Poll added - Sea Eagles Everyone in League jersey

[Chunkytuna]

I do, quite strongly.

Approx 3-4% identify as LGBTQI (likely under reported), to dismiss the contribution to society or Rugby League is.....well it confounds me personally.

As a side note, I just gogled and 3.3% of the population is indigenous as a comparison.

Unless your argument is that Ian Roberts is actually the only LGBTQI person ever involved in Rugby League.

If that is the case i can 100% tell you that is incorrect. As FACT.

Im not sure about 3-4% of people identifying as LGBTQI - but I'll take your word for it - that's not really the point.

As far as I'm aware, when it comes to the contribution of the Indigenous people in Rugby League or women (50% of the population) for that matter, over the past 112 odd years of our game, the contribution of the LGBTQI community pales. So this is why I believe that this jersey/round is not comparable to those other rounds - which is an argument that has been used in this discussion.

Obviously there are and have been LGBTQI people who've played and been involved in the game, and that's awesome. And that proves that we are ALREADY inclusive and that we don't need to use our jersey to promote an agenda.

My point is that this is not about inclusivity - it's about promoting a political agenda. And it's about ridiculous virtue signalling. I don't think that belongs on our jersey. I'd say the same thing if it there was any other political messaging on our jersey. And as I said in my previous post, even the Indigenous jersey/round is being politicised to the point where it's becoming irksome.

 

[sick_thing]

How utterly depressing this thread has become.

Another reminder of why the jersey was important.

And will likely never be seen again.

 

[Disco]

It's not my fault if you identify as a peanut brain lefty. I wonder if we went back through all of the pages on this topic, how many times you called people homophobes or bigots for suggesting players have a right to freely practice their religion.
Interesting that you consider the position of the players to freely practice their religon as the minority position yet argue the the rights of the LGBQTIA community supercede those of the religious group because the LGBQTIA community is the most vulnerable as the minority. Which is it?

Its a tricky one and as most things in life its not black and white.

I generally want to support anyones right to practice their religion but the internal conflict arises when the religion or interpretation of that religion looks to either persecute sections of our society or treat them as a sub section of society.

Now on the Manly boys, I'm fine with them standing down (I'd probably consider docking them a weeks pay....though I'd have to give more thought to my positioning on that). I can genuinely say Id prefer us to stick with the jersey and the message of inclusivity and diversity even if it means we lose and it that cost us the 8.

Outside of the Manly boys and more a respect of reigious beliefs in general. Where you you stand on say Sharia Law?

If a religion (or interpretation of said reigion) led to say, women being stoned to death for adultery, or not being able to show their faces in public etc should we sit back and accept and respect said religion.

Its murky waters, almost definitely not worth discussing here.

My view is generally straightforward. Treat everyone with a bit of respect and side with those who want everyone treated with respect.


I'll finish with something that is probably unnecessary but you never know here.

NO I AM NOT COMPARING MANLY PLAYERS OR CHRISTIANITY to extremest religions.

More demonstrating that these issues or not as a whole black and white.

 

[caspersparks]

Man, this is so complex..
I'm in Seattle, one of the most liberal cities in the world.
I'm not sure what its like in Australia, but here the 'rainbow' represents alot more than just "gay rights" or viewing them as "equal".

It means you accept the idea that men can be pregnant, it means you believe in the validity of non binary people, giving puberty blockers to confused teen-ages.. you can be 100% for gay rights, you can even be gay yourself - but seen as bigot if you don't accept those views.

While it was a nice idea in theory, practically there is a-lot of nuisance to this subject, which idk if it belongs on a football jersey

 

[Heckenberg]

Its a tricky one and as most things in life its not black and white.

I generally want to support anyones right to practice their religion but the internal conflict arises when the religion or interpretation of that religion looks to either persecute sections of our society or treat them as a sub section of society.

Now on the Manly boys, I'm fine with them standing down (I'd probably consider docking them a weeks pay....though I'd have to give more thought to my positioning on that). I can genuinely say Id prefer us to stick with the jersey and the message of inclusivity and diversity even if it means we lose and it that cost us the 8.

Outside of the Manly boys and more a respect of reigious beliefs in general. Where you you stand on say Sharia Law?

If a religion (or interpretation of said reigion) led to say, women being stoned to death for adultery, or not being able to show their faces in public etc should we sit back and accept and respect said religion.

Its murky waters, almost definitely not worth discussing here.

My view is generally straightforward. Treat everyone with a bit of respected, and side with those who want everyone treated with respect.


I'll finish with something that is probably unnecessary but you never know here.

NO I AM NOT COMPARING MANLY PLAYERS OR CHRISTIANITY to extremest religions.

More demonstrating that these issues or not as a whole black and white.

All religions are extremist when you look at them in the context of colonisation and the atrocities that have been committed under their banner of righteousness.

 

[Spartan Eagle]

For those who don't think that this is political...well guess what. Our PM has weighed in on this fracas.

Anthony Albanese throws support behind Manly rainbow jersey

Seven Manly Sea Eagles players threatened to boycott Thursday's NRL match against the Sydney Roosters rather than wear it because they have a religious opposition to supporting pride.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Karshy]

Likewise, it's not my fault you identify as a flog, but like the gays, we can't help who we are. But just so you know, I support your choice to be a flog.

Feel free to scroll all you like, but I haven't used the word bigot or homophobe once, rendering your comment invalid. I also never stated anything about one groups right superseding the other. You can't just make things up to try and validate your position. You simply lose all credibility.

Well champ, I encourage you to get some support and assistance for your peanut brain lefty syndrome. I would love to see you live your best life. 😀

Maybe you did or didnt use those terms, plenty with the same position did.

 

[47MVEagle]

When you boil it down & get rid of the weasel words & longwinded explanations of why this jersey shouldn't exist, what it really comes down to is people refusing to accept gay people as equals.

That this attitude still exists today highlights the need for this jersey & the discussion it has triggered.

Some religions have modified their stance on certain topics (female priests for example) & I'm sure the current pope acknowledged acceptance of homosexuals several years ago with a "live & let live" context.

Religion needs to continue moving with the times & modifying as appropriate because homosexuality isn't going away - it is an intrinsic part of society & needs to be accepted once & for all so everyone can get on with their lives.

 

[Disco]

NRL can nip this all in the bud but just having an exemption that some jerseys can have white stripes.

There jerseys wont be that crazy different, it wont be like its 3 teams out there

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I'm back....probably unsurprisingly. But don't worry I won't hanging around long. I just feel like I need to get something off my chest (that may come as a surprise) due to the large number of people seemingly calling for players to be sacked. (FYI I haven't read through the 200 odd pages contained in this particular teacup...please move archive/move/delete my post as you see fit).

If you think a player should be sacked for not wanting play in a jersey (and can't change your mind) then kindly #&@! off! These kids have grown up in cultures and environments where this is a very big issue and to be seen as accepting something which conflicts with their family and their own beliefs is no small thing. There will be enormous pressure on these kids to "do the right thing" and it is unacceptable to make judgements and assign punishment on them as individuals.

If you want to be outraged, then be outraged that these outdated, bigoted views have taken root in neglected parts of the pacific. If you want to do something, then leave the players alone and help out secular charities or lobby governments to provide aid and investment to places that would otherwise open the door to superstitious brainwashing to help their people.

Other than that, lets hope this opens the door for some talented youngsters to get a shot. The season was already shot and we ain't going to win anything while Des is coach ;p

 

[Woodsie]

Can somebody with more knowledge than I explain to me whether the Islanders beliefs are more ..

"historically cultural" in their societies ... or more recently religion inspired ....

 

[Karshy]

When you boil it down & get rid of the weasel words & longwinded explanations of why this jersey shouldn't exist, what it really comes down to is people refusing to accept gay people as equals.

That this attitude still exists today highlights the need for this jersey & the discussion it has triggered.

Some religions have modified their stance on certain topics (female priests for example) & I'm sure the current pope acknowledged acceptance of homosexuals several years ago with a "live & let live" context.

Religion needs to continue moving with the times & modifying as appropriate because homosexuality isn't going away - it is an intrinsic part of society & needs to be accepted once & for all so everyone can get on with their lives.

That's completely false. Its about players rights to freely express and practice their religion and not be compromised on this by having to promote something that they consider "sin" and in direct opposition to their religion. It has absolutely nothing to do with accepting gay people as equals.

 

[mave]

Homosexuality is a private matter. Should not be promoted or imposed on players and supporters. Although I have paid for my ticket I will not attend on Thursday, should this debacle proceed.

For ****s sake......

The 1970s called, they want their bigotry back.

 

[47MVEagle]

That's completely false. Its about players rights to freely express and practice their religion and not be compromised on this by having to promote something that they consider "sin" and in direct opposition to their religion. It has absolutely nothing to do with accepting gay people as equals.

Weasel words.

 

[Pete the Eagle]

I'm happy with the jersey , but not happy with the way the club went about it as always the office doesn't talk to the workers in most facets of business .
What annoys me is the players don't want to wear the jersey on religious and cultural reasons but many from the same religion and culture form gangs and terrorize local neighbour hoods but that's ok in their religion i guess , its just the double standard and play the religion card as suits.
One of our own is facing court right now as we all know.
Throw the jersey out wear our normal one and get on with it .

 

[Karshy]

Weasel words.

well you are full of **** and spreading misinformation

 

[ManlyTragic]

I still hold some hope that this might happen, KE. The NRL needs players for its product and can’t risk the embarrassment of the club backing down. So why not a compromise? They’ll take the “fine people on both sides” position and let them wear jerseys with no rainbows. If the Roosters agree, they’ll consider it problem solved.

Why can’t the club just backflip and go back to the normal jersey with no rainbow!

Then consult the players and if all are in agreement introduce the concept another time when and if everyone is happy.

The CEO needs to stop hiding and come out and admit that due diligence was not undertaken and that for this week they are going back to the normal jersey!

 

[Nike]

That's completely false. Its about players rights to freely express and practice their religion and not be compromised on this by having to promote something that they consider "sin" and in direct opposition to their religion. It has absolutely nothing to do with accepting gay people as equals.

If that's the case why are they running out on 4 Pines Park with PointsBet across their chest?

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

And this is the issue. We must respect all peoples opinions and beliefs. Including the Polly lads who believe in old mate in the sky. When it comes to these issues, less is more otherwise you’re walking on dangerous ground.

No, there is no requirement in any society to respect all people's opinions and beliefs. What if I sincerely believe that adults should be able to have sex with children or animals, or hold other opinions that the majority of society regard as abhorrent or objectionable? Should I be allowed to go my merry way and fiddle with kids and livestock?

Take religion and culture out of it for a minute and imagine this scenario: What if a player who isn't Polynesian or religious refused to wear the jersey on the grounds that he simply doesn't think gay people are "right" or "normal" and should not be considered equal to the rest of the population? Would that player be applauded for his "brave stance"?

 

[47MVEagle]

If that's the case why are they running out on 4 Pines Park with PointsBet across their chest?

BINGO.

BOOM.

KA-BLAM.

Prepare yourself for more semantics about how "sinful" gambling & drinking are compared to homosexuality or how sponsorship is vastly different to "political" statements.