Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 527
  1. #451
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Please show me where I poured scorn on that suggestion. I can't recall doing so. I do recall that you asked me to tell you whether I believed that I chose who I was attracted to. As I had no wish to engage in a philosophical discussion about free will and determinism in a thread discussing same-sex issues, I did not answer your question. It is likely that I would not have replied to such a question even if it was asked in the appropriate thread since, in the first place, by definition, I cannot know; and, in the second place, your asking reflects a level of impertinent disrespect for my privacy.
    This seems like a scornful response to me:
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ... How very binary - and how very Calvinist!
    It seems to be disagreeing with what I said, but it's not a direct statement of either agreement or disagreement - which is why I asked a follow-up question.

    So can you answer the question directly now: Are people born gay? I don't see how that is a personal question.

    This is very relevant to same-sex issues. If gay people are born gay, then condemning them to hell for an accident of birth seems extremely unfair. Would you agree (this is obviously relevant to what Folau posted)?

  2. #452
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    This seems like a scornful response to me:

    It seems to be disagreeing with what I said, but it's not a direct statement of either agreement or disagreement - which is why I asked a follow-up question.

    So can you answer the question directly now: Are people born gay? I don't see how that is a personal question.

    This is very relevant to same-sex issues. If gay people are born gay, then condemning them to hell for an accident of birth seems extremely unfair. Would you agree (this is obviously relevant to what Folau posted)?
    According to the Apostle Paul, all unrepentant fornicators (including unrepentant homosexuals, because they're not special) are going to hell. I have noted already that your post is, by the dictates of some branches of queer theory, transphobic. I have also noted that it is, by the dictates of some branches of Christian theology, Calvinist. I have no desire to indulge your apparent need to determine whether I share either your Calvinism or your transphobia - that's all.

    I will indulge you to this extent: I have rarely, if ever, been accused of belonging to the Christian tradition. Hare Krishna!

  3. #453
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    According to the Apostle Paul, all unrepentant fornicators (including unrepentant homosexuals, because they're not special) are going to hell. I have noted already that your post is, by the dictates of some branches of queer theory, transphobic. I have also noted that it is, by the dictates of some branches of Christian theology, Calvinist. I have no desire to indulge your apparent need to determine whether I share either your Calvinism or your transphobia - that's all. I will indulge you to this extent: I have rarely, if ever, been accused of belonging to the Christian tradition. Hare Krishna!
    Folau actually said that hell awaits "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters". That implies that homosexuals will go to hell whether or not they are 'fornicators'. So if people are born homosexual, then he is implying that people are condemned to hell because of how they were born.

    Therefore I'm very surprised that anyone who supports Folau wouldn't have a direct response to these simple questions. But it seems that neither you nor Capablanca-Fan do.

    And, of course, whether people are born gay is a question that can be answered by science.

  4. #454
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Folau actually said that hell awaits "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters". That implies that homosexuals will go to hell whether or not they are 'fornicators'. So if people are born homosexual, then he is implying that people are condemned to hell because of how they were born.

    Therefore I'm very surprised that anyone who supports Folau wouldn't have a direct response to these simple questions. But it seems that neither you nor Capablanca-Fan do.

    And, of course, whether people are born gay is a question that can be answered by science.
    I have absolutely no problems with people thinking Folau is a silly homophobe - none at all. However, unless and until a law is passed requiring all citizens to believe in the Pauline injunctions (a doctrine that not even all Christians subscribe to), it's not the issue. The issue is whether he should lose his livelihood for quoting the Apostle Paul. It is just plain silly to define hate speech as speech you hate! It's also a bit reductionist, IMHO, to think that science has determined for once and always that people are born gay because that statement assumes contested notions about identity - with all that those endlessly refracting philosophical debates about free will and determinism involve, and also (as already mentioned here) those endless theological debates about corporeal reality - whether the 'essence of identity' (for want of a better expression) can be finally understood without reference to a spiritual essence.

    My latter day contribution to the discussion was simply to observe that sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions - and I've seen nothing to convince me that vulnerable young people will be made less anxious as a result of the action taken by RA. To the extent that young people are anxious in this troubled world, the recommended action in the first instance is CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy). CBT may help; banning Folau won't - though ignoring him might (!?)

    In the meantime, the relevant questions seem to me to be:
    1. Should coaches and administrators who breach their code of conduct be treated differently than players who breach it?
    2. Should the law of contract allow people to sign away inalienable rights? Should such contracts be invalid to the extent of the incompatibility?

  5. #455
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,568
    The fact that some people may be born gay doesn't rule out the possibility that other people may be born with a range of sexuality, so it's not clear to me that the claim is transphobic. But even if a person believes that the question is transphobic, it's still possible to answer the question - or to ignore my question and simply state their own explanation of why some people are attracted to the same sex (which is very relevant to this thread!).

  6. #456
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I'm very surprised that anyone who supports Folau wouldn't have a direct response to these simple questions. But it seems that neither you nor Capablanca-Fan do.

    And, of course, whether people are born gay is a question that can be answered by science.
    You first asked this question at 10.08 a.m.

    Since I can't really ask Folau, I'll have to ask idledim and Capablanca-Fan: If people aren't born with same-sex attraction (you both poured scorn on that suggestion when I made it), how do they develop it?

    By 2.29 p.m. you'd already concluded that Capablanca-Fan was unwilling to respond.

    Enough said, perhaps! Take a chill pill, Lord Byrom - he's probably playing chess.

  7. #457
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    You first asked this question at 10.08 a.m. ...
    I first raised the issue with Capablanca-Fan about a month ago, but he didn't really answer the question:
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    You're not born homosexual either. Babies are not sexually attracted to the same sex, let alone acting on this attraction.

  8. #458
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    My latter day contribution to the discussion was simply to observe that sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions - and I've seen nothing to convince me that vulnerable young people will be made less anxious as a result of the action taken by RA. To the extent that young people are anxious in this troubled world, the recommended action in the first instance is CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy). CBT may help; banning Folau won't - though ignoring him might (!?)
    Fixing children with CBT is one approach. Protecting them from offensive speech is a better approach. Obviously this isn't always possible. So the best that can sometimes be done is to reassure the children that the speaker is not representative. This is what RA has done by sacking Folau. Folau is still free to make his public comments, but RA has made it blatantly clear that they don't endorse them. Maybe they could have imposed a lesser penalty, but Folau seemed determined to continue making it an issue. And my experience with children as a chess coach is that this type of action definitely does help.

    I also don't see the difference between what happened to Folau and what has happened to lots of other people who have lost their positions due to offensive speech, including all those disendorsed candidates in the recent election.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    In the meantime, the relevant questions seem to me to be:
    1. Should coaches and administrators who breach their code of conduct be treated differently than players who breach it?
    2. Should the law of contract allow people to sign away inalienable rights? Should such contracts be invalid to the extent of the incompatibility?
    It will be interesting to see what happens if Folau does take his sacking to court.

  9. #459
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Do try to learn some basics, such as the difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.
    But do the laws of Christ mention homosexuality or was that added on by Paul? If there are no quotes by the (supposed) Christ on the issue then why should we consider such?
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  10. #460
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,292
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    But do the laws of Christ mention homosexuality or was that added on by Paul? If there are no quotes by the (supposed) Christ on the issue then why should we consider such?
    Apparently the law of Moses was not, as it were, set in stone.

    Last edited by road runner; 25-05-2019 at 01:24 PM.
    meep meep

  11. #461
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,568
    If same-sex attraction is not the product of biology, then there are a lot of very strange results from genetic studies:
    Let’s get some facts and perspective on the issue. Evidence from independent research groups who studied twins shows that genetic factors explain about 25-30% of the differences between people in sexual orientation (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual). Twin studies are a first look into the genetics of a trait and tell us that there are such things as “genes for sexual orientation” (I hate the phrase “gay gene”). Three gene finding studies showed that gay brothers share genetic markers on the X chromosome; the most recent study also found shared markers on chromosome 8. This latest research overcomes the problems of three prior studies which did not find the same results.

    Of course, environmental factors do interact with genetics. But there is no strong evidence that I'm aware of against a biological origin for same-sex attraction.

    Condemning people to hell for being 'fornicators' and urging them to repent is one thing. But Folau also included a separate condemnation of homosexuals, implying that even homosexual children are condemned to hell. What sin are they supposed to be repenting?

  12. #462
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Folau’s faith compelled him to shout a warning: repent

    Tone deaf to the electorate Bill Shorten came down on the wrong side of this debate in the election campaign. Ignoring section 116 of the Constitution, which says there shall be no religious test for public office, Shorten demanded to know where Scott Morrison stood on the “gays/hell” issue. This blunder won him no friends (apart from the inner-city crowd, who were already on his side).

    For Rugby Australia this is a lose-lose debate. The religious test they applied to Folau’s employment looked so unfair to him that he bypassed their internal appeal process as pointless and announced his intention to test them in the courts. So Rugby Australia now will either lose the court battle or lose its major sponsor. It has already lost its best player.

    This is no storm in a tea cup: this is central to Australia’s character as a nation and raises three questions:
    ● Why should there be penalties for defending classical Christianity?
    ● Why do the rights of one group trump all other rights?
    ● What is the actual content of the view he is defending?

  13. #463
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,401
    Is Folau actually attempting to defend the indefensible view he is espousing, or is he just transmitting it? I haven't seen him give any philosophical explanations of how it could be right for an all-good deity to send people to Hell over their sexuality or indeed for not believing in that deity.

    The Daily Telegraph is reporting Folau's father told Folau that he (Folau) would go to hell if he deleted the offensive material, because this would be disowning the words of the Lord. If this is true then a shame we can't just sack Folau's father who seems to be yet another addition to the pantheon of overbearing Australian sports parents, and would be a fine candidate for sending to hell if such a place actually existed.

  14. #464
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Folau’s faith compelled him to shout a warning: repent ...
    For Rugby Australia this is a lose-lose debate. The religious test they applied to Folau’s employment looked so unfair to him that he bypassed their internal appeal process as pointless and announced his intention to test them in the courts. So Rugby Australia now will either lose the court battle or lose its major sponsor. It has already lost its best player.
    If they win the court battle - assuming there is one - why would they lose their major sponsor? And there is no religious test being applied to Folau.

    As even the Coalition agrees:
    On Thursday, Porter was asked about calls for greater protection of Israel Folau – who said homosexuals go to hell – and the religious freedom issue. In reply, he warned that public commentary was in danger of “conflating two very different ideas”. “The question as to whether or not what we would intend to do in a religious discrimination bill would prevent that sort of contract, would depend on all of the terms of those particular individual types of contracts,” Porter told 6PR radio.
    “But what I would say is that we’re not necessarily in the business in government of trying to prevent individuals privately contracting the terms of their employment in a fair and balanced and reasonable way with their employer in a range of circumstances.” “We would define an attribute which is religious adherence and expression, and then put into that act a range of circumstances where it would become unlawful for people to discriminate against a person based on that attribute.”
    If extremely well paid people can't be stopped from making statements that could damage their employer, then they won't be employed in the first place. That would be a lose-lose situation!

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    [This is no storm in a tea cup: this is central to Australia’s character as a nation and raises three questions:
    ● Why should there be penalties for defending classical Christianity?
    ● Why do the rights of one group trump all other rights?
    ● What is the actual content of the view he is defending?
    There are no penalties for defending 'classical' Christainity. Folau can say whatever he wants (subject to other free speech restrictions, of course!), but RA doesn't have to employ him. And the 'one group' we are talking about are vulnerable children, who definitely deserve special rights.

  15. #465
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    If they win the court battle - assuming there is one - why would they lose their major sponsor? PB

    Who said they would? The article I linked argues that they will either lose the court battle or their major sponsor.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 3 guests)

  1. idledim

Similar Threads

  1. Miscellaneous/Funny Pictures
    By Alan Shore in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 391
    Last Post: 10-07-2014, 02:19 PM
  2. Miscellaneous maths stuff
    By Rincewind in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-07-2010, 09:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •