Israel Folau

[The Axe]

Yes I saw it, two champion players who were well ahead of their time.. I loved the comparison Rod made in regards to the size and composition of the racquet's used today as in how easy they are to wield in comparison to the old wooden racquet. I played as a junior with the old wooden racquets and remember how much easier it was to make shots with my first Prince graphite one... But back on Rod and Margaret they were certainly titans in their era who steered Australia through the golden times of Australian Tennis.

Artie.
i used to play with jimmy connors Wilson T2000 steel racket. If you hit it right it tinged and hummed. If not in the middle it most probably contributed to my tennis elbow I now suffer

[ROC181]

Imagine we had folau in our side and still got rolled by an underdone south's. Does anyone really think folau would have made a difference last week? This reeks of Parra signing hayne. Desperation.

So true...when the team's head is not there, there is no future immortal that would save us. It all goes back to the mindset they are bringing from higher above.

[Moose]

1. You say that as if anybody cares that you have outdated opinions? I dont. You lost... happy for you to humbug as much as you like.
2. IMO the Folau thing is purely PR. He hasnt been sacked or reprimanded. The public (who mostly voted yes) exercised their freedom of political communication and told him that his comments were of poor taste. Like it or not the guy is a public figure who represents his employer. His employers official position is that they embrace diversity. His personal opinions are contrary to their official opinion, so management have simply reminded him to be mindful of what he says on social media.
3. Margaret court took it a step further and again, people exercised their right to question whether a stadium that represents an inclusive sport should be named after somebody with non-inclusive opinions. In particular, people voiced the idea of naming it after Latrells aunty because she was more successful, is from an Indigenous background and doesnt hold non-inclusive opinions. While I doubt this will lead to anything, it is fair discussion in a world where gay marriage has been normalised and those who remain opposed to it are a therefore opposed to inclusive public policies.
4. Gay people are a minority group who have experienced significant discrimination in the past. Simply being gay used to be illegal and people are righfully entitled to feel this was an injustice. Gay marriage was intentionally a proactive, anti-discriminatory public policy. The general public have embraced it (including all major political parties and most large organisations). People are allowed to opposed it, but equally, organisations are allowed to embrace it as being their official public stance. In general, if individuals within an organisation hold views that are contrary to the beliefs of the organisation and voice them while identifying as a member of the organisation, then the organisation is allowed to retaliate. Despite what you have said, there have been no heavy fisted retaliations... all we have seen is small back office chats where people have been reminded of their social media obligations, pursuant to company policy.

and thats ignoring the fact that margaret court was also pro apartheid

[Adam Stone]

Obviously we still have room under the cap. Hopefully uncle Nick is still on talking terms with Isaac Moses.

[rented tracksuit]

By the way, I thought I read the ARU was standing by Israel saying he has the right to have his own beliefs and say what he wants. AND RIGHTFULLY SO. He shouldnt be getting sacked because he was expressing his belief? Why did they even ask him what he thought about GAYS when they knew how he felt about them already. They hooked him into this crap..

Couldn’t agree more. Why is it the gay community want the right to free speech and expression while taking that right from those with a different view? Hypocritical trouble makers.

[Arties Pie]

Artie.
i used to play with jimmy connors Wilson T2000 steel racket. If you hit it right it tinged and hummed. If not in the middle it most probably contributed to my tennis elbow I now suffer

I think most of us as we age after a number of years of playing Tennis end up with that : (

[Arties Pie]

1. You say that as if anybody cares that you have outdated opinions? I dont. You lost... happy for you to humbug as much as you like.
2. IMO the Folau thing is purely PR. He hasnt been sacked or reprimanded. The public (who mostly voted yes) exercised their freedom of political communication and told him that his comments were of poor taste. Like it or not the guy is a public figure who represents his employer. His employers official position is that they embrace diversity. His personal opinions are contrary to their official opinion, so management have simply reminded him to be mindful of what he says on social media.
3. Margaret court took it a step further and again, people exercised their right to question whether a stadium that represents an inclusive sport should be named after somebody with non-inclusive opinions. In particular, people voiced the idea of naming it after Latrells aunty because she was more successful, is from an Indigenous background and doesnt hold non-inclusive opinions. While I doubt this will lead to anything, it is fair discussion in a world where gay marriage has been normalised and those who remain opposed to it are a therefore opposed to inclusive public policies.
4. Gay people are a minority group who have experienced significant discrimination in the past. Simply being gay used to be illegal and people are righfully entitled to feel this was an injustice. Gay marriage was intentionally a proactive, anti-discriminatory public policy. The general public have embraced it (including all major political parties and most large organisations). People are allowed to opposed it, but equally, organisations are allowed to embrace it as being their official public stance. In general, if individuals within an organisation hold views that are contrary to the beliefs of the organisation and voice them while identifying as a member of the organisation, then the organisation is allowed to retaliate. Despite what you have said, there have been no heavy fisted retaliations... all we have seen is small back office chats where people have been reminded of their social media obligations, pursuant to company policy.

I have had a alot of Gay friends over the years probably alot more than you by the way as I was a straight guy who lived around the gay community for many years, my reasons for my No vote are not what you think and have more towards legalities after the fact in regards to children and family, Issues to do with CSA, access in event of breakup, access to funds ect, We as a community still have problems with these issues even as far as straight couples are concerned. I personally would have liked these legalities sorted before we had the Yes/ No vote rather than the political exercise we had to endure and then try to sort out the finer points later.... But that's my opinion.... You have your's and you are entitled to it....

Now I didn't elaborate in the earlier post as to why I voted no but you wrongly assumed it was do due to Homophobia... But you proved most peoples point that alot of the Yes vote voters can't see past their own noses and got nasty when my vote doesn't doesn't correlate to yours ...Why is that ? I am entitled to my view point as you are yours but I won't attack you point's of view, why do you ?

On Margaret Court you say all these other people, organisations and businesses have made their choice in support of the gay community but that's their choice She has made hers...So why attack her on it as you said you don't care about outdated opinions but obviously you do care......

[Tommy Smith]

Couldn’t agree more. Why is it the gay community want the right to free speech and expression while taking that right from those with a different view? Hypocritical trouble makers.

That's quite the broad brush statement.

You make it sound as though the gay community are a singlular entity with an official spokesperson.

And you've then attributed false statements on their behalf as though they're all anti free speech for others.

In reality, some PC douchebag who appears on the ABC and has a whinge about Folau's comments does not represent the views of an entire community.

[ism22]

I have had a alot of Gay friends over the years probably alot more than you by the way as I was a straight guy who lived around the gay community for many years, my reasons for my No vote are not what you think and have more towards legalities after the fact in regards to children and family, Issues to do with CSA, access in event of breakup, access to funds ect, We as a community still have problems with these issues even as far as straight couples are concerned. I personally would have liked these legalities sorted before we had the Yes/ No vote rather than the political exercise we had to endure and then try to sort out the finer points later.... But that's my opinion.... You have your's and you are entitled to it....

Now I didn't elaborate in the earlier post as to why I voted no but you wrongly assumed it was do due to Homophobia... But you proved most peoples point that alot of the Yes vote voters can't see past their own noses and got nasty when my vote doesn't doesn't correlate to yours ...Why is that ? I am entitled to my view point as you are yours but I won't attack you point's of view, why do you ?

On Margaret Court you say all these other people, organisations and businesses have made their choice in support of the gay community but that's their choice She has made hers...So why attack her on it as you said you don't care about outdated opinions but obviously you do care......

1. I did not use the word homophobia at all, so not sure where you got that from.
2. Gay people could already adopt children, use sperm donors, have surrogate children...etc as defacto couples. Also, transgender persons could already get married. IMO your appeal to legal reasoning is misconceived. If your issue is that you do not think gay people should be able to raise children, then that is an entirely separate argument because marriage is not the enabler for that.
3. Your are entitled to your opinion... nobody is gonna ban you from the forum or put you in the naughty corner for expressing it. Likewise, those who voted for gay marriage are entitled to celebrate their win (even if you choose to grumble at them in the background, while the good, loving Christians chant that they will all burn in hell).

[ROC181]

That's quite the broad brush statement.

You make it sound as though the gay community are a singlular entity with an official spokesperson.

And you've then attributed false statements on their behalf as though they're all anti free speech for others.

In reality, some PC douchebag who appears on the ABC and has a whinge about Folau's comments does not represent the views of an entire community.

But you don’t see a prominent members of that community come out and defend Folaus right to voice his views and until someone does then the general views of the gay community is that it’s all about them and others are bigots. When only the loudest radicals are heard then the view becomes that.

[BUDDY]

I have had a alot of Gay friends over the years probably alot more than you by the way as I was a straight guy who lived around the gay community for many years, my reasons for my No vote are not what you think and have more towards legalities after the fact in regards to children and family, Issues to do with CSA, access in event of breakup, access to funds ect, We as a community still have problems with these issues even as far as straight couples are concerned. I personally would have liked these legalities sorted before we had the Yes/ No vote rather than the political exercise we had to endure and then try to sort out the finer points later.... But that's my opinion.... You have your's and you are entitled to it....

Now I didn't elaborate in the earlier post as to why I voted no but you wrongly assumed it was do due to Homophobia... But you proved most peoples point that alot of the Yes vote voters can't see past their own noses and got nasty when my vote doesn't doesn't correlate to yours ...Why is that ? I am entitled to my view point as you are yours but I won't attack you point's of view, why do you ?

On Margaret Court you say all these other people, organisations and businesses have made their choice in support of the gay community but that's their choice She has made hers...So why attack her on it as you said you don't care about outdated opinions but obviously you do care......

Well said Artie.

If that person asked him about those who commit adultery (part of the same passage) Izzy would have given exactly the same response and nobody would give a sh!t.

And it is many of those same people who call the No voters bigots who demonstrated against having Syrian refugees brought to this country because they believe they would bring terrorism here.

Too many precious people around who get their noses out of joint if someone doesn't agree with their obvious correct views.

And BTW i would love Izzy in our backline.

[Guest]

Bigots always pull the “”I have a lot of ____ friends” card to justify their hatred.

[Arties Pie]

Bigots always pull the “”I have a lot of ____ friends” card to justify their hatred.

Where did I say I hated gays.....News flash I actually do have them... I think you read what you want into what I said...

[Arties Pie]

2. Gay people could already adopt children, use sperm donors, have surrogate children...etc as defacto couples. Also, transgender persons could already get married. IMO your appeal to legal reasoning is misconceived. If your issue is that you do not think gay people should be able to raise children, then that is an entirely separate argument because marriage is not the enabler for that..

I am not up to date on what the current law pertains as to who is " Legally and Financially " responsible for the upkeep of children born in a same sex marriage that have either used a friend or Sperm Bank for to concieve, In a heterosexual relationship where there a children involved from a previous marriage/ partnership ie as in step children the partner who didn't father the said children isn't legally financially responsible for the upkeep of the step children if that relationship fails.... Now using that as a template is a partner in a same sex marriage legally financially responsible for children that he/she didn't father ? I personally couldn't find that out and that was my reservation... If a Stepfather isn't financially responsible due to the fact he didn't father the children how can a partner in a same sex marriage be legally financially responsilble if that person didn't father the child... If you have these answers then please enlighten me...

[Bigchook]

Let's talk about football ffs. I'm sure there's a gay marriage forum you blokes can continue.