[Golden Oldies] Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

[Ian_Cook]

I've not got a problem mate. But you did say he was fighting their case. Which he isn't. But I'm unsure why you don't/can't understand this. THE ACL/IF issues are completely different.

1. Same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed - it's against my religion.

2. I should be able to, as a private citizen express my view on my beliefs/religion, without being dismissed from my job.

Two different issues

To us... Yes

To them ... NO

The ACL are really PISSED about same sex marriage being passed into law in the recent referendum. To them, that was a smack in the face for their Lord, and they see this as a chance to get revenge on "the ungodly voting mob"

The Folau case may not be about same sex marriage, but they see LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, euthanasia, halal certification, surrogacy and adoptions by gays and lesbians, legalised prostitution and same sex marriage as all branches of the same wicked tree. They will make it about anything to get what they want.

 

[Arabcheif]

But freedom of religion, unless I'm incorrect. Is already protected under the Aussie constitution isn't? You are permitted to practice any religion. If that's the "battle" they're fighting then they won. As they're allowed to practice their religion. I'll also suggest that to be in the ACL, may be breaking a CoC of their own day job employers, given the stance against same sex marriages, have they been sacked from their respective jobs?

 

[Arabcheif]

Ah, so HE's not fighting one of their main battles. They're hijacking IF's case to suit their needs.

 

[The Fat]

Ah, so HE's not fighting one of their main battles. They're hijacking IF's case to suit their needs.

Well considering ACL provided the new fundraising platform for IF and chucked in 100 grand to kick it off AND Izzy is happy to accept their money and help, I’d say they are well and truly in bed together

 

[Arabcheif]

Well considering ACL provided the new fundraising platform for IF and chucked in 100 grand to kick it off AND Izzy is happy to accept their money and help, I’d say they are well and truly in bed together

No way IF could just be saying "Haha, they gave me a hundred grand. I'll take that thanks, suckers hahaha."

But thats your opinion and like me, you're entitled to it my friend.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But freedom of religion, unless I'm incorrect. Is already protected under the Aussie constitution isn't? You are permitted to practice any religion. If that's the "battle" they're fighting then they won. As they're allowed to practice their religion. I'll also suggest that to be in the ACL, may be breaking a CoC of their own day job employers, given the stance against same sex marriages, have they been sacked from their respective jobs?

The problem with the ACL is that they the don't just want freedom of religion (they already have that), they want that freedom of religion to include the freedom to say anything they like without consequences, giving them a free hand to continue with impunity to spread their vile, bigoted messages of intolerance of anything the bible disagrees with.

 

[Arabcheif]

Possibly one of the wisest quotes from a film involving religion I've ever seen. Yes I know the source is a comedy, but nonetheless....

[FONT=&quot]I just think it's better to have an idea. You can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it. The whole of existence is in jeopardy right now because of the Catholic belief system in this Plenary Indulgence b***sh*t.
Dogma[/FONT]

 

[crossref]

1.5m now ...

 

[L'irlandais]

1.5m now ...

More power to him, I say. Let me raise the money and blow it on legal fees. Will it prove he is a better person? No. The way I see it poverty is a big issue in Tonga right now. For various reasons, 22.5 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Domestic violence is very high. Alcoholism too. As a Pacific Islander he should be concerned about such things, but is sadly more interested in property portfolios and obeying his bigoted parents. As a devout Christian, I am disgusted that he should claim to share the same beliefs. Nothing of what he says or does strikes me as being motivated by a belief in a higher power.

 

[crossref]

. Nothing of what he says or does strikes me as being motivated by a belief in a higher power.

Really? Everything he does strikes me as motivated .. or perhaps justified .. by a (mistaken) belief in a higher power .

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Yes, IF did say that same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. I agree with that. Other than marriage, what rights did IF say are not afforded to homosexuals?

There are some pros and cons financially for being married. In our country, I think most health insurance companies recognize partners. But I would not consider the pros and cons of marriage as rights.

you really have me confused with your final sentence

Before you assign a name to me for my questioning of your post, I'd bake and decorate the cake.

Oh brother, not that anyone responded to my post. But I realized the bit in bold could be misunderstood. It is better writ as: I agree that is what IF said.

FWIW I am not opposed to same sex marriages. It will become interesting when polygamists start to request legal marriage, although it may be legal somewhere already..

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

More power to him, I say. Let me raise the money and blow it on legal fees. Will it prove he is a better person? No. The way I see it poverty is a big issue in Tonga right now. For various reasons, 22.5 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Domestic violence is very high. Alcoholism too. As a Pacific Islander he should be concerned about such things, but is sadly more interested in property portfolios and obeying his bigoted parents. As a devout Christian, I am disgusted that he should claim to share the same beliefs. Nothing of what he says or does strikes me as being motivated by a belief in a higher power.

Ouch, non sequitur attack on his race and parents. I didn't know his decision making as a Pacific Islander had any thing to do with this.

 

[crossref]

Quite an interesting article her e

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12244086

 

[The Fat]

Quite an interesting article her e

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12244086

Even more interesting is the report today that a prominent law firm estimate that Folau’s legal bill will be more in the range of $300k not $3m

 

[crossref]

And here is a fun poll .. opinions are very divided

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sport...u/news-story/95f75461fbb7bae32c41aefbe042e2f0

 

[L'irlandais]

Ouch, non sequitur attack on his race and parents. I didn't know his decision making as a Pacific Islander had any thing to do with this.

Religion and culture have always existed in close relationship to one another. He turned to the Pentecostal faith because his family share those beliefs. In turn, most Pentecostals believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, which influenced his comments, which correspondingly have alot to do with his background.

Vicious circle.

 

[crossref]

Did you know only 28 countries allow single sex partnerships.
And not all of those allow marriage (they have some type of equivalent)

I would bet that , globally, a great majority of the population still disagree with it.

Some of those who disagree with same sex marriage would be ok with same sex civil partnerships

IF views seem bigoted to us, in the West, but to many they are probably mainstream


Not sure how many people believe in hell, though..

 

[dave_clark]

fwiw, i'm entirely in favour of same-sex marriage. homosexuals should be allowed to be as miserable as heterosexuals.

:biggrin:

 

[thepercy]

I think government incentive and sanctioning of marriage is outdated and unnecessary. Why discriminate against those who are unmarriagable or choose to be single. If you want to commit yourself to another person through a religious ceremony or otherwise, then great for you, but why give you a tax break over it.

 

[crossref]

I think government incentive and sanctioning of marriage is outdated and unnecessary. Why discriminate against those who are unmarriagable or choose to be single. If you want to commit yourself to another person through a religious ceremony or otherwise, then great for you, but why give you a tax break over it.

In the UK the main breaks are
.. passing on assets to eachother free of inheritance tax
.. pension sharing
.. fair splitting of assets on separation

If we didn't have those then a lot of people would find thselves penniless after the death or loss of a spouse and the state would have to look after them, and their children

Society benefits a lot from people being in stable partnerships and it makes sense to allow those 'breaks'

Imo we should also extend them to couples in long term non sexual relationships (eg siblings or just friends) if they have formed a long term interdependent partnership