Thank-you for publishing my last comment.

I make a further additional remark that the LEGAL PRINCIPLE of coverture is the basis of the Christian era Jewish perspective: “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” [1 Corinthians 11:13]

But it is neither a substantiation of any religious belief nor does your affections meet any legal requirements of any prerogative to bestow such upon another’s autonomy {

ie. the practice of coverture as a LEGAL PRINCIPLE demands the lifestyle use of a condom for any non-spousal heterosexual or bisexual sexual activity.

} over which we are going to condemn you religionists.

The condom commercial (URL omitted) shows usage of animal intestines for condom usage and archeological research has found that such usage and other forms existed with Egyptian culture.

As you have censored my opinion and those that you publish are in Noam Chomsky’s parlance: “manufactured consent”.

Here is another which you will also no doubt censor:

NEWSPEAK: the man Israel Folau is prone to reckless and promiscuous {ie. dislocated temporality as opportunism} conduct and an unaccountability for his premature ejaculations which he claims is a piety.

— PHARAOH’S PROPHYLACTIC —

“TWAT ‘N TRIPE.
‘TIS JUST THE THING.
DON’T BE A SNIPE.
AND DRESS YA DING.”

YOUTUBE: “CONDOM COMMERCIAL”

In English law, baron and feme is a phrase used for husband and wife, in relation to each other, who were accounted as one person by coverture {

– a cover or covering; shelter; concealment.
– Law. the status of a married woman considered as under the protection and authority of her husband.

ORIGIN: 1175–1225; Middle English < Anglo-French, Old French. See covert, -ure

}. Hence, by the old law of evidence, the one party was excluded from giving evidence for or against the other in civil questions, and a relic of this is still preserved in criminal law.

That commercial is no longer available on YOUTUBE as it clearly conveyed the historical reality that the Papal prohibition over condoms as harm minimisation was not only a hypocrisy given his equivalent Egyptian / Roman basis of authority, but a crime against humanity of a magnitude as genocide.

– dolf

Initial Post: 17 April 2018

Just a few weeks ago traditional marriage advocate and family disappointer Barnaby Joyce was publicly stating that any judgement about his new family circumstances was between him and his God so those being critical of his hypocrisy should shut up.

Now we’re being lectured by the likes of Alan Jones that it’s wrong to criticise Israel Folau for pronouncing that he knows as “truth” that God sends gays to hell despite offering no evidence in support of this other than some man-written bible passages.

The anti-gay crowd want to silence others when it suits them and decry that we might object to somebody’s publicly stated opinions while defending courageously only free speech they actually agree with.

It’s a fraught situation, the public are seeing through it and sponsors are right to be frightened despite sponsoring an incredibly successful product on the field in the form of Australian Rugby Union.

Israel Folau can have all the religious opinions and freedom he wants, and if he’s clever he’ll keep them to himself and his close associates and not have to put up with being caught out when he’s being homophobic and un-Christianly judgemental of others he chooses to hate.