Norwich- A club against homophobia

[ZLF 274]

[quote user="Wiz"]

If you insult a gay or black guy you can be, quite rightly, done for it.

 

However, despite toothless laws the disabled people of GB have no such protection..........just saying.[^o)]

[/quote]

 

Agreed wiz - prejudice in all forms should be discouraged.

 

Am all for this campaign too.

 

But cant help associating Rainbows with Greenpeace rather than "gays" - due to teh rainbow warrior I guess.

[Ginja 26]

It''s an interesting point you make Jim Smith, yes this means we are intolerant of intolerant people ultimately. Should we therefore by our own definition tolerate racists? that they should be entitled to their opinion? should we still ban them from football grounds?

The answer for me still however is a clear no and there is no gray area here for me religious or otherwise, there is no right or wrong sexual orientation and therefore any opinion on is invalid.

It''s not about what you can and cannot think, it''s about flawed logic, you are simply not entitled to an opinion on someone else''s orientation. If you can''t understand this, then that is exactly why this campaign is important.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Wiz"]

If you insult a gay or black guy you can be, quite rightly, done for it.

 

However, despite toothless laws the disabled people of GB have no such protection..........just saying.[^o)]

[/quote]

It''s not an offence just to insult people Wiz but if you were on the receiving end of hostile behaviour due to your disability then Sec 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out such behaviour as aggravating for the purpose of sentencing which is something I suppose.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="Ginja"]It''s an interesting point you make Jim Smith, yes this means we are intolerant of intolerant people ultimately. Should we therefore by our own definition tolerate racists? that they should be entitled to their opinion? should we still ban them from football grounds?

The answer for me still however is a clear no and there is no gray area here for me religious or otherwise, there is no right or wrong sexual orientation and therefore any opinion on is invalid.

It''s not about what you can and cannot think, it''s about flawed logic, you are simply not entitled to an opinion on someone else''s orientation. If you can''t understand this, then that is exactly why this campaign is important.[/quote]

As I said Ginja was playing devils advocate really.

Personally i believe that people can believe/think what they like and always find it ironic that the first to call for extreme parties to be censored/banned are people who would generally describe themselves as "liberals." If someone is promoting views that most people find unpleasant or abhorrent then they will get short shrift from most people but if its legal then they should be able to say it.

The line is obviously drawn when those thoughts turn into actions that are illegal such as racist or homophobic abuse or attacks or persecuting individuals and my view is that is what such campaigns should be fully focused upon. I accept that you can legitimately argue that the latter flows from the former (i.e. people would not attack people for being gay if they did not believe there was something wrong with being gay in the first place so reduce the number of people thinking that and you reduce homophobic attacks) but i do also feel that some campaigners on these issues almost want more than that.

That said there are professional campaigners with their own crusades on virtually any issue you can identify so i''m sure its not something specific to this issue!

[Ginja 26]

@Jim Smith

I agree with you in that first point, banning and censorship will only lead to social exclusion and achieves the opposite of what society should be about, more inclusion. Nor do I wish to suggest that there should some sort of thought police, if people wish to think these bad things and be wrong then that''s up to them, as you say it when these thoughts turn to action that we have a real problem.

Much like we have grown to view racism 50 years aqo as completely unacceptable, I''m sure we will grow in the next 50 to view homophobia as unacceptable and it''s campaigns like this that will help further that cause.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/gay_marriage

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Ginja"]It''s an interesting point you make Jim Smith, yes this means we are intolerant of intolerant people ultimately. Should we therefore by our own definition tolerate racists? that they should be entitled to their opinion? should we still ban them from football grounds?

The answer for me still however is a clear no and there is no gray area here for me religious or otherwise, there is no right or wrong sexual orientation and therefore any opinion on is invalid.

It''s not about what you can and cannot think, it''s about flawed logic, you are simply not entitled to an opinion on someone else''s orientation. If you can''t understand this, then that is exactly why this campaign is important.[/quote]

what a load of idiotic nonsenseyou can have an opinion on whatever you like

"It''s not about what you can and cannot think"then what is an opinion ?

[snake-eyes 13]

Ginga

 

For me I am concerned when such campaigns use such an individual and divisive approach. By such campaigns I don''t just mean this issue but other socio-political issues.

 

For example:

 

the act of wearing the laces is voluntary is it not? however the very act of wearing them indicates a concious choice showing support for a particular political and social issue.  Therefore if any player does not wear them, they will automatically be labeled as Homophobic and publicly vilified for not showing support.  For a professional footballer this is like putting a gun to their head and saying, ''Say you are with us or your life and career are over!''.  That is not free choice!

 

There are people who simple do not care about this issue and give no thought as to whether someone is gay or not!  They don''t care because they have never had an issue with a persons sexuality and treat everyone the encounter as equals.  They don''t have to publicly shout about their views to feel them, believe them or act them.  Some people are a-political and have no feelings one way or another.  Do they have to go out of their way to publicly show support?

 

Sport was supposed to be a-political.  A place where all cultural, social and religious differences could be put aside in the arena of competition.  I know that is an idealistic scenario, but one that I feel is not achieved by shotgun compliance.  This will create a false support that will not go in any way towards allowing gay players to come out or feel comfortable in their surroundings.  Are gay players going to believe that their colleagues really are ok with them being gay, just because they wore the boot laces?  Or are they going to be even more wary as they don''t know if their teeammates only did it because the alternative could ruin their career?

 

The underlying message is one to be applauded and I believe a majority of us accepted sexual equality a long time ago!  There will be some you will never change the opinion of, and there are others who will soften and accept in time.  However you can be in danger of aggressively promoting an issue to such an extent that it becomes obsesive and counterproductive.

 

Finally before you come back at me with a tirade of being soft, I should inform you that I have a great deal of insight into this and the issue of sexuality is very close to home!

 

Snake

[Ginja 26]

@City1st

Yes I concede you can have an opinion on anything, however if your opinion on another person is "being gay is wrong" then that opinion is itself wrong and there is no logical way that it can ever be right.

That''s the point I was trying to make, that the only opinion on sexual orientation you should have is your own.

[Bill 1,788]

why is it wrong to have such an opinion ?and I would have thought that any opinion you have IS your own opinion ie something thought out and considered by yourselfI suspect though,  through well meant but naive intention you are staying into rather dubious territory here

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

I find this slightly ironic after the way people on here piled in on the Shackell and Ashton rumours.

[Ginja 26]

@Snake

Firstly great post (Thanks you for using paragraphs!) you makes some very good points.

In your first paragraph I have to agree with you, the player either wears the boots or risks becoming vilified and whether they are truly willing and happy to wear the boots is tainted because they will wear regardless of their opinion. Maybe this should be looked upon as a statement by the club as a whole, not a statement of individual players, but then why bother with making it optional.

Your second paragraph I really can''t disagree with again, the club by joining in obviously wants to show support for this issue, the players will have to wear the boots as representatives of the club. I''m sure none of our players will take issue with it anyway but I see the point you are making.

As I am not a football player so I can''t honestly say what impact this will have as I''m not in their shoes, no pun intended :P but I will happily support any campaign that at it''s core is designed to increase understanding and inclusion. As you say the underlying message is something to be applauded and pleased at the clubs decision to get involved.

Your final point is spot on though, there are some whose opinion will never change and trying to fight against them will not lead down a good road for me and I was beginning to walk it, so thank you, time to draw a line for me in this thread I think :)

[Waveney Canary 0]

[quote user="FenwayFrank"]I find this slightly ironic after the way people on here piled in on the Shackell and Ashton rumours.[/quote]

What rumours news to me?

[Crystal Canary 0]

Your relativist ideology is rather repugnant, City1st.

Let me change the statement for you:

There is nothing wrong with racism.

Beating a woman is fine.

Rape is acceptable.

Why is it wrong to have such an opinion?

[Waveney Canary 0]

I rarely if ever agree with city1st but on this occasion I do. People are entitled to their opinion the majority may not like it their opinion may be offensive or even illegal but for me when you stop people expressing how they feel u are one step away from facism

[snake-eyes 13]

I think the conundrum of what is right and wrong is more suited to Philosophy than a Football forum!

 

I agree City 1st, Ginga is straying into very dangerous territory!  Although well intentioned it is bordering on arrogance, obsession and Zealotry.  Just bring yourself back from the edge my friend as you are doing no good to what is a valid issue!

 

It is more a case of what has been agreed by majority is socially acceptable!  Don''t forget it was once considered socially acceptable for young girls to marry and bare children at the age of 12.  We have since come to believe that this is not socially acceptable and so passed laws accordingly.  However no law has been passed to say someone is not allowed to still believe it.  As long as they do not act upon it it cannot be considered wrong, but only socially unacceptable.  How do you police thoughts?  There may come a time where the social attitudes change (highly unlikely) where this becomes socially acceptable again.  Laws will be changed and so by definition this belief could be considered as right!  But is it?  This is not my belief and I will question others beliefs and try to get them to qualify them, but who am I to say someone is not allowed to believe something just because I disagree with it!

 

I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it!  That I believe is the beginning of freedom and democracy?

 

Older and wiser people than us have failed to come to a definitive answer with regards to what is right and wrong and I doubt we ever will!

 

Snake

[snake-eyes 13]

Just seen you reply Ginga to my previous post so there was probably no need to post my second reply, but I am glad you find my words and thoughts of interest!

 

Snake

[Ginja 26]

"why is it wrong to have such an opinion?"

Because by saying being gay is wrong you are suggesting that being gay is a choice, a wrong decision, that the right choice is being heterosexual, which is complete rubbish.

Whom you date, marry or have sex with is a choice. Whom you are attracted to isn''t. To suggest that they are wrong is logically impossible because if you are attracted to the same sex then being gay is RIGHT!

I really cannot break this down into any simpler terms than this, so if you still disagree and think it''s okay to have that opinion, then I am afraid we''ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Ginja 26]

@Snake

I totally get what your saying, I in no way want to stray into the territory of censorship or thought police and people are than welcome to their opinion in whatever capacity.

I was merely arguing the bad logic of such an opinion, however the way I put it across was poorly done, but then that''s nothing new for me!

[Warren Hill 0]

So what about people attracted to young girls and boys? By your rationale wouldn''t that make being a paedophile right?

Or is it ok to be a paedophile as long as they dont act on it? It''s ok to find kids attractive because they can''t help it?

Load of "right on" crap if you ask me.

[Waveney Canary 0]

Personally speaking I would prefer to keepy footie sexuality free I am there to support my team, watch a game on a Saturday. For me it is not the place to make moral or political statements there are plenty of other places that can happen

[Ginja 26]

@Warren

I really have no words....

You are confusing a psychiatric disorder with sexual orientation and I''m leaving this thread before some idiot tries to suggests Homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder

[snake-eyes 13]

No but thinking about it is!

 

Only kidding Ginga, just wanted to add a bit of humour!

 

Snake

[Crystal Canary 0]

Ginja, I think this just proves that there is still A LOT of ignorance when it comes to sexuality and homophobia, and illustrates how important these campaigns are in informing people.

Woud anyone consider the racism campaign to have been a waste of time? This seems like an important step in bringing about the same level of awareness.

[Warren Hill 0]

Well, that''s not very tolerant is it?

You said that people can''t help who they are attracted to, well, paedos are attracted to kids.

50 or 60 years ago, this country was imprisoning homosexuals like it''s imprisoning paedophiles now. Is paedophilia really a psychiatric disorder or is it that people just aren''t tolerant of their sexual orientation?

[iron_stan 0]

i wrote a big ol''essay on this last night and then stopped myself from posting it last night

i dont think its needed in this day and age, its not the 1950s, sexuality is irrelevant

 i honestly dont know anyone who gives a damn, if a player chooses to announce their sexual preference then thats their choice but i have a very strong suspicion that the reason you dont have to many homosexual footballers that feel the need to share that with the world is mainly because THEY dont think its important either and they would prefer people to look at their ability as a player instead of attention being focused on where they like to put their b3ll3nd

[Ginja 26]

@Warren

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation! Thank you, as Crystal said you and others are merely further evidence that this kind of campaign is vital and necessary and I''m delighted with the club for supporting it.

[Bill 1,788]

You clearly haven''t thought this through Ginja, as you appear to be merely regurgitating what you have read elsewhere. Do not seem to grasp them difference between holding an opinion and expressing an opinion. Nor do you seem aware of where the real ''danger'' lies ie the intent behind expressing an opinion or views.Whilst I''m sure your motives are well meant I do think that you should have thought them through first as there is a real problem with what you are stating. The idea that you can simply legislate aware opinions is exceedingly naive. Ban the offensive sngs and chants at football matches but that will not change people''s opinions. Folk who hold what you term ''wrong'' opinions are not simply going to stop having those opinions because they have been forbidden to express them vocally at a football match. In fact, as said elsewhere above, they are merely more likely to become more entrenched in those opinions.Opinions that you deem wrong should be challenged in open debate, something this campaign is not really about. It is more about closing down the debate and presuming one view is automatically right. Something that is also all too often more about the corporate world wanting to be seen to be doing the ''right'' thing rather than any serious attempt to address the question.In fact if the FA, FIFA or whatever were serious at all they would have asked themselves why they were taking the World Cup to Qatar when homosexual acts between adult males are illegal - where there is no legal recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions.But then money talks ........................... and in this case it is saying you can lace up your boots with some funny coloured laces but don''t expect us to lace up our pockets as well.

[Warren Hill 0]

That doesn''t really clear up what you said though Ginja, you just appear to be playing some kind of "I know best" top-trumps.

How was homosexuality regarded in the first half of the twentieth century? You said that people couldn''t help who they found attractive, I''m just interested on you expanding that to explain why paedophiles aren''t tolerated because after all, they can''t help it. Gays find members of the same sex sexually attractive, paedophiles find children sexually attractive - yet one you say we should all have a group hug and accept, the other you say is a psychiatric disorder. Explain why? Explain why it''s ok to find paedophilia repugnant but everyone should be perfectly accepting of homosexuality?

[Warren Hill 0]

homosexuality

Web definitions

a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

paedophilia

Web definitions

pedophilia: a sexual attraction to children.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[The Ghost of Percy Varco 0]

[quote user="Warren Hill"]That doesn''t really clear up what you said though Ginja, you just appear to be playing some kind of "I know best" top-trumps.

How was homosexuality regarded in the first half of the twentieth century? You said that people couldn''t help who they found attractive, I''m just interested on you expanding that to explain why paedophiles aren''t tolerated because after all, they can''t help it. Gays find members of the same sex sexually attractive, paedophiles find children sexually attractive - yet one you say we should all have a group hug and accept, the other you say is a psychiatric disorder. Explain why? Explain why it''s ok to find paedophilia repugnant but everyone should be perfectly accepting of homosexuality?[/quote]Is this a joke post? I would have serious concerns about you Warren if not.