maybe some people see them as related issues not separate ones.

      • September 13th 2017 @ 6:31pm
        BrainsTrust said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:31pm | ! Report

        The gay community are big followers of sport in this country especially in Sydney.
        Sydney Swans were big in marketing themselves to the gay community.
        Then NRL and ARU saw this and decided to hop on.

      • September 13th 2017 @ 6:42pm
        ethan said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:42pm | ! Report

        It’s all business and marketing. Any organization looking to profit from a large fanbase will try to win people over any way they can, whether its related to their profession or not.

        • September 13th 2017 @ 7:36pm
          Mike Julz said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:36pm | ! Report

          Yup agree on this

        • Roar Guru

          September 14th 2017 @ 9:53am
          stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:53am | ! Report

          Particularly a group who are well known to be wealthy and often well connected. Good marketers have been targeting the gay community for years.

      • September 13th 2017 @ 7:35pm
        Mike Julz said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:35pm | ! Report

        The thing is, they don’t really have much choice. They had 3 choices- support, don’t support, or do nothing/neutral. They have no other way but to support. Its all about community and sending positive message for their league and their fans.

      • September 13th 2017 @ 7:45pm
        Joe B said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:45pm | ! Report

        They are just letting the sporting community know they are in line with general community expectations. You could be cynical and say it is a marketing ploy, but it makes sense for a sporting body to show they support ssm. Folau needn’t worry, his religion, that he follows, isn’t required to marry same sex couples.

    • Roar Rookie

      September 13th 2017 @ 6:03pm
      Dingo McNumbat said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:03pm | ! Report

      He’s entitled to his view and shouldn’t be subjected to ad homeniem for simply voting no. However it is a pretty lame argument he’s making – I respect everyone but apparently not enough to think they should have equal rights under the law?

      • Roar Guru

        September 13th 2017 @ 6:11pm
        PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:11pm | ! Report

        I don’t believe he made any argument or gave any reasoning for his decision.

        He made 2 statements.
        1 – he respected everyone and their opinions
        2 – which way he was voting.

        I didn’t read anything about why

        • Roar Rookie

          September 13th 2017 @ 6:15pm
          Dave_S said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:15pm | ! Report

          Peter, voting no necessarily implies that he doesn’t respect the rights of those who are not permitted to get married. So the “I love a respect all people …” is just BS

          • Roar Guru

            September 13th 2017 @ 6:43pm
            PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:43pm | ! Report

            I repeat Folau gave no argument or reasoning for why he is voting no, so he is not making any sort of argument which DM stated.

            On your statement I disagree.

            You can respect people and their opinions yet disagree with them.

            As to right , legally it is not a right is it? In fact it is not legal currently.

            The vote is to give them that.

            Just because he doesn’t believe they should, that in fact it is not a right but something he feels should be kept as the current status quo does not mean he does not respect those people.

            So I do not agree with your logic.

            • September 13th 2017 @ 6:47pm
              Paul D said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:47pm | ! Report

              History will judge. Just like those who once held the opinion women and Blacks shouldn’t vote.

              Yeah, I don’t buy the “I respect you, but don’t think you should have the same rights as me” line.

              • Roar Guru

                September 13th 2017 @ 6:53pm
                PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:53pm | ! Report

                or men who didn’t own land

                technically they do have the same rights though, they can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender.

                Everyone has the same restriction on them, you can’t marry someone too young, you can’t marry multiple people etc.

                I think the yes vote will win, I will be voting yes myself but I don’t buy into the demonisation or labeling or demeaning of someone just because they vote no.

                I would want to find out why before I made any judgement.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 7:03pm
                Paul D said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:03pm | ! Report

                We all have the right to marry someone we don’t love, this is true. But we don’t all have the right to marry the one we do.

                Let’s not get into comparisons that don’t involve consenting adults. That’s not a good path to go down.

              • Roar Guru

                September 13th 2017 @ 7:11pm
                PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:11pm | ! Report

                without polygamy you still won’t be able to marry any consenting adult you love

                The question hinges on what individuals think marriage represents.

                For the people who don’t think it is about love per sae (after all lots of people believe in arranged marriages, where everyone is consenting) but an arrangement for supporting and bringing children into the world I understand and respect why they vote no.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:09am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:09am | ! Report

                Hey PeterK,

                Some people marry for love, some for money, some for a better immigration status, some because their families have decided for them.

                “The question hinges on what individuals think marriage represents.”

                Why?

            • September 13th 2017 @ 7:58pm
              Taylorman said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:58pm | ! Report

              No I think its pretty clear, by voting no he is formally saying he doesnt respect their right to the same privileges he himself is afforded under the law.

              That isnt respecting them, in fact by voting No its contributing to denying them.

              That is different from upholding ones own belief. This is about imposing it on others, which is what the effect of the vote is.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 9:02pm
                Rhys Bosley said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:02pm | ! Report

                All of that is only true if you believe equality is synonymous with respect. That is a very modern idea which doesn’t necessarily hold for people with more traditional beliefs.

                For example, my Grandfather respected my Grandmother for the way she ran the household and the sort of wife she was , but you couldn’t call their relationship equal. He insisted that she didn’t work because that was not what a wife did in those days. It is of course archaic now, but it is what people thought was right then and it was a respectful relationship.

                So from somebody like Izzy’s perspective, who holds traditional beliefs about what marriage should be, he can in all honesty say that he respects somebody for the person they are, without thinking that they have a right to marriage equality. I don’t happen to agree with him, but I support his right to express that opinion.

                I also don’t see the need for the personal attacks that the SSM advocates are engaging in, they could just make their argument about why it should be legal and they would do just as well. If anything vthe bullying we are seeing will risk a backlash, just like happened with Trump and Brexit, where people vote against SSM because they don’t like being pushed around.

                Don’t you think losing the vote because SSM advocates couldn’t keep personal attacks out of it would be unfortunate?

              • September 13th 2017 @ 9:36pm
                Fionn said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:36pm | ! Report

                Agree, Rhys. Personal attacks are the worst way to achieve their goal.

                It was not so long ago that many public politicians who are now key supporters of SSM used to oppose it.

                I understand why people who want SSM to be legalised so they can marry are so desperate for it to pass, but showing courtesy and kindness to others, and trying I convince them of their opinion is the best way to ensure a yes vote succeeds, not lambasting or criticising others for not yet sharing their views.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 9:51pm
                Rhys Bosley said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:51pm | ! Report

                Yup to all of the above.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 10:07pm
                Taylorman said | September 13th 2017 @ 10:07pm | ! Report

                Yes Rhys I get your point. For me the level of respect needs to match the same level of the issue at hand to be truly respectful.

                Its like saying I dont want you two males to marry but I respect that you need to live on the same planet as me as fellow human beings.

                Its condascending if the level of respect doesnt match whats being asked of the one giving it. “I respect them but Im voting no” is in this respect a contradiction in terms in my eyes.
                Just my opinion.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:25am
                Neil Back said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:25am | ! Report

                I’d absolutely agree with you if he was saying he’s voting against it. But he seems to be saying he won’t support it, which I read as not voting yes. Different thing.

                What’s more notable to me is the proposition he gives credit for his sporting prowess to a god. Now that’s a level of delusion and arrogance I find breath taking.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:12am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:12am | ! Report

                When the debate doesn’t affect you personally it’s pretty easy to be critical of those it does.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:58am
                Rhys Bosley said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:58am | ! Report

                That is true Ruckin Oaf, but the bad behaviour from SSM advocates seems to be coming as much from straight people as gay. They have even attacked gay people who oppose SSM.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 9:26am
                taylorman said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:26am | ! Report

                Get what you mean Neil but over the years Ive come to mellow on that stance. Attributing things to God is just another version of being grateful for the life you have and the things that come with it.

                Everyone does that to some extent. Some prefer attaching it to a concept- personal hard work, or their parents, coach, the inspiration of their children…some prefer God, the difference there is its a commonality that many can share without having to have certain ‘attributes’ in ones life to do so, or have any sort of accountability.

                ‘Hes always there, no matter wha’t kind of thing. I can see how it can provide stability in ones life when things get tough….

                Each to his own if it works for them.

            • Roar Guru

              September 13th 2017 @ 10:16pm
              PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 10:16pm | ! Report

              what do you mean people like me?

              I am voting yes, however unlike you I can actually understand and see something from someone else’s view point.

            • September 14th 2017 @ 6:37am
              soapit said | September 14th 2017 @ 6:37am | ! Report

              peter he respects opinions but not individuals themselves to be equal

              respect someone right to an opinion but opinions themselves arent always to be respected

              individuals always should be respected as equals. israel has it back to front.

              i dont blame him though. i completely understand how his religious background gives him this mindset and doesnt allow full open mind on it and he’s clearly trying to be fair to the other side

          • September 13th 2017 @ 6:57pm
            Rhys Bosley said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:57pm | ! Report

            “voting no necessarily implies that he doesn’t respect the rights of those who are not permitted to get married.”

            No, it means that he believes that they don’t have that right, rather that it is exclusively the domain of male/female couples, as what he considers to be the appropriate relationship in which to raise children. I happen to disagree with him and support SSM, but his opinion in no way suggests to me that he does not respect gay people.

            • Roar Guru

              September 13th 2017 @ 7:12pm
              PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 7:12pm | ! Report

              exactly

            • September 13th 2017 @ 8:02pm
              Taylorman said | September 13th 2017 @ 8:02pm | ! Report

              I dont agree. Upholding the right to respect another by disagreeing is one thing, casting a vote that has an effect of denying them that right is another. That is the imposing of your belief on another.

              If he respected their right to choose, he would vote yes, while privately disagreeing with it.

              His yes vote serves to allow them to make their own descisions, just as he has that same right.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 9:20pm
                Fionn said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:20pm | ! Report

                I saw an interview of two people who were in a longterm relationship, Taylorman, who were committed Christians and opposed to SSM for that reason – they believe it is between a man and a woman.

                Are you going to look down on their opinions, too, or are they allowed to hold that opinion as gay people?

                As it is, I don’t really care what Folau thinks. I made up my mind on this issue a long time ago. I hope it passes.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 9:34pm
                Taylorman said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:34pm | ! Report

                I just dont think you can say you respect someone then take an action that flies in the very face of that respect.

                Ok that he has his beliefs but its also incorrect to say respect for ‘gay people’ exists.

                Rhys has said he can take action to deny gay people to legally exist, yet can still respect them.

                Cant have it both ways. Try asking them if they think its being respectful. ‘Respect’ in this case being the right for them to make their own choices in life.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 9:40pm
                Rhys Bosley said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:40pm | ! Report

                “Rhys has said he can take action to deny gay people to legally exist”

                No I didn’t, get your facts right before you paraphrase me please.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 10:21pm
                Fionn said | September 13th 2017 @ 10:21pm | ! Report

                Rhys, I wouldn’t bother trying to clarify yourself with Taylorman.

                I’m not sure if he intentionally misrepresents what people say, or if he is unable to comprehend comments made by others, but it is impossible to enter into a logical discussion with him without him misrepresenting others.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 6:53am
                Rhys Bosley said | September 14th 2017 @ 6:53am | ! Report

                “Rhys, I wouldn’t bother trying to clarify yourself with Tsylorman”.

                Yeah Mate, so many people incapable of discussing the merits of this issue at hand without going ad hom. Sadly typical of the standard of debate nowadays.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 7:34am
                Karl K said | September 14th 2017 @ 7:34am | ! Report

                I agree with all your sentiments Rhys. What is the point of debate if it is not held respectfully? Everyone walks away unhappy because no one has listened.

                For my own self I will be voting no. I know that I’m going to get jumped on here but in the interest of respectful debate here is my view.

                I’m 20 years old due to be married in April next year to the woman I love. When we get married next year, it won’t be for the approval of our family or friends or anyone else, it will be to sanctify our relationship before God.

                For me marriage is the bond that brings man and woman together – before God.
                Call me traditional, outdated, whatever! Those are my beliefs.

                Where the yes campaign falls down for me, is that they almost devalue themselves by saying they are not equal. I think some laws need to be changed to allow them rights before men don’t get me wrong, but to look for approval from God through marriage when their actions are in direct violation of His laws is in my opinion wrong.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 9:57pm
                Taylorman said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:57pm | ! Report

                same result Rhys…his opinion becomes his vote, and there I am agreeing with you. He has that right.

                Its that he can be seen as respectful at the same time I have issue with.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 11:08pm
                barbz said | September 13th 2017 @ 11:08pm | ! Report

                Taylorman has a point.

                Let’s rephrase it. Imagine we are talking about a vote to make sex before marriage illegal. Folau comes out and says that he believes in god and that he thinks you should wait. However he respects people who disagree.

                If he votes yes to deny them, how is that respecting their right to choose? He should vote no but personally refrain in accordance with his beliefs.

                Regarding SSM, religions will still be able to discriminate, so if people outside his religion want SSM then he should vote yes to respect their beliefs, otherwise he’s lying about respecting them at all.

                Why the pro-SSM is not guilty of the same hypocrisy is because they are allowing religious exemptions, which is the middle ground.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 11:32pm
                rebel said | September 13th 2017 @ 11:32pm | ! Report

                How about another scenario. How would you vote in abolishing or even lowering the age of consent and how would you respect others with an opposing point of view..

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:11am
                barbz said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:11am | ! Report

                One is an issue regarding two adults with the ability to consent while the other is an issue regarding people that might not have the ability to consent. It’s not the same.

                Regardless, I wouldn’t lie and say I respect their position then vote to deny it. If I respected their position (i.e. I thought they made good arguments regarding lowering the age of consent) then I would vote yes but personally refrain if I was uncomfortable.

                You’re also ignoring the whole separation of church and state issue which is key in Folau’s hypocrisy but I decided to play ball anyway.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 6:42am
                soapit said | September 14th 2017 @ 6:42am | ! Report

                nicely summed up tman

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:22am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:22am | ! Report

                Hey Karl K,

                But that’s your view of marriage. But if you go through the marriage act you won’t find one single mention of God.

                And I’m a happily married atheist is it ok if heterosexual atheists get married ? Wouldn’t that be worse than a Christian gay couple?

                People get married for money, they get married for immigration reasons, they get married because their families decide they should, they get married more than once, they get married before Elvis impersonators in Vegas. But I’m yet to see the ACL run an add against any of that.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:47am
                rebel said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:47am | ! Report

                Barbz it is the same. They are both situations that society has decided is appropriate. Society chose what the age of adulthood is. Society decided what the age of consent is. And society will decide if SSM is legal. I will be voting in favour of it, and although I don’t agree with those voting no, I respect their rights and why they may have come to their decision. Just because I respect them does not mean I should vote the same as them.

                Different people have different opinions as to what is appropriate, but collectively they come up with an understanding. Just because not everyone agrees does not mean there is no respect.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:17am
                Hoy said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:17am | ! Report

                Ruckin Oaf, getting married for “Immigration” reasons is actually a breach of a few laws… I don’t think any country in the world looks favourably on that, though I could be wrong.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 11:23am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:23am | ! Report

                Hey Hoy,

                Depends what you mean – it can be illegal. But let’s assume I’ve been offered a fantastic long term job in the USA. And I’d like to take my long term girlfriend with me.

                It might be much easier for her to get a green-card as my wife rather than as my girlfriend and if we pop down to a registry office to become man and wife to facilitate then it’s probably within the law.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 11:27am
                stillmissit said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:27am | ! Report

                Taylorman: I cannot understand your argument. Are you saying that the only way you can respect another is to give them a legal right they demand?

                I have no great respect for the Muslim religion but that doesn’t mean I would not invite a Muslim person into my house or eat dinner with someone of that faith, in fact I have. (all religions are essentially the same spokes in the wheel).

                Respect is not giving a person rights, it is accepting that the person in front of you appears to ber a decent human being and accepting them as that, regardless of their opinions or faith.

            • September 13th 2017 @ 9:33pm
              lassitude said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:33pm | ! Report

              Correct – as historically it has been in all cultures I’m aware of.

            • September 13th 2017 @ 9:56pm
              milan said | September 13th 2017 @ 9:56pm | ! Report

              cmon Rhys your better than that.

              ‘I respect gay people so much that I do not believe that they should have the same rights as others’

              Gee thanks Folau, what a man you are.

              • September 13th 2017 @ 11:13pm
                rebel said | September 13th 2017 @ 11:13pm | ! Report

                Like the right to free speach.
                I’m another in the yes camp but respect that others have a different opinion to me.
                Apparently that is the whole point of the vote.
                Talking of respect/empathy and rights. With your noted anti Force stance, what do you make of Clynes empathy to Force fans whilst saying they don’t have the same rights to a super team as other states.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 6:31am
                Train Without A Station said | September 14th 2017 @ 6:31am | ! Report

                Professional sport isn’t the same as the right to marry and it’s ludicrous you would try and link the two…

              • September 14th 2017 @ 7:29am
                Rhys Bosley said | September 14th 2017 @ 7:29am | ! Report

                I think if you try hard milan, you can be better than just joining a mob who can’t separate debating a proposal on its merits and attacking people personally. I’m quite at ease with my position, it is people like you who need to take a good look at yourselves.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 8:25am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:25am | ! Report

                “Like the right to free speach”

                Good ol free speech. I guess it must include the right to say “He’s a great footballer, but a big of a bigot”

                That would be an exercise in free speech right ?

              • September 14th 2017 @ 9:01am
                rebel said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:01am | ! Report

                TWAS get off your high horse and check all of what Milan had posted earlier to my comment.
                What is ludicrous is to think that I am saying they are the same and can’t understand that I am talking about respect and the lack there of by some contributors. Carry on.

                Ruckin Oaf, that is correct, that is free speech. However I am talking about the respect of others to have a different opinion. I don’t agree with Issy, but I respect his right to say what he has. he hasn’t said it in a derogatory way, just as you haven’t.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 9:46am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:46am | ! Report

                Hey Rebel,

                So if somebody said something like “Clearly there are times when a man needs to hit his wife”

                You’d respect his right to have that opinion ? And what if the same man was married to your sister or daughter ?

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:17am
                PeterK said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:17am | ! Report

                ruckin oaf – the difference is that person is expressing an opinion that society by law has decreed may be criminal. As a matter of fact he is correct though, you would be ok to hit your wife if say she was attacking you with a knife, cricket bat etc.

                There are limits to free speech by law.

                If someone expressed the opinion we should kill every (pick your race, religion) in the country or incites violence they are different matters.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 11:59am
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:59am | ! Report

                Hey PeterK,

                Legality could also be with the wife’s consent. It’s what stops “50 shades of grey” kind of activities from being illegal. (big can o worms there though)

                Regardless of the legality I don’t think it’s an opinion that should be respected.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 1:07pm
                rebel said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:07pm | ! Report

                Ruckin Oaf, my old mate PK has explained it.
                Someone can say what they want even if i disagree with them, however carrying out the actions has been deemed illegal by society. That is how democracy works, society dictates it. You and I and most other people agree it is not right to hit your wife.
                If he was married to my daughter I would hope that I have educated her enough to make her own decisions.
                Again, to clarify, I don’t respect the opinion, just the right that someone can have a different one. I’m sure that there would be some things that you have a different opinion on than most of society, we don’t always have to take it to the extreme.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 1:51pm
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 1:51pm | ! Report

                Hey Rebel,

                I don’t really care if you respect my opinions or not. My opinions are not dainty little flowers that wilt in the frost of your lack of respect.

                Heck some of my opinions might be complete bunkum and I could change them shortly.

                But for the most part I reckon my opinions are tough little things that can go out in the world and get roughed up a bit and still be ok.

                Everybody has the right to whatever opinions they want but I don’t think anybody has the right to be immune from criticism.

            • September 13th 2017 @ 11:37pm
              Arto said | September 13th 2017 @ 11:37pm | ! Report

              I think you are mixing his right to an opinion with his conscious action (ie: casting a vote). One might argue at what point can one have an opinion or belief and not act on it, but in this instance it’s hard to argue that he loves & respects those people he is (potentially) actively work against. At some point, it becomes a question of what does he ‘love & respect’more – his own beliefs or equality for LBGT people?

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 10:19am
                PeterK said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:19am | ! Report

                don’t agree

                He does see the issue as one of equality, he sees the issue as what is the definition of marriage , of what it’s purpose is.

            • September 14th 2017 @ 11:02am
              oldman emu said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:02am | ! Report

              Rhys is it about bringing up children or having the legal rights to assets in case of death or divorce or both?

              I can understand clear cut about the rights to assets should be equal in a relationship.
              The right to adopt children is the hard part for me. (I understand love is universal and yes a lot of heterosexuals should have a breeding license before they proceed)

              Say 3% of the population is gay/lesbian. So 1.5% are gay. Do 1.5% of the population have the right to adopt kids who have a 97% chance of not being gay/lesbian. I leave lesbians out as they can produce children and you can not prevent people breeding.

              I am not being a smart arse -just looking at the gay adoption rights that would come with SSM and wonder if you could provide some perspective.

              • Roar Guru

                September 14th 2017 @ 12:02pm
                Wal said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:02pm | ! Report

                Whilst I understand your point of view.
                What of those same sex couples where one parent is the biological father/mother, in those cases the co-parent has zero rights and is unable to adopt in some states.
                Or in reverse what about the 3% of LGBTI who are raised by straight parents.
                I personally don’t feel its an issue if you love your kid’s sexual orientation is irrelivant. As you quite rightly point out there are plenty of segments in society who should be prevented from Adopting or having children long before Same Sex Couples.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 12:07pm
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 12:07pm | ! Report

                So if a bi-man has a child with a woman. And then they split up (or she dies) and he re partners another man does he loose his parenting rights ?

                Oh and gays can already adopt or have children via surrogacy. That’s perfectly fine in our country right now without SSM.

                Marriage and children are not inexorably intertwined.

          • September 14th 2017 @ 5:28am
            MH01 said | September 14th 2017 @ 5:28am | ! Report

            That is as daft as saying people who voted for brexit are racists !

            World is not black and white mate.

          • September 14th 2017 @ 10:23am
            Ian said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:23am | ! Report

            No, It simply means he does not recognise marriage is something between two people of the same sex. How does that translate into not respecting them? If I disagree with a friend on how they educate their children, does that mean I don’t respect them? Why does having a different opinion automatically translate into not respecting others?

            • September 14th 2017 @ 10:31am
              taylorman said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:31am | ! Report

              Thats true, but its the point at which you decide to vote to say they can’t educate their children that way that the disrespect occurs.

              Not only are you disagreeing with the teaching method, you are contributing to denying it.

              There’s a difference.

              Not voting, or voting yes would be respectful, the former because its a personal stance, the latter because it simply allows freedom of choice that is available to everyone. By voting Yes hes not advocating that they follow through with that choice he’s advocating that they have they right to make it.

              • September 14th 2017 @ 11:03am
                Ian said | September 14th 2017 @ 11:03am | ! Report

                To continue the analogy. He’s only voting to prevent them from exercising their right to be legally recognised in how they educate, but not preventing them from educating. For example, I know people who “home school,” but do not have their curriculum legally recognised by the state. I may disagree with their methodology, but I still respect their right to educate their children even if it does not have legal sanction.

                Same sex couples can still enter into a relationship without have it recognised legally, though over 45 laws were passed on Rudd-Gillard to give them equal legal rights afforded to married couples. By voting no, he’s not stopping them from having a relationship. He’s simply saying that such a relationship does not justify legal sanction as marriage because of his understanding of what marriage is.

            • Roar Guru

              September 15th 2017 @ 8:01am
              Edward Pye said | September 15th 2017 @ 8:01am | ! Report

              “Why does having a different opinion automatically translate into not respecting others?”

              Except this is not just a different opinion Ian – he is voting for legislation that denies the equal rights of 10% of the population. Thats where the lack of respect comes in.

        • Roar Rookie

          September 13th 2017 @ 6:45pm
          Dingo McNumbat said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:45pm | ! Report

          Argument or not the statement is incongruous. I’m guessing he wants to publicly disassociate himself from the ARU’s stance (which is fine) but that’s a poorly worded attempt.

          • Roar Guru

            September 13th 2017 @ 6:48pm
            Machooka said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:48pm | ! Report

            Dingo… it was a tweet!

            Vote NO to tweeting 🙂

          • Roar Guru

            September 13th 2017 @ 6:49pm
            PeterK said | September 13th 2017 @ 6:49pm | ! Report

            or he wants to indicate that he has nothing personal against any group, that he respects their choices, however he disagrees that the law should be changed.

            Don’t you think it would have a different tone if he made homophobic statements, attacking their orientation.

      • September 14th 2017 @ 7:32am
        In brief said | September 14th 2017 @ 7:32am | ! Report

        Equal rights under the law and marriage are not mutually exclusive. You can afford ‘same sex couples’ equal rights under the law without affording them the symbolic
        Right to marriage.

        • September 14th 2017 @ 8:32am
          Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:32am | ! Report

          or you could just amend the definitions in the Marriage Act – you’d have to change about 4 words, that would be much simpler.

          • September 14th 2017 @ 8:50am
            Karl K said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:50am | ! Report

            That I could agree with Ruckin Oaf. Everyone has their own relationship with God (or not). I just don’t believe churches or anyone else should be forced to marry anyone against their own beliefs.
            I also worry about the “gender equality” rhetoric that seems to have been chucked in together with gay marriage. Teaching kids that they can identify as objects or anything else they want as well as teaching kids who have not even reached puberty how to masterbate is obscenely wrong in my opinion and will lead to a breakdown of morality within society.

            • Roar Guru

              September 14th 2017 @ 9:02am
              Wal said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:02am | ! Report

              Kari
              I think you may have miss understood what we are actually voting for.
              No church is going to be forced to marry SS couples. Just like currently some Catholic churches don’t marry non-Catholics. That is perfectly ok.
              What we are voting on is to ensure same sex couples are treated the same legally as straight couples. Something John Howard ensured was not the case when he amended the Marriage Act in 2004 to define a marriage as between a man and a woman.

            • September 14th 2017 @ 9:54am
              Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 9:54am | ! Report

              Dunno if there have been too many societies breaking down based on teaching kids too much. But I would be concerned about an educational system that is overly practical when it comes to sex ed.

              As a parent I’m also much more concerned about the sexual material and contents my children will deal without OUTSIDE of the formal education system.

              “I just don’t believe churches or anyone else should be forced to marry anyone against their own beliefs.”

              What happens now and why should that change ? Right now if two guys walk into their local church and tell the priest that they’ve just entered into a committed mutually exclusive relationship and they want him to conduct a blessing ceremony in front of their friends and family to bless their new relationship.
              What would happen to that priest and couple now and why should than change if the relationship is called a marriage ??

            • Roar Guru

              September 14th 2017 @ 10:23am
              PeterK said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:23am | ! Report

              interesting the anglo-celtic hangup with sex.

              As if it was dirty and something to be ashamed of.

              Happy for children to be exposed to extreme violence on tv and games but get all up tight about sex, when in fact by far the majority will have sex but not indulge in extreme violence (mind you there is more and more of that).

              • September 14th 2017 @ 2:50pm
                Ruckin Oaf said | September 14th 2017 @ 2:50pm | ! Report

                Yeah agreed. There seem to be plenty of wowsers in the world who are fine with media showing folks killing each other but down on anything remotely sexual.

          • September 14th 2017 @ 10:30am
            Ian said | September 14th 2017 @ 10:30am | ! Report

            Why only change the definition to include same-sex? What about three people who love each other and want to enter into a throuple marriage? They don’t have any legal rights? Why not change the law for them too?

            • Roar Guru

              September 15th 2017 @ 8:04am
              Edward Pye said | September 15th 2017 @ 8:04am | ! Report

              Yeah why not? Does it affect you in any way?

        • September 14th 2017 @ 8:45am
          Jameswm said | September 14th 2017 @ 8:45am | ! Report

          Yes. Many are missing this exact point.

          Even Penny Wong said marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Explore:
    ,