Banned for your beliefs

[horsefly 5,149]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Because I don’t believe an employer can force you to wear a rainbow anything. They can ask that you do, but if you don’t want to for whatever reason then I don’t believe they should be allowed to punish you. If they can then why is it allowed for that cause but not others? 

When you answer my question I will bother giving you a reply. If you insist on responding with deflection drivel I won't.

[chicken 3,002]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Because I don’t believe an employer can force you to wear a rainbow anything. They can ask that you do, but if you don’t want to for whatever reason then I don’t believe they should be allowed to punish you. If they can then why is it allowed for that cause but not others? 

And there you have it. It's not about any symbol, it's about that particular symbol. I suspect you take umbrage to it wherever it is, like the folks that make such remarks when players wear rainbow shoelaces etc (by choice by the way) on social media.

And again, it is not a "cause".

Can you tell me what organisation the pride flag represents please?

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,469]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

Oh dear god man... 

?

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,469]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

A weird way to describe it, but fair enough. In which case why do you think homosexuality isn't likewise a "default position at birth" too. I have yet to meet a single gay person who said he "chose" to be gay rather than found himself to be gay. Jean Paul Sartre made a rather interesting point about sex when he observed that an erection is not something that is under control of the will (no doubt many men wish that they could just will it into being) . It is a bodily assertion of desire that surpasses and negates choice. What you do with the resulting tumescence is indeed a matter of choice, but the cause of its arrival wasn't. 

If it was, humanity wouldn’t survive. Evolution and all that… 

As per my previous post, IMO no one is born gay. It’s environment, experiences and learnt behaviours that make people feel that way.

I’m not homophobic or against it,  btw. But nor would I go out of my way to support anything that promotes it.  

Edited June 1 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[horsefly 5,149]

5 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

If it was, humanity wouldn’t survive. Evolution and all that… 

As per my previous post, IMO no one is born gay. It’s environment, experiences and learnt behaviours that make people feel that way.

I’m not homophobic or against it,  btw. But nor would I go out of my way to support anything that promotes it.  

Jesus! You need to do some basic biology old boy. Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of FACT.

[ron obvious 1,654]

53 minutes ago, chicken said:

Nope.

You repeatedly make the wrong arguments and then refuse to listen to the responses and correct them. You are exactly an ideologue on this subject.

Lets say a logo is designed, it has people of all races and religions in a circle holding hands along with some known symbols around it - such as the pride flag, and the kick it out logo. Everyone is very well aware and educated as to what that logo means and it is agreed by every football club in he UK and by the FA's involved that it will be on the shirt of every club. This is also supported by the players association.

A player (made up) called Ramano Quagillarhino signs for S****brough Hotburn. He's European white. Before the game he uses a permanent marker to cover up the "kick it out" symbol from the logo.

What does that message look like?

What does it look like if a supporter goes on a forum and says "No one should be forced to wear anything they don't want to by an employer, I don't mind the blacks myself but..."

Because that is what we are talking about.

There are dress codes for businesses across the country. Some uniforms also include logos in support of "diversity" or work places have posters that employers have put up and around in their buildings. It isn't the big oppressive thing you think it is unless you hold counter beliefs.

I worked for an outdoor shop as a young man during my gap year. I had to wear a uniform with the companies name on it. I would rather not as it was a nice fleece and I could have worn it out and about when not at work, because it was black. I also sold things and sometimes had promotional t-shirts etc to wear for brands I didn't particularly like, and were a bit garish. But it's part of my job.

Footballers are role models in the same way actors are and other sports people are. I suspect even his agent is trying to ensure damage limitation at this point. Even the best of players will struggle to land contracts and sponsorships if their "beliefs" as you call them, don't align with those of the majority of people in the markets they are playing in.

What if the logo included a fylfot?

[yellow hammer 107]

6 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

If it was, humanity wouldn’t survive. Evolution and all that… 

As per my previous post, IMO no one is born gay. It’s environment, experiences and learnt behaviours that make people feel that way.

I’m not homophobic or against it anyway, btw. But nor would I go out of my way to support anything that promotes it.  

If one was born gay, then that would pre-suppose there is a gay gene. And if there was a gay gene then it would then be possible, after a bit of research, to switch off the gayness characteristic and everyone could be born heterosexual.

Now just imagine the explosion of outrage that would be visited on the idea of 'fixing' everyone who might be born gay. The accusations of eugenics would be heard once again. The rights of people to be as they were born would be held up as an unassailable human right. As a society we would hardly be able to manage the fallout and eventually, I think we'd come to the conclusion that messing around with genes that determine one's sexual attraction just isn't worth the bother.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

And there you have it. It's not about any symbol, it's about that particular symbol. I suspect you take umbrage to it wherever it is, like the folks that make such remarks when players wear rainbow shoelaces etc (by choice by the way) on social media.

And again, it is not a "cause".

Can you tell me what organisation the pride flag represents please?

Of course LGBTQ+ is a movement/cause. There's a whole raft of different organisations who affiliate with the rainbow flag as an umbrella symbol for a whole assortment of campaigns within the ever broadening scope.

What do you think this is? A march to bring back 80s kids TV?

 

 

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 3,002]

32 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

If it was, humanity wouldn’t survive. Evolution and all that… 

As per my previous post, IMO no one is born gay. It’s environment, experiences and learnt behaviours that make people feel that way.

I’m not homophobic or against it,  btw. But nor would I go out of my way to support anything that promotes it.  

Your science isn't very good is it?

Humanity has survived, with the LGBTQ+ community for millennia. You know what else it has also survived with? People who are unable to reproduce (for varying reasons) and people who choose not to reproduce for their own reasons. You can be LGBTQ+ and still reproduce.

From what you have expressed so far, you have homophobic elements for sure, no question there. Should you be able to deny you are homophobic whilst expressing homophobic beliefs?

[chicken 3,002]

28 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

What if the logo included a fylfot?

🤣

[chicken 3,002]

9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Of course LGBTQ+ is a movement/cause. There's a whole raft of different organisations who affiliate with the rainbow flag as an umbrella symbol for a whole assortment of campaigns within the ever broadening scope.

Oh it's a movement, yes, it's a human rights movement. But the pride flag isn't that of an organisation.

So to cover it up you are saying you don't agree with being inclusive of those the movement is, well, moving for. It's why I make the comparison to Kick it Out. Kick it Out isn't just about people with African heritage, it's about all minorities of colour. If you were to obscure that logo the only conclusion people could draw was that you did not agree with/support the "movement" to be more inclusive of those people and therefore you actually opposed it.

I totally get that some people will say that the two are very different and vary in degrees of seriousness but it is really important to understand that people have been murdered, here in the UK, for being trans or gay etc.

You can associate other organisations with the Pride symbol at your choosing, but again, bare in mind that the creator of the Pride flag and the community at large know that the flag represents the community NOT any one organisation or a group of organisations. They use is because they can and want to display that they are part of that community.

It's like how many companies may use a St George's flag to represent the company being English. It doesn't mean that we have to hate England if that company is found to be distasteful in someway. Just the same as an idiot in a Norwich shirt doing something offensive doesn't mean Norwich City FC or the entire fanbase is the same as them as they all wear a yellow shirt.

Even within the LGBTQ+ community there are groups that don't agree with other groups. The issue Fen brings up, for example, the discussion on sharing toilets with a male trans - has led to some lesbian groups to become active and speak out against accepting them into women only spaces.

It's why the Pride symbol/flag really isn't about anything more than community as it hasn't a single organisation behind it and the organisations that use it, don't always agree with other organisations that use it. It just represents the community. The same as the Kick it Out logo does. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,469]

11 minutes ago, chicken said:

Your science isn't very good is it?

Humanity has survived, with the LGBTQ+ community for millennia. You know what else it has also survived with? People who are unable to reproduce (for varying reasons) and people who choose not to reproduce for their own reasons. You can be LGBTQ+ and still reproduce.

From what you have expressed so far, you have homophobic elements for sure, no question there. Should you be able to deny you are homophobic whilst expressing homophobic beliefs?

So you believe since humanity has survived, we’ve evolved without the need to reproduce, because LGBTQ+ exists? I think it’s your science that’s ropey mate. 

I haven’t expressed homophobic beliefs, there you go again…. My argument is valid, external elements such as environment and experiences make people who they are.

When we are born.. we have survival and reproductive instincts. Everything else is external. Argue that, and don’t cherry pick points to suit your agenda. 

If people are gay, that’s fine by me. I can’t be clearer about that. But they’re not born that way, same as transgender and religion and all sorts of other things. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,469]

53 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Jesus! You need to do some basic biology old boy. Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of FACT.

So every single living thing on this planet has homosexual behaviours, fine. Don’t dispute it. 

But the key part is, animals and other species do not choose to not reproduce. Being gay is making that choice and that does go against primal instinct.

Edited June 1 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

21 minutes ago, chicken said:

Oh it's a movement, yes, it's a human rights movement. But the pride flag isn't that of an organisation.

So to cover it up you are saying you don't agree with being inclusive of those the movement is, well, moving for. It's why I make the comparison to Kick it Out. Kick it Out isn't just about people with African heritage, it's about all minorities of colour. If you were to obscure that logo the only conclusion people could draw was that you did not agree with/support the "movement" to be more inclusive of those people and therefore you actually opposed it.

I totally get that some people will say that the two are very different and vary in degrees of seriousness but it is really important to understand that people have been murdered, here in the UK, for being trans or gay etc.

You can associate other organisations with the Pride symbol at your choosing, but again, bare in mind that the creator of the Pride flag and the community at large know that the flag represents the community NOT any one organisation or a group of organisations. They use is because they can and want to display that they are part of that community.

It's like how many companies may use a St George's flag to represent the company being English. It doesn't mean that we have to hate England if that company is found to be distasteful in someway. Just the same as an idiot in a Norwich shirt doing something offensive doesn't mean Norwich City FC or the entire fanbase is the same as them as they all wear a yellow shirt.

Even within the LGBTQ+ community there are groups that don't agree with other groups. The issue Fen brings up, for example, the discussion on sharing toilets with a male trans - has led to some lesbian groups to become active and speak out against accepting them into women only spaces.

It's why the Pride symbol/flag really isn't about anything more than community as it hasn't a single organisation behind it and the organisations that use it, don't always agree with other organisations that use it. It just represents the community. The same as the Kick it Out logo does. 

 

If football organisations want to promote political campaigns then that is up to them; private organisations should not have the right to coerce people to endorse messages against their own conscience. All players should be offered unbranded alternatives to play in if they don't wish to endorse the political messaging, just like people shouldn't be forced to fight in wars if they object to the war.

What if football wanted to promote British beef? Should players be forced to stand at the sideline eating a double cheeseburger at half time, even the vegetarians?

All of that should go without saying in a liberal society.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 5,783]

26 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

So every single living thing on this planet has homosexual behaviours, fine. Don’t dispute it. 

But the key part is, animals and other species do not choose to not reproduce. Being gay is making that choice and that does go against primal instinct.

Seek help 

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

1 hour ago, yellow hammer said:

If one was born gay, then that would pre-suppose there is a gay gene. And if there was a gay gene then it would then be possible, after a bit of research, to switch off the gayness characteristic and everyone could be born heterosexual.

Now just imagine the explosion of outrage that would be visited on the idea of 'fixing' everyone who might be born gay. The accusations of eugenics would be heard once again. The rights of people to be as they were born would be held up as an unassailable human right. As a society we would hardly be able to manage the fallout and eventually, I think we'd come to the conclusion that messing around with genes that determine one's sexual attraction just isn't worth the bother.

Not necessarily, the notion of one specific "gay gene" - or indeed any gene that shows sexuality - has been fairly recently debunked. However, they think it clearly has a genetic basis but it may be interactions between genes that are as yet thoroughly unknown.

We do know that conversion therapy is a proven, crashing failure.

Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior | Scientific American

The belief espoused literally has no evidence to substantiate it apart from the relevant Goatherder's Guide To The Galaxy, which is not a scientific text. There is nothing whatsoever showing homosexuality to be "sinful", "deviant" or anything that merits lesser consideration. So, the question that should be posed is, we know that the belief has nothing to substantiate it - why should it be respected?

Edited June 1 by TheGunnShow

[chicken 3,002]

20 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

If football organisations want to promote political campaigns then that is up to them; private organisations should not have the right to coerce people to endorse messages against their own conscience. All players should be offered unbranded alternatives to play in if they don't wish to endorse the political messaging, just like people shouldn't be forced to fight in wars if they object to the war.

What if football wanted to promote British beef? Should players be forced to stand at the sideline eating a double cheeseburger at half time, even the vegetarians?

All of that should go without saying in a liberal society.

Again, it's not a political campaign. It's about inclusivity of people. You are suggesting that no one should want that then? No inclusivity?

Companies should support inclusivity. It shouldn't support human rights?

You'd better write to the government then. And for that matter Nato.

"Hi folks, 

Look, it's all fine and dandy to, you know, share those symbols about. You know the ones, the ones that say that football welcomes people of ethnic minority backgrounds or who are part of the LGBTQ+ community? Yeah, those. You are ok to do that, but if a player wants to make a stand against inclusivity, I don't think they should be stopped.

I'm not racist/homophobic/transphobic by the way. Just don't be making me have to ae make them feel welcome.

Cheers,
Littlemindedbirdie"

[chicken 3,002]

40 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

So you believe since humanity has survived, we’ve evolved without the need to reproduce, because LGBTQ+ exists? I think it’s your science that’s ropey mate. 

I haven’t expressed homophobic beliefs, there you go again…. My argument is valid, external elements such as environment and experiences make people who they are.

When we are born.. we have survival and reproductive instincts. Everything else is external. Argue that, and don’t cherry pick points to suit your agenda. 

If people are gay, that’s fine by me. I can’t be clearer about that. But they’re not born that way, same as transgender and religion and all sorts of other things. 

Not what I said and is daft.

What I have said is that there clearly is an inbuilt mechanic that not all of us are needed to reproduce to ensure that humanity continues to exist.

Actually, the fact we have evolved to have healthcare systems etc that is even more the case now. There actually needs to be fewer humans on the planet ideally, and again, it's not the LGBTQ+ community who choose not not have children that are to blame for that is it?

No, you're argument isn't valid.

You're trying to present some sort of pseudo science that has no evidence or factual content. 

Anyone else picking up that the majority of responses against this tend to be focusing around gay men? Weird when the Pride flag/symbol represents much more than gay men. There are plenty in the community who do reproduce, naturally and via other means. Just like non LGBTQ+ people.

It's really creepy to be honest. 

Oh, and you are definitely homophobic. In the same way that you don't have to use racist language to be racist, you can just be a very polite, well spoken white supremacist. 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

19 minutes ago, chicken said:

Again, it's not a political campaign. It's about inclusivity of people. You are suggesting that no one should want that then? No inclusivity?

Companies should support inclusivity. It shouldn't support human rights?

You'd better write to the government then. And for that matter Nato.

"Hi folks, 

Look, it's all fine and dandy to, you know, share those symbols about. You know the ones, the ones that say that football welcomes people of ethnic minority backgrounds or who are part of the LGBTQ+ community? Yeah, those. You are ok to do that, but if a player wants to make a stand against inclusivity, I don't think they should be stopped.

I'm not racist/homophobic/transphobic by the way. Just don't be making me have to ae make them feel welcome.

Cheers,
Littlemindedbirdie"

It is a political campaign i.e. a campaign to promote certain attitudes and behaviour in society. Stop trying to brainwash people otherwise.

You need to read up on the word 'toleration', an imortant concept in the harmonious function of liberal societies, especially one that supposedly embraces multiculturalism; many cultures don't approve of homosexuality.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,469]

20 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not what I said and is daft.

What I have said is that there clearly is an inbuilt mechanic that not all of us are needed to reproduce to ensure that humanity continues to exist.

Actually, the fact we have evolved to have healthcare systems etc that is even more the case now. There actually needs to be fewer humans on the planet ideally, and again, it's not the LGBTQ+ community who choose not not have children that are to blame for that is it?

No, you're argument isn't valid.

You're trying to present some sort of pseudo science that has no evidence or factual content. 

Anyone else picking up that the majority of responses against this tend to be focusing around gay men? Weird when the Pride flag/symbol represents much more than gay men. There are plenty in the community who do reproduce, naturally and via other means. Just like non LGBTQ+ people.

It's really creepy to be honest. 

Oh, and you are definitely homophobic. In the same way that you don't have to use racist language to be racist, you can just be a very polite, well spoken white supremacist. 

I stopped reading at this part. “Clearly” no, your opinion backed up by nothing.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,469]

38 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Seek help 

Why?

[yellow hammer 107]

44 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not necessarily, the notion of one specific "gay gene" - or indeed any gene that shows sexuality - has been fairly recently debunked. However, they think it clearly has a genetic basis but it may be interactions between genes that are as yet thoroughly unknown.

We do know that conversion therapy is a proven, crashing failure.

Massive Study Finds No Single Genetic Cause of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior | Scientific American

The belief espoused literally has no evidence to substantiate it apart from the relevant Goatherder's Guide To The Galaxy, which is not a scientific text. There is nothing whatsoever showing homosexuality to be "sinful", "deviant" or anything that merits lesser consideration. So, the question that should be posed is, we know that the belief has nothing to substantiate it - why should it be respected?

It's good to hear the gay gene hypothesis has been debunked and I'm inclined to believe gayness is nurture and environment induced until such time as science can prove genetic interactions have (some) cause.

The idea of homosexuality being sinful is hard to prove either way, as you've got to start with an idea of what is sin, as there will be such a wide divergence of definitions, and across cultures that you'll never get past the starting gate. But you could tighten up the definition by asking something more quantifiable, such as does homosexuality cause harm? (for example) And then by asking a question like that you could then be in a position to answer your question - should a belief in that position be respected?

Edited June 1 by yellow hammer

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,469]

1 minute ago, yellow hammer said:

It's good to hear the gay gene hypothesis has been debunked and I'm inclined to believe gayness is nurture and environment induced until such time as science can prove interactions have (some) cause.

The idea of homosexuality being sinful is hard to prove either way, as you've got to start with an idea of what is sin, as there will be such a wide divergence of definitions, and across cultures that you'll never get past the starting gate. But you could tighten up the definition by asking something more quantifiable, such as does homosexuality cause harm? (for example) And then by asking a question like that you could then be in a position to answer your question - should a belief in that position be respected?

💯 my view. Apparently though, I’m homophobic and need help. 

Perhaps I haven’t articulated it as well as you. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,614]

17 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cm553l77m5zo

Does anybody else find this type of behaviour by the French league to be very authoritarian. You don’t have to agree with the players opinion (and I don’t) but to ban a player for not wanting to participate in a movement that they don’t want to be a part of I find very troubling. Believe what we believe or we’ll punish you doesn’t seem very befitting of a free, tolerant society in my eyes

No I don't have a problem with banning him at all. 

[canarybubbles 2,148]

34 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

So every single living thing on this planet has homosexual behaviours, fine. Don’t dispute it. 

But the key part is, animals and other species do not choose to not reproduce. Being gay is making that choice and that does go against primal instinct.

You are obviously correct when you suggest that any species which does not reproduce will go extinct but in my opinion you are then extrapolating this into a series of assumptions that are not proven or justified and are internally contradictory.  

You are making the word 'instinct' do a lot of heavy lifting. On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that it is some kind of biological imperative that cannot be overridden ('default position', 'primal instinct'), but at the same time you seem to be saying that cultural and environmental factors can override this imperative, it seems quite easily, and people who 'choose' to be gay are doing this (and other people, too, by the way, such as suicides and celibates). Both cannot be true. A disposition is not the same thing as an instinct.

So I feel that your argument is essentially a disguised way of saying that homosexuality is 'unnatural' or 'against nature'. Since everything that exists in the material world must needs be 'natural', and since (as other people have said) homosexuality is common in animal species, I can only read your statements as moral judgements masquerading as scientific truths about 'reality'.

 

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

7 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

It's good to hear the gay gene hypothesis has been debunked and I'm inclined to believe gayness is nurture and environment induced until such time as science can prove interactions have (some) cause.

The idea of homosexuality being sinful is hard to prove either way, as you've got to start with an idea of what is sin, as there will be such a wide divergence of definitions, and across cultures that you'll never get past the starting gate. But you could tighten up the definition by asking something more quantifiable, such as does homosexuality cause harm? (for example) And then by asking a question like that you could then be in a position to answer your question - should a belief in that position be respected?

I would say the onus is always on those making the claim. They're claiming it's a "sin", "inferior", "deviant", or something where it shouldn't be tolerated. They're the ones claiming to have the framework saying it's "sinful" or "deviant" (usually falling back on their main book), so they need to demonstrate it.

What people like myself are saying is, from past experience, we very much doubt they've got anything at all to substantiate it. And if it cannot be substantiated, does it deserve to be respected?

Edited June 1 by TheGunnShow

[hogesar 10,378]

Society can't evolve whilst we still advocate such archaic religions. I dont think people use it as an excuse but it's so entrenched in societies.

[yellow hammer 107]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

Nope.

You repeatedly make the wrong arguments and then refuse to listen to the responses and correct them. You are exactly an ideologue on this subject.

Lets say a logo is designed, it has people of all races and religions in a circle holding hands along with some known symbols around it - such as the pride flag, and the kick it out logo. Everyone is very well aware and educated as to what that logo means and it is agreed by every football club in he UK and by the FA's involved that it will be on the shirt of every club. This is also supported by the players association.

A player (made up) called Ramano Quagillarhino signs for S****brough Hotburn. He's European white. Before the game he uses a permanent marker to cover up the "kick it out" symbol from the logo.

What does that message look like?

What does it look like if a supporter goes on a forum and says "No one should be forced to wear anything they don't want to by an employer, I don't mind the blacks myself but..."

Because that is what we are talking about.

There are dress codes for businesses across the country. Some uniforms also include logos in support of "diversity" or work places have posters that employers have put up and around in their buildings. It isn't the big oppressive thing you think it is unless you hold counter beliefs.

I worked for an outdoor shop as a young man during my gap year. I had to wear a uniform with the companies name on it. I would rather not as it was a nice fleece and I could have worn it out and about when not at work, because it was black. I also sold things and sometimes had promotional t-shirts etc to wear for brands I didn't particularly like, and were a bit garish. But it's part of my job.

Footballers are role models in the same way actors are and other sports people are. I suspect even his agent is trying to ensure damage limitation at this point. Even the best of players will struggle to land contracts and sponsorships if their "beliefs" as you call them, don't align with those of the majority of people in the markets they are playing in.

@chicken

What do you make of those people on the pro-Palestine demonstrations who march under the Queers For Palestine banner. I can't make any sense of that. Can you explain why they would do that?

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

14 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Society can't evolve whilst we still advocate such archaic religions. I dont think people use it as an excuse but it's so entrenched in societies.

Humanity as a whole is going backwards. These campaigns might be able to browbeat the odd religious footballer into doing a woke version of hail marys in a society where we have extensive legal protections against discrimination on many fronts, but what's it doing for gay people in Russia, Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Asia, and more to the point, what's it doing for our global relationships where people around the world can see us behaving extremely aggressively against what they consider moral norms?

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarybubbles 2,148]

5 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

@chicken

What do you make of those people on the pro-Palestine demonstrations who march under the Queers For Palestine banner. I can't make any sense of that. Can you explain why they would do that?

I'm not Chicken, but I'll have a go if that's OK. We should fight against oppression of any kind, even oppression of those who wouldn't fight for us or perhaps even hate us.

The position is almost certainly naive, but I think it's an honourable one.