For clarity reasons, homosexuality refers to an act considered a sin among Christians. Gay or Lesbian refers to a person. In my opinion, it is common among Christians to dislike homosexuality as a sin but loves the Gay person. So dislike the sin but loves the sinner.

This is recognised by revoking the status of Christian celebrants who are practising acts of homosexuality.

So one has to understand the Christian perspective of the social terms where Folau is according to me condemning the act and not the person. His claim is well founded in the Bible where Sodom was burned to hell for the sinful behaviour.

He has a right to practise his belief and express his opinion, which in this case merely reciting what's written.

It is known that believers have become victims of accusations and allocations by a loud group resulting with losing their jobs, their friends and even their families. It is when other sports persons board the sympathy wagon that adds fuel to the fire.

Folau might be practising his Christian belief as a sportsperson and whether he was addressing homosexuality in sports that poses a threat to him, only he knows. But in this case it looks like the rights of gay person to practice homosexuality is somewhat greater than the rights of believers.

In my belief, everything I do is a form of prayer. It reminds me of the principles of objective practice and that distractions by acts of sin can have negative effect on the outcome. So if Folau has a bad game, he might turn around and blame the source of his distraction. We all do that especially in sports.

The social circumstance anyway is complex that needs urgent perspectives.

Because of his physique and natural talent, Folau whether he agrees to or not represents a symbolic image of sports. Followers among Christians are motivated by such qualities and are attracted to the sport. To maintain this relationship, the game has to be a public institution. And we are talking about social and coherent values, the adherent for commercial benefits.

However, there is a conflict between believers and gay persons who are practising homosexual acts in sports. That is what his statement is referred to, not gay people in general but those practising homosexual acts.

And critics according to me are divided in raising their concerns in the interest of the sport of which their own depend upon. This I believe is a natural contract that is much bigger than the formal but yet to be realised.

Is there a place for believers and homosexual acts in sports? In here it is not about gender or sex rather about social values.

In the modern, gay and lesbians are persons with rights just as men and women. But this is too far remote for the olden tradition to accept the homosexual act. And you can begin to see that even in sports cannot escape the conflict between Tradition and Modernity.

I have raised concerns about this proselytization style of preaching which is staunched among other Christian denominations. They drive a hard hit on moral impositions. Their claim is merely reinforcing God of the Old Testament.

The God of old remains somewhere in heaven overlooking people here on earth. There is a re mote distance between followers and God. By the time a journey arrives on earth, it has changed to a whole new world. And this is reflected of church buildings on Sundays; uninhabited of the young.

As a result, the Bible is a book of abstract opinions; a platform for delivery of political and social agenda. Traditional preachers continue to impose their hard hits and impose guilt for control.

I have claimed that freedom is the basis for morality. If sports is to be elevated a public institution, it is not ideal for homosexual practice to be freely run wild in sports while believers are condemned out of participation.

This is not to say let's clean out the game by banning those who practise homosexual acts. At the same time, the decisions involving the right to sports is influenced by those who hold private beliefs and social agenda.

To find a pure balance is measured by the fans. There are personal reasons why fans favour a team and individuals, but this should remain personal. I don't think sports tradition would want to exploit this aspect. It is the politicalisation of issues that corrupts it to ruin.

In the interest of the public which is the targeted market for sports, there is a need to uphold social values that reflect a diverse organisation and participation.

There are issues personal to individuals that divide and weaken the game should sports individuals begin to take sides. Taking sides cannot help, but freedom to belief and expressions is healthy.