England warns Vunipola for defending Folau's anti-gay post

And the attempts at Thought Control continue ...

Polau was not attacking, expressing hatred toward, or inciting violence against any people.

He was expressing moral disapproval of a behavior.

Anyone who can't sort out the difference between those two things is an intellectual lightweight.

And it wasn't just homosexual behavior that he said he believed was immoral. There were several others -- but it's a telling commentary on our society today that people are only upset about the homosexuality part.

I'm getting tired of people trying to tell us what we can or cannot say, what we're allowed to think or not think, and what we're permitted to believe or not believe.

I'm tired of people trying to control our speech -- because it's a very short step from controlling speech to controlling thoughts.

The guy believes homosexual behavior, as well as certain other behaviors, is morally wrong.

That doesn't mean he hates the people engaged in those behaviors -- and anyone who thinks he does needs to stop constantly responding to things emotionally and employ a little logic and reason once in a while.

So if he was making his statements about black people, would you defend him for only stating his opinion, and not hatred of black people?

This is relevant, as both of these things (being black, being gay) are immutable characteristics one is born with. So I'm curious if you are consistent on the matter, even when it become a little more socially touchy when speaking of a race vs. a sexual orientation.

This is relevant, as both of these things (being black, being gay) are immutable characteristics one is born with. So I'm curious if you are consistent on the matter, even when it become a little more socially touchy when speaking of a race vs. a sexual orientation.

Yes. I see where you're going but I disagree. Race is immutable. Sexual orientation isn't quite necessarily immutable though... well maybe from birth, but not from the point of conception. Certain exposure to certain things in the womb can change the way babies develop and this can also apply to sexual orientation. So even though I support the gay community, it's not quite so black and white. Race and gender are different to sexual preference.

Certain exposure to certain things in the womb can change the way babies develop and this can also apply to sexual orientation.

Maybe. But irregardless of what may happen in the womb while the baby is developing, sexual preference is something people are born with. I knew I was interested in girls from an extremely young age (I didn't even realize that attraction to same sex could be a thing until much older). From talking to gay people I know, it's the same for them. They knew who they liked from childhood, same as you and I knew who we liked. Some people know they like both men and women. Whomever one likes, and irregardless of how that attraction developed in the womb, sexual preference is something we are all born with.

Maybe. But irregardless of what may happen in the womb while the baby is developing, sexual preference is something people are born with. I knew I was interested in girls from an extremely young age (I didn't even realize that attraction to same sex could be a thing until much older). From talking to gay people I know, it's the same for them. They knew who they liked from childhood, same as you and I knew who we liked. Some people know they like both men and women. Whomever one likes, and irregardless of how that attraction developed in the womb, sexual preference is something we are all born with.

I agree. My point was that things can happen in the womb that can produce people more likely to behave in a certain way. This can't be changed, but doesn't always mean that society should tolerate the behavior. I just don't think including both race and gender along with sexual preference actually adds consistency to the matter.