Banned for your beliefs

[JonnyJonnyRowe 800]

8 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

You did ask for dessert. Eat up.

I'm getting a conversation with Fen Canary which is staying on topic, the one with you is going all over the place.

For example..

17 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

b) jumping from UK to global? Keeping focus helps. 

This happened in France mate.

Although perhaps if France had kept Mali then 98% of them wouldn't have ended up being rabid backward homophobes, perhaps France should recolonise and try and civilise them. Europe is culturally superior, we should exert that superiority. Zero tolerance to homophobia is a superb start. 

[mrD66M 147]

7 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I'm getting a conversation with Fen Canary which is staying on topic, the one with you is going all over the place. 

Well, you engaged, so...

Here's where it gets difficult, in some respects I get you and even agree with your points; then in others I feel diametrically opposed. Even as far as looking for some logic and finding nought. 

14 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Although perhaps if France had kept Mali then 98% of them wouldn't have ended up being rabid backward homophobes, perhaps France should recolonise and try and civilise them.

This is trolling, surely? What if I told you that it is equally possible imperial France introduced homophobia in Mali?

 

16 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Europe is culturally superior, we should exert that superiority. Zero tolerance to homophobia is a superb start. 

Europe is Europe. Other cultures are different, maybe you need to travel a bit to see things by yourself 1st hand. "Superior"? Maybe in some ways and not in others. "Superior" in all ways? No. That's a deluded and skewed perspective on history. "Exert superiority", sure, let's go back a century or so..

Homophobia is not desirable but can't help thinking that zero tolerance would be the thin wedge between public and private / culture /religion /sexuality. Possibly create more problems than it would solve. 

[Fen Canary 1,290]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

How is that a comparable?

He wasn't asked to wear a 'pro gay' badge, he was asked to wear an 'anti homophobia' badge. the badge didn't say "you should tell your children to be gay", it was saying "you shouldn't abuse people for being gay". 

So the comparable wouldn't be being asked to wear a 'pro immigration' badge, but perhaps an 'anti racism' badge.

And I strongly suspect that if an employer provided employers with a uniform which included an anti-racism badge as part of its design, and that employee covered that anti-racism badge then they would encounter some issues. What possible justification could I have for doing that?

Homosexuality is not illegal in Mali but 98% of people in Mali believe that homosexuality is something that society should not accept.

Mali is a French-speaking former French colony. Personally I consider it to be France's duty to try and change attitudes towards homosexuals in the French-speaking world, rather than perpetuate them, and good on them for making this point and attempting to do that.

I’ll argue though that if you believe homosexuality to be a sinful act, then anything that says otherwise is going against your deeply held beliefs? If you believe something to be morally dubious but are forced to wear an emblem saying the exact opposite then I think we’re splitting hairs as to whether pro gay/anti homophobic are really that different.

I’m just of the firm belief that you’re paid to do a job (in my case on a building site, in his case to win football matches) and that’s it. I don’t think it’s right for your employer to make your show support for their pet causes on top of that, irrespective of how worthy or well intentioned those causes are.

I also disagree that it’s the wests job to try and force other countries into our way of thinking. I’ve no interest in the morals of those in other nations.

Finally I do share your concern about the rise of the Islamic voting bloc that appears to be forming in the UK. If this becomes powerful enough with views many of us find abhorrent then I believe you’ll start to see voting along sectarian lines similar to that of Northern Ireland by others desperate to keep them out and that would be bad news for the country. However with both parties seemingly in favour of mass immigration (something I’ve argued against many times on this board and been accused of racism for doing so) I don’t think it’s a problem that’s going to improve any time soon

[China 10]

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all, we don't believe in it at all.

 

[Pyro Pete 2,223]

6 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

 I find it remarkable that these sorts are so cowardly that they say it's what their "god" says, when they really mean they just don't like them because their specific goatherder's guide to the galaxy "taught" them so.

Kudos for using the phrase: "Goatherder's Guide to the Galaxy."

[Newtopia 562]

6 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

My point is that your employer shouldn’t be able to force you to show support for causes you don’t believe in, irrespective of how righteous they or wider society believe them to be

They can insist you wear the uniform they supply, and ensure as a company they project the values that reflect their aspirations.

[Fen Canary 1,290]

6 minutes ago, Newtopia said:

They can insist you wear the uniform they supply, and ensure as a company they project the values that reflect their aspirations.

They can insist on the uniform, however I’m not sure they can force you to show support for groups that match their preferred political or moral leanings 

[dylanisabaddog 5,633]

I've come to this discussion a bit late but by coincidence I have just listened to a Muslim lady on the radio complaining about alcohol use at sporting events. It's against her religious beliefs and she thinks that everyone watching England play football should stop drinking alcohol because it offends her. Why are these people given a voice? Why should we even have to listen to people who are stupid enough to believe in an imaginary friend in the sky and in prophets who could walk on water or ascend to heaven on a donkey? Unfortunately these idiots have decided that some people's perfectly harmless sexual preferences are in some way offensive. In the last week we have seen the Pope refer to gay men as faggots and an idiot footballer justifying his homophobia because of his religion. We are constantly told we mustn't offend people's religious sensibilities but that isn't working when they use those beliefs to incite hatred of anyone who isn't like them. 

It was disappointing to read the original post and see that there are still some very narrow minded people out there (religious or not) who believe that it's perfectly acceptable to frown upon the sexual preferences of others. Quite simply, it isn't and complaining about an organisation that is doing its bit to create a more tolerant world is disturbing. 

 

[canarybubbles 2,112]

I think I'm the only 'out' gay on this messageboard, so here's my tuppence worth (to use a phrase that betrays my age!).

Sexuality is generally not a choice. Sexual behaviour is. Although the alternative to following your sexuality is celibacy, so most people don't manage or want that.

Having said that, IMO too much of the discussion on here underestimates the fluidity of sexuality and assumes there is some kind of core to a person which is either gay or straight. Yes, sometimes, maybe even often. But as someone pointed out, many people are bisexual, and many people experiment sexually throughout their lives, but especially when they are young. And sexual behaviour changes according to situation (e.g. in prisons or all-male environments). 

Re. this incident, it seems a bit of a storm in a teacup but I broadly agree with those who say the player, if he felt so strongly over this issue, should simply have negotiated that he did not play that match. This will show my bias, I know, but I dislike the way some religious people think that their religion trumps everything and gives them special rights, and are very keen to display their religious purity, which seems the case here, and to be able to do this without any consequence to themselves. In other words, they get to show off their morality but at no personal cost. That's not morality, it's grandstanding.

I also agree with those who say we would not be having this conversation if the 'identity' here were racial or based on gender. I hate victim mentality, but LGBT people are often the chosen focus of attack for right-wingers who have a far larger agenda of social and political control. In terms of public support, we're the weakest link and they know it.  

 

[Naturalcynic 817]

This is the trouble with introducing soft-political messaging and compulsory virtue -signalling into football.  

[TheGunnShow 6,946]

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

(Karl Pöpper - The Open Society And Its Enemies)

Herein lies the issue. There is no sensible, reasonable argument buttressing any belief that homosexuality is "inferior", "unacceptable", or "sinful". Some say it may be contradictory to be intolerant when generally promoting the notion of tolerance, but affording a freedom of belief to those who don't consider a group based on an inherent characteristic such as sexuality to be equal is likewise a paradox.

Edited June 1 by TheGunnShow

[canarybubbles 2,112]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

(Karl Pöpper - The Open Society And Its Enemies)

Herein lies the issue. There is no sensible, reasonable argument buttressing any belief that homosexuality is "inferior", "unacceptable", or "sinful". Some say it may be contradictory to be intolerant when generally promoting the notion of tolerance, but affording a freedom of belief to those who don't consider a group to be equal is likewise a paradox.

Yes. I'm not sure I agree with Plato's argument that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny, but fascists always use this paradox and the loophole that it allows them in order to grab power and then, of course, we see their real agenda, which is not free speech but closing down free speech and eventually all freedom. I'm old so I probably won't live to see it, but I'm very scared about what is happening in both Europe and the US at the moment. Democracy is at serious risk in my opinion.

[TheBaldOne66 768]

All this mention of snowflakes, racists etc is not what this is about at all. It’s to do with his religion, where it is forbidden to be gay, even though it does happen in that faith. As you know I live and work in Oman where it is against the religion t be gay but it does happen here too. If he’s a full practicing Muslim then i understand why he’s done it although I don’t think it’s correct. As someone else said on here, why should it be forced on him to wear the rainbow? 
 

All this guy is doing is sticking to his beliefs, and why should he be punished for that? 
 

I'm not homophobic in anyway but I believe it should be a choice whether to celebrate the pride movement. I know a few gay people who actually hate the movement citing it as making their lives harder rather than easier. 
 

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,424]

7 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

rainbow is neither religious nor political 

Way to ignore the point. 

[canarybubbles 2,112]

8 minutes ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

All this mention of snowflakes, racists etc is not what this is about at all. It’s to do with his religion, where it is forbidden to be gay, even though it does happen in that faith. As you know I live and work in Oman where it is against the religion t be gay but it does happen here too. If he’s a full practicing Muslim then i understand why he’s done it although I don’t think it’s correct. As someone else said on here, why should it be forced on him to wear the rainbow? 
 

All this guy is doing is sticking to his beliefs, and why should he be punished for that? 
 

I'm not homophobic in anyway but I believe it should be a choice whether to celebrate the pride movement. I know a few gay people who actually hate the movement citing it as making their lives harder rather than easier. 
 

 

Seems more like virtue-signalling to me. And now homophobes will turn him into a victim persecuted for his beliefs.

Ironically, virtue-signalling and seeking victimhood are two things far-right ideologues always accuse liberals of doing.

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,424]

6 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

Yes. I agree. But you choose to have an affair. You don’t choose which gender you are attracted to. Some people are attracted to all genders, some are attracted to none. So I suppose in a sense it is true as Bisexuality is actually a choice of sorts in so far as you choose which partner you want to have at the time. But I’m arguing that a gay man or a gay woman for example, those only attracted to the same sex, have not made that attraction through choice.  

There is no conclusive evidence to suggest it’s innate. The ‘gay gene’ has been debunked. 

I believe its down subconscious bias through environment and learnt behaviours. A baby is born without prejudice with the instinct to survive, reproduce, and evolve. Their environment and experiences change that. 

So whilst I’m wrong in my previous statement to say it’s as simple as a choice, I’m firm in my position nobody is born gay, which I accept is controversial but I hope doesn’t cause offence. 

I absolutely deplore persecution of any kind. I get the argument for both sides on this particular topic. I think it’s another clear example that football and politics shouldn’t mix.

[The Real Buh 3,603]

Welcome to the end of the season on the pinkun, everyone.

[KeiranShikari 1,524]

I don't have a problem with players not promoting things they don't believe in (see Zimmerman and the BLM kneeling stuff) but I do find it funny when Muslim players cover a rainbow but are fine with being a billboard for a gambling sponsor.

Looking forward to the gay kink month threads. If you don't enjoy seeing people walking through town wearing only a speedo and a furry wolf mask then you are a disgusting homophobe.

[canarybubbles 2,112]

As I said earlier, I'm a gay man but I don't come on here starting threads saying we should all wear rainbow laces because I know my sexuality is irrelevant on a football site. So why the need to start a thread that turns a homophobic footballer into a victim ('Banned for your beliefs' - very tabloid) and seems to aim to stir up anti-gay feeling? When someone comes on here and does that, I'm not going to keep quiet. It's because lots of people weren't quiet that homosexuality was no longer illegal in the UK and people were no longer sent to prison for taking part in adult consensual sex. Those people were victims, your virtue-signalling footballer is not.

Fortunately, the only person who has agreed with the OP is Little Yellow Birdie, and believe me, that is not a good look.

[Naturalcynic 817]

6 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

As I said earlier, I'm a gay man but I don't come on here starting threads saying we should all wear rainbow laces because I know my sexuality is irrelevant on a football site. So why the need to start a thread that turns a homophobic footballer into a victim ('Banned for your beliefs' - very tabloid) and seems to aim to stir up anti-gay feeling? When someone comes on here and does that, I'm not going to keep quiet. It's because lots of people weren't quiet that homosexuality was no longer illegal in the UK and people were no longer sent to prison for taking part in adult consensual sex. Those people were victims, your virtue-signalling footballer is not.

Fortunately, the only person who has agreed with the OP is Little Yellow Birdie, and believe me, that is not a good look.

Do we know he’s homophobic?  Or could it just as easily be that he is a devout Muslim who knows that promotion (and celebration) of homosexuality is forbidden, hence he feels very uncomfortable about going against his faith?  Some will argue, perhaps validly, that if he allows his religious beliefs to override any conflicting personal opinions he might (or might not) have then that makes him homophobic anyway.  If so, by extension then surely that makes pretty much every Muslim homophobic.  Queers for Palestine anyone?

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,611]

Camara looks like he could eat a grapefruit through a tennis racket. 

That opinion may get me a ban but a fact is a fact. 

[horsefly 5,055]

10 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Homosexuality is a choice. Race is not. If you don’t agree with other peoples choices or beliefs, that’s fair enough in my book.

Can you remember the moment when you chose to be heterosexual?

[Vegueros 11]

For me, the pleasure of watching football has always been the pure entertainment and enjoyment of watching a game that I love. The added bonus used to be the escape, the refuge from the intrusion of politics. 

It seems to me that political messages, statements or whatever you want to call such signalling, should be excluded from all aspects of the game. Only my opinion, of course, but one that I feel strongly about. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,424]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Can you remember the moment when you chose to be heterosexual?

I didn’t choose it. It’s the default position at birth.

[cambridgeshire canary 7,465]

8 minutes ago, Vegueros said:

For me, the pleasure of watching football has always been the pure entertainment and enjoyment of watching a game that I love. The added bonus used to be the escape, the refuge from the intrusion of politics. 

It seems to me that political messages, statements or whatever you want to call such signalling, should be excluded from all aspects of the game. Only my opinion, of course, but one that I feel strongly about. 

So in that case no more minutes silence when players die, no more memorials for world war 1 and 2, no more poppies..

 

The list goes on. Or do you only moan about "political statements" if they are ones you don't like?

[TheGunnShow 6,946]

12 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Can you remember the moment when you chose to be heterosexual?

To be fair to CCC, he did say this later: "So whilst I’m wrong in my previous statement to say it’s as simple as a choice, I’m firm in my position nobody is born gay, which I accept is controversial but I hope doesn’t cause offence."

Basically, more up-to-date research shows there's no single gene responsible for sexuality, but there's still no choice in what attracts you at any point in time - the choice is in whether you act on it, not what you are attracted to. This is where any religious belief trying to say homosexuality is a "sin" or "deviant" or any such nonsense will always fall down as there is nothing whatsoever to justify it.

Edited June 1 by TheGunnShow

[KeiranShikari 1,524]

To an extent homosexuality is a choice, just not the choice of the homosexual person in question.

https://news.vumc.org/2022/02/24/study-finds-lgbq-people-report-higher-rates-of-adverse-childhood-experiences-than-straight-people-worse-mental-health-as-adults/

I wish I could see a larger study as this does confirm what I've seen in the real world. Of course that study probably isn't going to happen.

[chicken 2,974]

9 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So it’s forced integration now you’re in favour of? I thought that was a rather right wing position was it not, 

Context is key.

9 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So you believe minorities should be forced to think and act in the same way as the majority demographic? 

Again context.

However both of these happen, legally, and are true and just.

Uk laws, French laws and EU laws will differ to US laws, South African laws, Saudi Arabian laws and Iranian laws.

If people from one nation travel, migrate or flee to another they are 100% 'forced' to integrate. The same is true in the other direction too.

As a 20yr old visiting the US I was too young to drink by their state law, yet I had drank in the UK, my cultural background. I was used to driving on the other side of the road. Being able to cross a road wherever I wanted. I was forced to integrate or be arrested and charged.

Forced integration happens, it's not always a right wing stance. It can be legal.

Some countries are still fine with beating your wife and children... with objects. I've known teachers and social workers who have had to address and educate families, ok men, o have emigrated here of that fact and threatened police and social services involvement if it continued.

I take it you are ok/respect that 'forced integration'?

[mrD66M 147]

2 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

. In other words, they get to show off their morality but at no personal cost. That's not morality, it's grandstanding.

Very well said. Fully agree with this.

[chicken 2,974]

20 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

I didn’t choose it. It’s the default position at birth.

Oh dear god man...