Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Midlands Yellow

Jake Daniels Blackpool

Recommended Posts

I suspect the vast majority really don’t care very much one way or another.  He’s a footballer, paid to play football.  If he chooses to advertise his sexuality, that’s up to him, but in this day and age it really doesn’t matter one iota.  Assuming he just wants to get on with plying his trade then I imagine the last thing he or many other people would want is a song and dance being made and lots of rainbow banners being waved.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brave or clever? With homophobic attacks still prevalent in society, definitely brave. The thought that this was done to promote himself is plain stupid.

As for Christainity, a significant minority (was it a third quoted here) of those identifying with being Christain disapprove of anything other than the traditional view on sexual preferences, which is why the young and tolerant are turning there backs on the church and its increasingly backward views. Pity because I am sure a larger majority are good kind people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Except humans ARE animals. Charles Darwin made that abundantly clear.

The point is, what is seen as the "traditional" Biblical view is often due to a misreading/misunderstanding of various texts and there's not even agreement amongst Christians. Hence the link that was thrown in. (There's a similar problem re. modesty and the use of the burqa in Islam too). 

Sex is a bonding tool first, a procreational one second, so that "traditional" stance regarding sex being just for procreational purposes is built on a serious error (You'll find this is largely due to oxytocin release during sex, not to forget that women are only 'viable' for pregnancy for one week per month via the menstrual cycle). No-one said that stance was homophobic, so that's a strawman you built.

What is dishonest is purporting that a "traditional" Biblical stance is representative of all Christians, as this link also makes clear, and I quote verbatim:

"Overall, a solid majority of white mainline Protestants (62%) now favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, with just 33% opposed, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey. A similar share (63%) say there is “no conflict” between their religious beliefs and homosexuality."

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage | Pew Research Center

(Not remotely surprised that the Episcopals and the Quakers are in there as religious groups taking more liberal stances).

That many modern Christians have abandoned authentic Christian teaching does make their views licit. They go with the wind to bask in glory - they do not reflect the faith they claim to profess whose views are coherent. It’s only in the last few decades they have done massive u turns to garner support, fair enough if that appeals but let’s be honest as to the reasons. 
 

secondly you claim the prime purpose of sex is bonding. That is quite a claim at odds with majority view until 1970s. That you say it doesn’t make it so. Traditional Christianity would say the bonding is secondary and for the purpose of keeping parents together in the interest of children. Which is to say childrens need trump adult demands. A view unpopular today but no less coherent. 
 

as to being animals- Christianity has ALWAYS claimed man is a creature put over the animal and in possession of an immortal soul- hence we must rise above the base animals instinct to become civilised. Fortunately most lgbt people would agree and hold themselves to that higher standard. 
 

bottom line- I am a libertarian. In a free and loving society non-Christians should not be forced to live by Christian teaching. But not should Christians be forced to embrace gay ideology. Live and let live, agree to disagree and don’t demonise the other. This would be truly inclusive and progressive, instead we see the historic hatred for gays now being turned on Christians. That isn’t progress at all- it’s just new targets for age old prejudice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Except humans ARE animals. Charles Darwin made that abundantly clear.

The point is, what is seen as the "traditional" Biblical view is often due to a misreading/misunderstanding of various texts and there's not even agreement amongst Christians. Hence the link that was thrown in. (There's a similar problem re. modesty and the use of the burqa in Islam too). 

Sex is a bonding tool first, a procreational one second, so that "traditional" stance regarding sex being just for procreational purposes is built on a serious error (You'll find this is largely due to oxytocin release during sex, not to forget that women are only 'viable' for pregnancy for one week per month via the menstrual cycle). No-one said that stance was homophobic, so that's a strawman you built.

What is dishonest is purporting that a "traditional" Biblical stance is representative of all Christians, as this link also makes clear, and I quote verbatim:

"Overall, a solid majority of white mainline Protestants (62%) now favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, with just 33% opposed, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey. A similar share (63%) say there is “no conflict” between their religious beliefs and homosexuality."

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage | Pew Research Center

(Not remotely surprised that the Episcopals and the Quakers are in there as religious groups taking more liberal stances).

I see no rise in hatred against Christains in this Country or unprovoked attacks (unless you can prove me wrong...) I just see demonstrations at schools against the teaching of tolerance towards LGBTQ+ people, or hotels refusing gay couples (illegal) or cake shops refusing to make a cake with a message they did not like (which they won in the court but how ignorant!)

Remember growing up loving punk and its can do attitude and church trying to ban the groups I could and couldn't see..

I don't see active anti-christian sentiment from the LBGTQ+ groups.

Personally I think that there is a lot of good people in the church but also a lot of people hell bent on enforcing their views on others with disasterous consequences.

Edited by Kenny Foggo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Fair enough. I’m just saying a person’s bedroom life, in my opinion, is the least interesting thing about them. I think there is far too much fanfare around coming out these days, people celebrated in the media as if it is heroic and virtuous and they have done something just amazing…. when, in truth, the battle was won years ago and that lifestyle is positively trendy these days. Schools have gay month AND gay history month. To claim it’s edgy is odd- pushing against an open door more like. Society currently adores lgbt- every institution promotes and celebrates it, every school endorses it…so how was it brave? 

It’s the same as someone’s skin colour regarding that top part though. It shouldn’t matter and should be one of the least interesting things about someone but humans will human and make it a thing. Hopefully one day nobody really cares. I would imagine humans will always need to find some kind of tribalism to divide us. Natural appearance wasn’t enough for some so we made up different invisible blokes in the sky to fight over instead.

Society doesn’t “adore” LGBT at all… they’re still a discriminated group in so so much of the world. Many places you will be lynched/killed if you are openly gay. What on earth are you on about with that “edgy” comment by the way? It’s not like Jake has chosen to be gay for a laugh, he was born that way and thankfully he feels comfortable enough that he lives in a society where he doesn’t have to hide it. If he was a young lad in Saudi Arabia for example, or even some communities in UK it would be a different story.

”Schools have gay month” is total **** as well.

Edited by Tetteys Jig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being gay is postively trendy is one ignorant thing to say... its like you think people are choosing to be gay and not actually how they are.. very 70s thinking and luckily now a minority view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Fair enough. I’m just saying a person’s bedroom life, in my opinion, is the least interesting thing about them. I think there is far too much fanfare around coming out these days, people celebrated in the media as if it is heroic and virtuous and they have done something just amazing…. when, in truth, the battle was won years ago and that lifestyle is positively trendy these days. Schools have gay month AND gay history month. To claim it’s edgy is odd- pushing against an open door more like. Society currently adores lgbt- every institution promotes and celebrates it, every school endorses it…so how was it brave? 

I take it you never heard the "rent boy" chants used to harass Billy Gilmour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

That many modern Christians have abandoned authentic Christian teaching does make their views licit. They go with the wind to bask in glory - they do not reflect the faith they claim to profess whose views are coherent. It’s only in the last few decades they have done massive u turns to garner support, fair enough if that appeals but let’s be honest as to the reasons. 
 

secondly you claim the prime purpose of sex is bonding. That is quite a claim at odds with majority view until 1970s. That you say it doesn’t make it so. Traditional Christianity would say the bonding is secondary and for the purpose of keeping parents together in the interest of children. Which is to say childrens need trump adult demands. A view unpopular today but no less coherent. 
 

as to being animals- Christianity has ALWAYS claimed man is a creature put over the animal and in possession of an immortal soul- hence we must rise above the base animals instinct to become civilised. Fortunately most lgbt people would agree and hold themselves to that higher standard. 
 

bottom line- I am a libertarian. In a free and loving society non-Christians should not be forced to live by Christian teaching. But not should Christians be forced to embrace gay ideology. Live and let live, agree to disagree and don’t demonise the other. This would be truly inclusive and progressive, instead we see the historic hatred for gays now being turned on Christians. That isn’t progress at all- it’s just new targets for age old prejudice

That many modern Christians have abandoned flawed teachings based on incorrect readings of the Bible (hence the link to the Religious Tolerance website enclosed earlier) is a sign of progress in both society and the Church in general. The Church, like any other institution, is not immune to the need to change to reflect more modern beliefs and knowledge. If your fundamentals are incorrectly understood, then the whole point is that misunderstandings are remedied. Which brings us to the next point.

The majority view re. the primary purpose of sex was wrong as science caught up. Sex is a bonding tool first. In fact, most forms of contact - hugging, cuddling, kissing... are bonding tools first. Again, if sex was primarily for procreation, women would be viable all the time. The well-documented fact that women can only become pregnant for a few days per month, as opposed to men, who can spray baby batter as soon as it gets hard, clearly wrecks the notion that sex is primarily for procreation.

(Link re. bonding here. Remember that it's about the release of oxytocin amongst other hormones, A 48-hour sexual 'afterglow' helps to bond partners over time -- ScienceDaily)

Defining "civilised" is always interesting. I usually find for many people that means "behaving how I would like them to behave".

Lastly, what is "gay ideology"? Where is the ideology in the notion that homosexuals should have equal treatment? It's based on a shady false equivalence, namely archaic man-made attitudes to a group of people that are very much to their detriment (ultra-conservative religious stances on homosexuality) as opposed to a natural sexual preference that cannot be altered.

Edited by TheGunnShow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

I see no rise in hatred against Christains in this Country or unprovoked attacks (unless you can prove me wrong...) I just see demonstrations at schools against the teaching of tolerance towards LGBTQ+ people, or hotels refusing gay couples (illegal) or cake shops refusing to make a cake with a message tgey did not like (which they won in the court but how ignorant!)

Remember growing up loving punk andnits can do attitude and church trying to ban the grouos I could and couldn't see..

I don't see active anti-christian sentiment from the LBGTQ+ groups.

Personally I think that there is a lot of good people in the church but also a lot of people hell bent on enforcing their views on others with disasterous consequences.

Agreed, I didn't say anything (or remotely intend to) about active anti-Christian sentiment from LBGTQ+ groups though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I take it you never heard the "rent boy" chants used to harass Billy Gilmour.

OK, but isn’t that just a “humorous” play on words directed at loan players and not really intended to be anything to do with anyone’s sexuality?  Or are we all now obliged to take offence just in case someone thinks they ought to be upset by it?

Edited by Naturalcynic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

That many modern Christians have abandoned authentic Christian teaching does make their views licit. They go with the wind to bask in glory - they do not reflect the faith they claim to profess whose views are coherent. It’s only in the last few decades they have done massive u turns to garner support, fair enough if that appeals but let’s be honest as to the reasons. 

secondly you claim the prime purpose of sex is bonding. That is quite a claim at odds with majority view until 1970s. That you say it doesn’t make it so. Traditional Christianity would say the bonding is secondary and for the purpose of keeping parents together in the interest of children. Which is to say childrens need trump adult demands. A view unpopular today but no less coherent. 

as to being animals- Christianity has ALWAYS claimed man is a creature put over the animal and in possession of an immortal soul- hence we must rise above the base animals instinct to become civilised. Fortunately most lgbt people would agree and hold themselves to that higher standard. 

bottom line- I am a libertarian. In a free and loving society non-Christians should not be forced to live by Christian teaching. But not should Christians be forced to embrace gay ideology. Live and let live, agree to disagree and don’t demonise the other. This would be truly inclusive and progressive, instead we see the historic hatred for gays now being turned on Christians. That isn’t progress at all- it’s just new targets for age old prejudice

The bible doesn't mention homosexuality.

And if it did, and it doesn't, whoever wrote it chose not to include it in the list of sins (either the list of 7 or the list of 12).

So pray tell, where are these 'Christians' getting their 'teaching' from exactly, and what makes it 'authentic'?

The Qur'an does, that one says that gay men should be punished, which is why they get thrown off high buildings in some parts of the world, but our state religion is Christianity and the bible simply doesn't.

Perhaps homophobic Christian's should consider changing religion to one which supports their hateful views and then relocate themselves to some backwater which is stuck in the dark ages. 

 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

OK, but isn’t that just a “humorous” play on words directed at loan players and not really intended to be anything to do with anyone’s sexuality?  Or are we all now obliged to take offence just in case someone’s genuinely upset by it.

Nope! It was straightforward homophobia used to harass the player concerned. It is not remotely mitigated or justified because it involved a "play on words". And no, no one is "obliged to take offence".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The bible doesn't mention homosexuality.

And if it did, and it doesn't, whoever wrote it chose not to include it in the list of sins (either the list of 7 or the list of 12).

So pray tell, where are these 'Christians' getting their 'teaching' from exactly, and what makes it 'authentic'?

Well, to qualify it does get a considerable mention in Leviticus, where it is considered unacceptable. But then, Leviticus also considers menstruating women, disabled people, dwarfs, blind people, and men with crushed testicles, to be impure too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Well, to qualify it does get a considerable mention in Leviticus, where it is considered unacceptable. But then, Leviticus also considers menstruating women, disabled people, dwarfs, blind people, and men with crushed testicles, to be impure too.

In all likelihood, they were mistranslations or taking teachings out of context. Here are the two main parts of Leviticus in question, combined with links to further context about said verses.

Leviticus 18:22 and homosexuality; all views (religioustolerance.org)

A gay passages in the Bible: Leviticus 20:13 in the Old Testament (religioustolerance.org)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Nope! It was straightforward homophobia used to harass the player concerned. It is not remotely mitigated or justified because it involved a "play on words". And no, no one is "obliged to take offence".

I don’t know anything about Gilmour’s sexuality and I don’t know why you feel so strongly that the chant was specifically homophobic, unless all references to anything remotely linked with LGBTQ are now completely out of bounds.

Edited by Naturalcynic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Well, to qualify it does get a considerable mention in Leviticus, where it is considered unacceptable. But then, Leviticus also considers menstruating women, disabled people, dwarfs, blind people, and men with crushed testicles, to be impure too.

Just the Old Testament fruit cakes then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that these gay people seem to think they are so interesting. Get on with it and just be who you are wthout telling the world where you choose to park your car.

 

It's football and football should be all about football.

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

In all likelihood, they were mistranslations or taking teachings out of context. Here are the two main parts of Leviticus in question, combined with links to further context about said verses.

Leviticus 18:22 and homosexuality; all views (religioustolerance.org)

A gay passages in the Bible: Leviticus 20:13 in the Old Testament (religioustolerance.org)

Cheers! However, I don't think that it is a mistranslation to claim that Leviticus condemns homosexuality. The disagreements in your links concern the nature of the punishments that homosexual acts "merit". There can't be too many Christian traditionalists around still calling for stonings. By the by, my real point was to highlight the absurdity of many of the rules contained in the bible, and the disingenuous nature of the highly selective choice by Christian traditionalists of which rules they regard as fundamental. I think that point is highlighted well by your links. If I were a traditionalist I would certainly be calling for reintroduction of the banning of men with crushed testicles from church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Just the Old Testament fruit cakes then.

 

Yep! I think there's a rule about only eating fruitcake after the rain has fallen two days prior to a full moon, too. Or did I just make that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Cheers! However, I don't think that it is a mistranslation to claim that Leviticus condemns homosexuality. The disagreements in your links concern the nature of the punishments that homosexual acts "merit". There can't be too many Christian traditionalists around still calling for stonings. By the by, my real point was to highlight the absurdity of many of the rules contained in the bible, and the disingenuous nature of the highly selective choice by Christian traditionalists of which rules they regard as fundamental. I think that point is highlighted well by your links. If I were a traditionalist I would certainly be calling for reintroduction of the banning of men with crushed testicles from church.

A fair point re. Leviticus per se, I would say mistranslations (or indeed the potential that they are) are a common issue in the Bible. I always quip that it was the world's most arduous translation project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I don’t know anything about Gilmour’s sexuality and I don’t know why you feel so strongly that the chant was specifically homophobic, unless all references to anything remotely linked with LGBTQ are now completely out of bounds.

Are you seriously suggesting that those fans chose to chant "rent boy" in a purely non-homophobic attempt to harass Gilmour? If so, then your naivety is quite astonishing. The football pitch is Gilmour's workplace, he has every right to be protected from homophobic abuse just as any other worker would in their specific work environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

A fair point re. Leviticus per se, I would say mistranslations (or indeed the potential that they are) are a common issue in the Bible. I always quip that it was the world's most arduous translation project.

Indeed! Even more insidious is the plethora of outright contradictions. Where the Old Testament happily calls for stonings for almost anything, the New Testament has Jesus admonishing anyone who might believe themselves to be free of sin to cast the first stone. The perfect text to allow fundamentalists to pick and choose support for their most deeply held prejudices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! Even more insidious is the plethora of outright contradictions. Where the Old Testament happily calls for stonings for almost anything, the New Testament has Jesus admonishing anyone who might believe themselves to be free of sin to cast the first stone. The perfect text to allow fundamentalists to pick and choose support for their most deeply held prejudices. 

Which beautifully sums up my earlier point that not even the Church is immune from the pressure to evolve. The sheer differences in approaches between the Old and New Testaments illustrate this quite clearly - that older misunderstandings can be dissipated by newer knowledge and newer perspectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305.amp
 

Christians are the most persecuted group- just research it. We hear next to nothing of the appalling treatment they suffer, there is a media whitewash. This doesn’t mean lgbt prejudice doesn’t matter - it does. 
 

but ask any kid which would be harder to admit to in school today. Being Christian or gay? You will be surprised by the answer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305.amp
 

Christians are the most persecuted group- just research it. We hear next to nothing of the appalling treatment they suffer, there is a media whitewash. This doesn’t mean lgbt prejudice doesn’t matter - it does. 
 

but ask any kid which would be harder to admit to in school today. Being Christian or gay? You will be surprised by the answer 

None of which are in the UK - and going off that article, it doesn't seem to be in the First World either (unless you're including China as a First World country), for that matter. Sri Lanka and the Middle East get mentioned, there is undoubtedly a serious problem re. Christian persecution in northern and central Africa as some of the civil wars there indicate clearly. Then there's North Korea, which is a failed state and then some. India is problematic under Modi for anyone who's not in with their brand of Hindu nationalism - both Muslims and Christians are persecuted for ridiculous reasons.

Turkey would bother me, but Erdogan is basically a bloody salafist in a suit.

The 50 Countries Where It’s Most Dangerous to Follow Jesus... | News & Reporting | Christianity Today

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a bit civilised for my tastes, can someone jazz it up a bit - my popcorn is going stale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Orly said:

This thread is a bit civilised for my tastes, can someone jazz it up a bit - my popcorn is going stale.

All the suppressed natural emotion will start bubbling up once Natural cynic and Nora’s ghost forget where they are & start bantering in Polari 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...