Re: point 2. If you are right. Qantas is screwed at the FWC. They are a “3rd party”. Laws govern what they can and cant do.

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”.

What about Folau visits Hayne in Perth monastery. They fall in love. Cardinal Pell visits to help pray away the gay… and some troubling photos end up on Instagram?

Almost. I’d prefer both were kept out. My point was atheists correlate higher with left of center commentators (eg fitzsimons – so I guess add Republicans to that demographic). And theists correlate higher with right of centre/conservative/constitutional monarchists demographics.
There’s a 50:50 split in Australia. Always will be. Our most recent federal election was close enough to 50:50. Left-right.
RA should have just issued a press release to say folau’s posts were his own, RA didnt support or approve. But that would never have been enough to satiate the Fitzsimons mob. They wanted no less than EXCOMMUNICATION and burning at the stake.
Problem is, at best, fitzsimons represents 50% of views.
So yes apolitical.
And yes: a-religious.

I remember a decade ago (?) when there was a small number of writers on Roar. I’d wait days for a new article (eg: spiro). So many new authors. I just assumed they were writing folau articles to get their comment/view numbers up? Jump on the gravy train so to speak…

Your point would be what then? Between then then and now I’ve posted once on rugby to say I wont be watching the world cup – and to jokingly reminisce about one of the less memorable finals.

Your comment implied hypocrisy. I’m not seeing it.

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.

Amongst other things… I enjoy sport when its apolitical. If I wanted my sport mixed with left wing, progressive, atheist rubbish… I’d just subscribe to Fairfax, read the guardian and watch the ABC. Bible quotes aside, Raelene Castle, I suspect through plain ignorance drove a schism through rugby. For I doubt there were many detractors of folau who didnt come from a progressive, socialist, atheist background (personified by Peter fitzsimons). Nor I suspect were many apologists for folau not from a right of centre, conservative, theistic background.

Indeed. Commenting on a rugby final. On a rugby website. Whood-a-thunk-it.

Aah… in the famous words of one of Australia’s most influential small business owners…

Please explain.

????

Excellent. While you’re busy not shedding a tear. I’ll get cracking – not asking for your shoulder to cry on.

Havn’t watched a minute of rugby since Raelene Castle succumbed to the Peter Fitzsimons mob…

But you’ve made me nostalgic. Who could forget the excitement of the 2007 final when south Africa beat England 15-6…

With not a single try scored.

I wont be watching a minute of rugby this world cup. Such is the contempt i have for RA and its treatment of folau. Dealbreaker for me.

Let’s be frank: born gay. Could there ever have been an assertion more at odds with Charles Darwins Origin of the Species?

If baboons and chimpanzees were born gay, how did the gay genes find their way to homo erectus and other hominids?

Note: there wasn’t any IVF.

Darwins thesis was the survival of the species depended on the FITNESS derived from genetic variation… and genes which could confer fitness and reproductive advantages would be passed on.

But gay genes present somewhat of an evolutionary conundrum considering (in the absence of surrogates and IVF) they tend NOT towards propagation and progeny.

“Born gay” has become a dogmatic belief. But like all dogmas, just because many people say it – doesn’t make it true. And just because someone is lynched for pointing out its inherent contradictions with evolution, doesnt mean they are wrong.

Understand people need to believe they are born gay. But to be born gay means: it is 100% genetic, its 100% biology. Unfortunately genetics and biology come under the purview of science. Hard science.

Psycho-social influences on sexuality and homosexuality can never be ignored. They impact the sexuality of every individual, gay or straight.

I only mentioned this topic because the author does. And many of folau detractors have told him to shut up because… people are born gay.

Mmm… what would I say to my grandson?
At your age I’d just finished my HSC at one of sydney’s so called ‘rugby nurseries’. Finished with a TER of 97.8. Studied medical science. HD average and first class honours… wasn’t a practising christian but at least studied what it’s about… did a few hundred hours of study in theology… sat some courses in biblical theology… bit of Greek to understand the new testament. Bit of Hebrew to study the old…
Discovered most people who criticized the bible and christianity were just plain ignorant. But really thought highly of themselves and their intelligence and their education.
Anyway, grandson, with the advent of Twitter we experienced a rediscovery, a renaissance of lynch mobs.
These mobs didnt hang people by the noose, but they did seek to silence.
They worked on a simple premise: a leader like Peter fitzsimons would yell SHUT UP. then a minnow would follow and also yell SHUT UP. Finally, many many minions would all yell SHUT UP.
Unfortunately no one could reason with these mobs. So Israel folau was fired. And all the minions yelled HOORAY! But the ignorant minions didnt realise there was more to law than contracts. There were state and federal laws and THE CONSTITUTION.
The mob got really frustrated when they realised people wouldn’t just shut up. So they grumbled and grumbled and wrote really vacuous articles and intellectually feeble comments until the learned justices in the high court ruled…
That’s all for tonight dear grandson.
Sleep well.

So many folau detractors repeatedly insist: it’s a contract matter, he signed it, he broke it, case closed.

Imagine a racist publican gets his employees to sign a contract. In it they agree not to serve indigenous patrons alcohol. The fact employee and employer signed said contract doesn’t make it infallible. It contravenes anti-discrimination laws.

A commercial lawyer, a contract lawyer is not necessarily an authority on the rich tapestry of state and federal laws governing the land, or most importantly the Constitition.

The only legal minds qualified to make judgements on the entire tapestry of laws governing Australia are the justices of the High Court.

Gillian Triggs would in no way agree with Folau but stated this week he should be free to speak his mind and the case should be brought before the courts to establish a precedent – and learn the high courts opinion.

Can an employer fire an employee for preaching and teaching the bible in his free time?

1) Samuel P Huntington wrote a seminal book called “the clash of civilisations”. If you’ve read this then there’s nothing new in this article (‘The Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures.’).

2) it amuses me how the term “shut up brigade” has been used to pejoratively describe people trying to silence Folau and anyone else they disagree with (often atheist, secular humanist, left wing, progressives who deluded themselves they are seeking a tolerant and inclusive world).

3) no caps lock? Surely you jest? You’re the first member of the shut up brigade I’ve ever encountered who extends their intolerance to caps lock.

4) did you not see I used caps lock to emphasise key passages from the authors article. Question) how is it shouting from a pulpit when I’m drawing visual emphasis to another authors words????

GOD BLESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH

One example of the authors spectacular misunderstanding of the old testament: slavery. The author states “Among some of the teachings in the Bible, according to multiple interpretations, are that a master has the right to mistreat slaves in a perverse way,”. In the ancient world (with no credit cards) debt meant slavery. Thus slavery was ubiquitous. Slaves were treated like livestock. But not Hebrew slaves. Their God gave slaves rights. Owners could be punished (even to death) for mistreating slaves. If I was a slave in the ancient world: I’d wanna be a Hebrew slave.

May I suggest the author read David Bentley Harts “Atheist delusions: the Christian revolution and its fashionable enemies”.

Finally, the penultimate thesis of the author, absolutely profound: “…we have chosen to continue deluding ourselves that imagined sorcery from 2000 years ago and a modern, inclusive and progressive society are compatible. THEY ARE NOT. As a species, we will one day have chose between them”.

WOW. WOW. WOW.

How deeply hypocritical that an advocate of of a modern and inclusive society can profess such INTOLERANCE.

Well Steve, all I can say is I don’t see the need for such primitive zero sum binary thinking. I am more that happy to live in a society, be friends with, respect and love secular humanists/atheists.

It is tragic you can’t see a society where people with different beliefs can co-exist.

But that’s the hypocrisy of most people who preach inclusiveness isn’t it. It only applies to people you agree with.

Unfortunately the author has a very poor understanding (displays profound ignorance) of the Bible. He is right to point out repugnant and repulsive aspects of the Old Testament. What he misses is that much of the Bible is not condoning such behaviours, rather it is trying to show the insidious and pervasive and ugly consequences of sinful behaviour. It repeatedly shows that when people ignore Gods laws and treat each other callously, rudely, selfishly, atrociously etc HE IS ANGRY. When wealthy treat poor without respect HE IS ANGRY. When people are selfish, and lie, and cheat and steal HE IS ANGRY. So much of the Old Testament is not condoning abhorrent behaviour it’s trying to shine a light on it. There are passages modern readers find abhorrent. Eg: regulating the treatment of slaves in Deuteronomy/Leviticus. What is easily missed is these were revolutionary at the time. Giving slaves rights!!!! Absolutely profound (remember in the ancient world slavery was omnipresent, in the absence of credit cards it was how debt was managed).

Refreshing to read an atheist pointing out his non-belief in an imaginary tooth-fairy-like-deity – and how it’s irrational to be offended when told by Folau you will not spend eternity with said imaginary deity (ie: your going to hell).

Good comment. My original post omitted autosomal-dominant, autosomal-recessive (eg skip a generation if hetero-zygous). You correctly mention sex linked Gene’s (F= X+X; M = X+Y). I dont profess to know why gay sexuality exists. It’s pretty anti-darwinian if you think about it. By that I mean darwinism is focused on propagating Gene’s. Hard to think of a less likely set of Gene’s yo propagate than homosexuality (and its lack of progeny). My point was just the assertion “born gay” carrys with it a set of genetic assumptions and implications which have not been verified. And quite frankly seem absurd.

Misunderstood, misrepresented, misquoted, mischaracterised etc.

I support Israel’s right to preach from the Bible (outside of work of course). I would support any Muslim athlete/employee to preach the q’oran (outside of work of course). I would support any Jewish athlete/employee to preach the Torah (outside of work of course). Every one of those texts has passages someone will find hurtful. Are you advocating they be banned (censorship) or the preachers be banned? Israel taught a central tenet of christianity: EVERYONE is s sinner. EVERYONE is destined for hell.

My defense will be to blame God… “it was you who made women so… damned… tempting… you needed to give men much stronger will power if you ever expected us to choose you over women!

FYI: I’m not a practising Christian. But feel compelled to defend it when it’s so misunderstood.