Israel Folau cops backlash for gay marriage tweet

"If the one and only test is two consenting adults wanting to get married....' But that's not the one and only test. And it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it is. It's certainly not the proposition being put forward in the postal survey . As far as I'm aware nobody is proposing that it be the one and only test.

Should violent repression be met with violent resistance ? The civilian casualties from world war 2 could be as high as 50 million yer it would be difficult to see a non-violent restitution or to consider the allied actions unjust. My grandfather piloted bombers for the RAF. There a good chance that some of his missions would have blown up women and children - yet I'm still proud of his service. And you know RT one possible interpretation of some of your comments would indicate a decided bias based on race and sexual orientation. But I'm sure that's not the case.

Amazing guy? Certainly his capacity for forgiveness was amazing. He was also part of a group that used terrorism for change. The blew up civilians. Women and children. And the end result? A one party state that struggles to keep the power on?

He has a right to his opinion, just a pity man made religion makes people judgemental and intolerant

He has a right to his opinion, just a pity man made religion makes people judgemental and intolerant

Hey soapit, Yep over 350 comments and Peter alone seems to want Folau’s livelihood to suffer. Pretty small percentage.

Not at all, I am trying to express why I feel #3 could be a flawed reason. "Marriage" in its many forms has existed for far longer (or shorter if you are only referring to the word) than the biblical version of it. The Old Testament talks extensively of polygamy, Moses had 2 wives. The definition of Marriage is not a static one or solely owned by the Christian church. Th legal definition of a marriage was only updated in Australia to an opposite sex union in 2004. The Christian marriage ceremony and thereafter holy union was only codified in the 12th Century. Monogamy is thought to have existed somewhere between 10-20,000 years ago. Homosexuality has evidence of existence going back as far as 12,000 years ago. My opinion is that to cite a historical definition of marriage misses the point that the current definition of marriage is not universal, unchanging or particularly historic. This therefore should not get in the way of a same sex couple experiencing the same protections under the law that I do.

Dave, I am a christian and I have studied homosexuality and marriage references in the Bible. The Bible say surprisingly little about marriage and does not require love for marriage as we know define it. The only real reference is where Jesus turned water into wine at a marriage. Some references in the bible for marriage e.g Gen 1-2, Matt 19, Mark 10 do not use the word marriage. For example when God made male and female (not husband and wife), made Adam a suitable helper (not a wife) etc. The word homosexuality did not exist in Hebrew, Aramic or Ancient Greek and where the word was translated to homosexuality there are controversy with the translations. E.g. A person that exploit people for sex such as a pimp or people that deal with sex slaves suddenly become "homosexual" in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 10. Also people read somehow homosexuality in the rape of woman by violent sexual criminals. The bible also say nothing about gay marriage and there several loving relationship between figures in the bible that God approved and although not expressively stated could suggest a homosexual relationship including David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, Centurion and his slave, etc. I would challenge anyone to do a deeper study of bible, and to look at the hebrew and greek to see what is really said and not said in the bible.

RT, The same reason that incest is frowned upon in general - because there's a high risk of children of incest having genetic issues, not to mention, causing conflict in the family unit. Where is the moral conundrum with SSM?

SSM is the 1st step Pete K - there is nothing morally wrong about 3 consensual adults wanting to be married is there? How does that affect anyone else?

No, it's not - it's a matter of law - are you not paying attention?

Technically, Adam and Eve having sex was masturbation since she is just his rib

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

"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.

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.

Boks are going to nail the All Blacks . You heard it here first.?

Big statement. The gay tourism industry is massive . Certainly in SA Cape Town is a favored destination .....And you can get married here.

Amazing guy Mandela. Funny how politics (for want of a better word) gives us some of the best and worst people humanity has to offer.

Hey RT, "You either support marriage for all consenting adults who want to get married or your the worst type of hypocrite" Why - you haven't established that point. What if I said that you either support marriage all consenting hetrosexual adults who want to get married or your the worst type of hypocrite. I mean if you support the notion that marriage must be between a man and a woman then you must support the notion that a brother and sister can get married. IF hettrosexuality is your only critera for consenting adults to marry then it must then apply to siblings. Unless of course you're just being incredibly hypocritical. " Study some history about how cultures tend to destroy themselves then come back and talk to me." What like Tainter on the diminishing returns from complexity - while interesting I don't really see how it's relevant. "Your problem is you can’t convince me ............" Not my problem in the slightest. You just sound like another whining white guy concerned that the system of privilege that has nurtured and supported him all his life might also apply one day to the "lesser" peons. When everybody is super then nobody will be kinda vibe you got going. "....but I do not and would not support gay marriage." Well lets hope your kids are straight at the least it might save you an awkward conversation or two. I do wish you and your children well whatever the future may bring to you.

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