Giving to Israel Folau isn't patriotic, it's funding fanaticism

The born gay argument is a response to the claim that homosexuality is a choice, and that there is possibility to repent and change their ways. Folau should shut up because he is preaching toxic vitriol, hiding behind some old book using it as justification for his actions. Why do you think this has become such a big deal. Is it perhaps if the Christian Right don't win this, it will set a precedent that the bible is a book of hate (which parts of it are by modern standards) and their whole house of lies comes crumbling down around them. Did all ministers swear on the bible, no? so not compulsory, so, not relevant. What about all members of parliament? No? your cherry picked stats now collapse. Denial of facts presented is straight out of the defense of religion playbook. it doesn't mean that there weren't any.

I would suggest Folau is innocent of transgressing any rugby code of conduct I wonder why Folau isn't running that argument ?

And yet a few weeks ago when the federal cabinet was sworn in by the governor general most ministers swore oaths on the bible - one on the Torah. Hardly obsolete. This rabbit hole began because many expressed a belief about being born gay. And because of this belief folau should shut up. My point was being born 'something' in the genetic world implies being hardwired from genes/the genome. If it was simple. It would be mendelian. If its complex - it would be a complex trait. If it's a complex trait - it's also environmental (in-utero, and/or psychosocial). You were right to correct my semantics about "born gay". However your inclusion of in-utero influences (or their possibility) seemed an own-goal to me because they are categorized as 'environmental' from a genetics perspective anyway. And not intending to be rude, but you haven't put a single fact on the table?

Calling the information learned from rigorous research "dogmatic belief" is an old straw man argument to attempt to discredit inconvenient facts. Not sure why we went down this rabbit hole, Born gay or chooses to be gay, or Atheist, either way, we have rights and this Bible is now obsolete, replaced by commonwealth laws.

Maybe our Constitution needs a new Ammendment: We the people of Australia have by way of Referendum determined ALL homosexuals must be given admission to Heaven. Everyone else can remain sinners in the eyes of The Lord and will still be going to hell.

I wasn't aware the Constition concerned itself with entry into Heaven or Hell?

My point is not to say it's impossible to be "born gay". My point is to challenge the assertion as a dogmatic fact. For if it were fact, there would be many genetic implications which at this point are not well enough understood. However. Psycho-social factors must be important for sexuality. Complex traits are by definition gaussian in their appearance. They follow a normal distribution. Surely masculinity and femininity follow gaussian distributions? We all know men more manly and men more feminine and an average somewhere in between. Feminine woman. And butch/masculine women. I know when I was at school the "majority" could be cruel and would bully the masculine/feminine outliers. More feminine/artistic or dramatic boys were called vile names daily. I'm not saying people can't be born gay. But I'm sure the environment/psycho/social influences are important. For the outlier kids I observed at school who later came out as gay, how do we know the direction of causality? The majority was cruel. Did they find acceptance and approval and love with homosexuals? Was their sexuality hardwired? Or influenced by the intolerance and cruelty of the horde? The older I got - I always enjoyed mating heterosexual couples who were different. More feminine husband. More masculine wife. I am quite comfortable around effeminate men. And do not feel the need to pigeon hole them as gay. I've met too many straight feminine men now. But my take home message: sexuality in complex. Complex traits are complex. So environment and psycho social factors matter.

I said epigenetics was a "possible" mechanism for environment to influence the genome in a non mutatgenic way. Anyway, to geneticists, changes in-utero are "environmental". Eg: complex trait = multiple Gene's + gene-gene interactions + epigenetic changes + environment. If folau was admonished because of a dogmatic belief people are born gay... and their strongest argument is some suggested links between in-utero hormone levels (which is en environmental input anyway). Well it doesnt sound like much of a foundation to throw stones.

There are studies showing that some cultural groups are (were) so anti-gay that they are pressured to change, leave, be killed or commit suicide. I don't have access to the figure for the Australian population, it could be that the chemistry required to produce "born Gay" doesn't exist in specific racial groups. Again, I point to the knowledge gap, research is ongoing.

I agree with your last sentence. It would seem that a large number are born that way. Although, a study of indigenous people found 60% had never heard of it, didn’t have a name for it, never seen it. We don’t really know but the ‘born that way’ argument seems, at the most, to apply to half. So dismissing it as ‘born that way’ and anyone who questions the narrative being lambasted as homophobic, is the same prejudice that that we are trying to avoid in the first place

Sandbox, there are significant gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the mechanisms, but I think it is fair to say that it is a "natural" biological process for a significant number of "cases". For one group of "Belivers" or "deniers" as I like to call them to claim that it isn't the case based on their ancient text book is laughable.

Fetal Alcohol syndrome AND a significant proportion of Homosexuality are non-hereditary, links to both have been made to hormone/chemical conditions during fetal development. Epigenetics is an emergent branch of biology, the famous case is the link between famine and diabetes. Have you read it? This ain't one of those cases. Just because Epigenetics exists, doesn't mean that everything has to be because of it.

Forgive me. Sometimes I find it difficult to interact with the uneducated. Fetal alcohol syndrome isn't hereditary. Couldn't get much more "environmental" than this syndrome. It can however still have an impact on the genome. Non sequence changes. It's called epigenetics. Most common example methylation of a deoxyribonucleic acid base pair. A methyl group is -CH3. There is some evidence that epigenetic changes to the genome can be inherited. Anyway. I dont think we can interact. Do 8 years of medical science and you wont be thinking you've made a point because you can identify a condition caused in utero that isn't "genetic".

Fetal Alcohol syndrome is an example of a non genetic condition that you can be born with. Your logic is holier than your pope.

Huh??? "The problem with your assertion is that there has been no link found to DNA". That is not the problem with my argument, it was the very point of it!!!!! If gay is simple, it will show mendelian inheritance (eg homozygous dominant, homozygous recessive). It will run through family trees. If not. It can only be a "complex genetic trait". Ipso facto it's both genetic and psychosocial. But then you cant just be born gay.

The argument for many is over alleged contractual agreements. RA, and for that matter go-fund-me, both claim Folau had transgressed both organisations culture of " inclusiveness". Yet no-one has shown when and how Folau accomplished such a feat. He had no authority to exclude or include anyone from any sport... And he was not attempting to do that either. He was simply pointing out that according to scripture, sinners, (and gay people aren't excluded from that group either) are all, without exception, excluded from the kingdom of God. Now unless RA's policy of inclusiveness extends to God's kingdom as well as it's own, them I would suggest Folau is innocent of transgressing any rugby code of conduct, contractual or otherwise.

crazed posse mob hang 3 innocent drifters Maybe the posse just confused who those drifters were and lumped em in with thieves, adulterers and the like. Can happen when you're not thinking things through clearly.

Why ?

But the exclusions to freedom of opinion/expression, such as incitement to violence, have nothing to do with discrimination. So as I'd see it, if RA can't show that Folau's speech meets the hurdles of being excluded (and I doubt they can if they would need to rely on that sort of nonsense), they have to show that their CoC supersedes his rights. Which again brings us right back to the start of this discussion; it is not simply whether he breached the CoC, but whether the CoC has imposed a legal restriction.

The breakdown is a violent place but it doesn't get more violent because you are an Atheist or Homosexual. RA are not going down the hate speech path, they don't have to, All they need to do is show that Folau's "Tennant" goes against inclusion. A pretty easy target to hit. Jones and Folau are searching for justification for being non-inclusive. Something that requires a change in law to use.